what's a "newt" !!!!

Or "Rush."

IMO, marriage has been promoted since you were kids. More specifically, weddings to little girls, which isn't the same thing as marriage. Weddings are fun. Wedding are parties. Marriage is finding the money to pay the mortgage. Marriage is forgetting to pick something up at the store on the way home. Marriage is the proverbial top off the toothpaste. Marriage is work. And as philosopher Hugh Prather has more or less stated, with marriage, the concept of "rights" is introduced.

No thank you. My siblings are happily married. That doesn't mean it's right for me.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 08:59 AM - Edit history (1)

You like not being married!!!

Especially when you've tried it and found it wanting or limiting or suffocating or just plain miserable.

or you may have to divorce that person after 28 years of a terrific marriage because his medical bills will wipe you out financially if you stay married. If the ACA is repealed, I will have to divorce my husband of 28 years because he's reached our insurance company's arbitrary "lifetime benefits cap" and they won't have to pay for his care any more. Good luck to us trying to find another health insurance carrier. I've been with the same company for 30 years through my job.

And the baggers say that gay people are the biggest threat to marriage. BULLSHIT.

Sorry, I'm just feeling a little grouchy today...



Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

We got a letter from our Blue Shield insurance a year ago that explicitly stated that "due to the provisions of Obama's new healthcare law" the lifetime benefit cap was going to be gone and that they had no choice but to increase our premiums by 35% or whatever it was.

nothing is certain imho.

Right now the cap is gone. But if the Supremes overturn it, then I'm sure the insurance companies will re-instate the cap.

Better have another cup of coffee.

Something tells me that our premiums aren't going to go down by 35% if the SC throws out the entire ACA and not just the mandate/pre-existing condition pairing.

My husband's premium is more than $20k per year for his PEC right now. He was also nearing the cap when the ACA kicked in so I'm pretty sensitive about posts that mention it. We struggle to pay his insurance at the moment, I can't imagine what the ramifications will be if the Supremes strike ACA down.

run and don't look back

I never thought I wanted to get married until the moment I wanted to get married.

Or if you do, draft a pre-nump!
In Canada, in a divorce, each party is entitled to 50% of the collective assets, investments, pensions etc..
So your partner can take 50% of everything even if he/she did not contribute to them, even if there are no children involved, even if it was a short marriage.

Protect yourself!

you have to keep in mind - even IF that person is seemingly financially independent WHILE you are married they can run up huge amounts of debt that cancel out any assets, investments and pensions and YOU are liable for 50% of the debt if you split. Ask me how I know.

Don't marry and you keep all your stuff now and all your future earnings too.

Financially, marriage is only profitable for someone with nothing now and no expectations of earning in the future.

The look in her eyes as she proudly takes you to be her lawfully wedded husband.

I will take that to the grave with me. Ginny could have had any man she wanted. She chose me. And I am forever humbled by that realization.

It sounds like Ginny is the lucky one...



Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage Even Though They Are Lower Life Forms--HISS!”

Good for you and your dear wife.


It's a personal decision. Marry or don't. There are people still fighting for their right to marry.

Could have been much shorter article if it just listed ONE reason


"Because there's not a man alive who can hope to measure up to that blend of Paul Bunyan, St. Pat and Noah Webster you've concocted for yourself out of your Irish imagination and Iowa stubbornness and your library full of books!!"

Most of those reasons aren't about rejecting men at all (focused on career, can't afford it, don't need the symbolism to love each other forever, having a blast with friends, love sex with a lot of guys...)

In fact, very few of the reasons in that article have anything to do with rejecting men (or women - the article is actually pretty a-sexual and applies to both genders).

I was not thereby motivated to read the rest of the piece of crapola.

It was a-sexual? Look at the three in the OP

1. "Some people call this being a "bitch," because you are a lady and you have a job:"

2. You could have settled for MR. or MR. or MR.

Yeah, that's real a-sexual.

3. There's no amount of spanx to fill a man's ego who has no job (or something to that effect).

I am not even sure what that means. What the hell is spanx?


and "love sex with a lot of guys"


Well, that might be nice, if I was either a) gay or b) a woman, but as a 50 year old male virgin that is not high on my own list for reasons to not get married. And I guess if there are any semi-attractive single ladies who want to make me 183 on their list of guys they have sex with, I would be happy to take a number, because right now my number seems to be 1,570,796,327* and I think I just heard them call 22.**


* The approximate number of seconds I have been alive.


** semi optimistically, the number of years I might have left to live.

Invented by Sara Blakely, runner-up on the game show Rebel Billionaire hosted by Virgin mogul Richard Branson. Started by creating a pair of "footless pantyhose" in her husband's workshop to combine support with versatility and comfort. Since then has expanded into various styles of hosiery for women as well as boy-leg "Power Panties" and other foundation garments. Has recently released a new line of support foundations for men.

Am I missing anything here, folks? Or am I starting to scare you?

Is that true?

Men do lots of those things as well. I'd love to find someone again and eventually get remarried someday, but I can already see the potential in myself for some of the bad behaviors the McMillan article talks about. I'm not proud of that, and the article at least made me think.

Of course there are lots of vomit-inducing bits in there as well, and the article is blatantly sexist. But many of us could do with being less angry, superficial, self-centered, etc.

I felt let down that it didn't.

She and her 3-years-together partner just moved to DC. They're having a blast together (definitely fall under #5 and 6 in that article). I'm pretty sure neither of them want children but even if they do, marriage still isn't required.

Great article and true in so many ways. K&R

I have my own mind. I like to do my own thing and not follow the crowd.

Think about it: how many people in your crowd got married around the same time? Usually happens quite rapidly, once the first one does it. Monkey see, monkey do.

I'm sure that men aren't marrying because they have standards too.

She may take half your stuff. No more sex with other women.

Guy's generally don't assume their career will suffer if they get married. Nor do they insist on the ridiculously expensive fairy-tale wedding mentioned in the article. And so on.

This annoyed me:

As an atheist I took issue with that same bit.

On your personal situation, I am very happy to read you have found a great fit in the world of love. I look forward to the day when you and anyone else who wants to can get married.



Julie

Protestants, Mormons, evangelicals, JWs - all divorce more frequently.

I'm not "just" an atheist.

I am, however, happily married. To an atheist. My husband and I thought long and hard about taking that step when our gay brothers and sisters could not. We decided that our symbolic protest really wouldn't move the equality process along in any meaningful way. I am glad that I live in a state that now has marriage equality.

know would not be able to get college grants/loans if they were married. That would mean that they would not go at all. This may not seem fair but it is happening.

Ms.goclark is happy as can be

clingy (or too independent, get your story straight), desperate bitch who has to try harder.

I think the idea is that is whatever you are doing is wrong and it's your fault. Show some interest, and you're too interested. Play it cool and that's the problem. The idea is that the man should get all of the control, so you must be approaching it "wrong."

Young naive girls believe that.