Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

The screening tests are readily available online:
https://psychology-tools.com/autism-spectrum-quotient/

It wasn't till I was married and raising kids that it even occurred to me to check. I was just the notoriously shy kid growing up who would as soon play beside his friends as with them. I took the pre-screening tests though and my score there landed my in not just the range to test further, but the almost certainly going to be on the spectrum.

I've looked more at Aspergers now since and in very, very many ways it looks much like just a more extreme form of the 'male' dominant mind. A greater interest in things than in people. In many ways it's just exactly as the video presenter alludes to. People are just different, and this is a classification of a particular kind of difference. Our differences make some things easier and others harder and such is life.

Au contraire, I'd say the far right is VERY radical. Look how loudly the crowd chanted "let him die" at the one Republican debate, look how they cheer the idea of carpet bombing. Look at the abortion clinic bombing and the bombing of the Olympic Park in Atlanta... all Christian done, in the name of Christ.

Global warming is settled in the science.

Who cares if gay marriage is a sin? You are not sin free, so who are you to judge them for their sin? Who are you to say that their sin is so horrible they don't deserve equal rights under the law when it doesn't harm anyone but themselves?

And I never specified you as a homophobe, and I don't really care about one's fears or anything else, but it is the prejudiced in your (talking the royal your, as in radical right, not you specifically) heart, to judge them as illegitimate and not deserving of being treated the way you would want to be treated, though Christ said to treat them with love and compassion. The Right turns their back on them... As they turn their back on thousands of women and children trying to escape horrible conditions where women are being raped and children being raped and forced into war and radicalization, because radical right Christians hate Muslims so much, they would rather see those women raped, than help them.

I also said you can disagree with them being gay. You can say it is a sin, but to deny them human decency because they sin differently than whatever sins you do, is not a valid reason to be cruel to them. That is when you cross the line, when you say you won't sell them a cake at their wedding for being gay, despite your own sins, when you say they shouldn't be married or adopt kids, despite your own sins... that is when you cross the line.

The Right do want to screw the poor. Half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact Walmart makes enough to pay them all living wages and give them benefits and much more, but they are so pissed at the poor needing food stamps, they want to end that program so they can love on the rich people who own and operate Walmart more... it's a fucked up priority system, when you choose wealth and success over needy and poor. Jesus and the Bible were very clear on what side they were on, and today's radical Right ignore that and have taken on a false Reconstruction message, which has in many radical right circles been further misaligned with the prosperity gospel.

And, I will judge God for His people, when He doesn't speak to your hearts and minds and even puts an iota of human decency and concern, or conviction in your hearts, for the needy the poor, the foreigners who need our aid, for this planet and the its welfare for our future children's sake. I rather God damn me and my children to Hell, then be around the like of Republicans for all eternity, people who would rather see my children die, than have their tax dollars go to help them just because none of the jobs I am capable of getting provide sufficient health insurance.

I have NEVER seen the sort of Love that Christ preached and showed in today's far right Christians... And I speak that as a former far right Christian, and thinking I was showing the love of Christ... but step out side, and see what it looks like to the world. Be in the world but not of it. See what your witness is to a hurt and dying world and see that those on the right are the ones turning people off Christianity. There's a reason that Christianity is loosing ground, because the lack of love from those that are most loudly saying they are Christian, and saying everyone must be Christian or else...

It's a really complicated issue, especially in countries/areas/societies where sex is taboo.

But I can't help but feel that while transgenders may not "fit in" anywhere, there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way who are "normal" (boy/girl relationships) in terms of their society/area but are socially inept, deformed, ugly, etc.

I think the biggest thing that transgenders will have to overcome is the ability to have a child. It's just too ingrained into people that you get married and have kids. It's so important that sterility could be cause for a divorce. You pretty much know what to expect in most circumstances, guy/guy, guy/girl, girl/girl and the options at hand for whatever decision you make. But if you THINK you're dating a guy or a girl........and then you find out otherwise, it's not really fair to expect someone not to be upset IMO. Ignoring the whole are they a boy or girl question. It's equivalent to a man whose had a vasectomy dating a woman who has made it clear that she wants kids, and him keeping quiet about it. Or a woman who has been told she's unlikely to be able to have kids dating a man who wants kids, and not passing along that information until he starts wondering what the problem is after they've agreed to try.


That's ignoring the question of "Does me liking this transgender person mean Im gay/straight/bi/etc?" I just think it's hard to ignore the pregnancy/children aspect of it, since it's biological and a major driving force in people's lives.

So what happens if you have a GF or get married, or possibly Kids?
Where is the Man Cave Ad-on?

Oh, Jebus! Rapture is such a bummer! I just want to get married and have kids before.
These people are so delusional, I don't think they even understand what is preached to them since cradle. They just "believe" it because someone with authority told them is true. Everyone's nodding in front of the preacher so they should do it too. No rational behind it, but would be so sad to leave this life unfulfilled ... and live up there in the clouds with jebus, that would be boring, now that's a rational.

[edit: added some further comments, because this is too juicy]
And there's the "converted has been atheist" at the beginning made me giggle as well. I don't think he ever was one and even if he ever was one, I believe he converted for the vgeegee, which in his case is a very strong argument. So they'll spawn some kids that will learn from their father to shut the fuck up if there's anything to gain. Al in all just the right thing for the future of this world.

I didn't even watched the whole thing, 12mins into it.

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

The American dream is the status quo masquarade..peace and safety, bread and circuses, white picket fences and well manicured lawns, 2.5 kids and keeping up with the joneses. It's go to school, get married, get some kids, get some stuff, pay your taxes, retire, remenisce about the good ole days, get old, become irrelevent and die. It's the leading cause of death in America, this saccurine delusion about meaning and purpose..yes we can't.

>> ^acidSpine:
Yes I know my enemies. They're the teachers who taught me to fight me. Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission, ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite. All of which are American dreams

I am 38, married with 4 kids. I still dry hump the center console while making out with my wife in the driveway after a date night. Am I ashamed? Hell no! 16 or 38 it is all the same. I don't see it changing any time soon. Hell, I still get work boners just sitting in front of a computer looking at SQL databases and remembering naughty wife time. The difference now is that the teacher won't make me stand up and do a math problem on the board.

Lyrics:

She came from the U-bahn
right now auf mich zu
mein herz würde faster
denn the warst nur you
why don't you open your mind
hör mir zu!
I know es klingt crazy but I
only want a kind from you

Sweety sweety marry me
hundertausend kids for me
chances will passing by
my dear

Don't take it mir übel
when I let you keine ruh'
I don't want to drängel you
but I only want a kind from you

You know, we gays have to deal with heteros stuffing it down out throats all the time. Gay kids have to deal with society's man-on-woman message in their faces all the time. Every day is straight pride day.

Now, I don't mind straights, but why do they have to kiss in public? Or get married? Or have kids? Or always be paining off together in the movies? They should just bloody well keep it to themselves.

Well, I'm scared straight---and I'm in my 30s, married with a kid.

Upvote for being ridiculously hot!

If only she wasn't married with a kid. Hand it to the French though, she is just so much classier than the American starlets. On the downside, we are less likely to see the Alizee sex tape

I fall into the "why not?" category as well. I am not gay, and I have no close friends who are gay. But there is absolutely no logical reason for any two people to be forbidden to marry. And it's frustrating as hell to see people like choggie and MG turn out the same old tired untenable arguments. No matter how many people rip them to shreds, they just keep saying the same thing.

1. It's against the word of God.
- Fine, but your God has no place in my government.

2. It's unnatural.
- Wrong. It's been in humans since the dawn of history, and it's been displayed in many different animal species.

3. Marriage is for procreation.
- Then why are sterile couples allowed to get married and adopt kids? Why are couples who have kids allowed to stay unmarried? Answer: it's not just for procreation.

4. Civil unions are just as good.
- Then why not just let them use the word marriage for the civil unions?

5. Because the word marriage is sacred.
- Again, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

6. "Is it, perhaps, an unspoken, unconscious, reaction by the majority of human beings everywhere on earth"
- That's called bigotry. Many of us are trying to grow beyond the ignorance of the past. You may revel in ignorance and bigotry, but I'll be damned if I let you take me down with you.

In the last couple hundred years, marriage has changed into something new. It is no longer about property rights and blood lineage and all that. It's about an emotional bond and two people who want to formally pledge to maintain that bond for the rest of their lives. When you say that gays shouldn't get married, you are telling them that heterosexual emotions are fundamentally different from homosexual emotions, and that is simply absurd.

Either come up with a good argument or grow up and let it go.

I as a woman, will gladly take to heart what Bill Mahrer said. In that light, I will never bog down a man by having him marry me. This gives me ample evidence that a life full of sex with various partners is the way to go. I can now live the life I've always wanted. Never getting married, never having kids because no matter what any man says to me from now on, he will never want to be with just me for the remainder of his life. I already own an indoor cat, why subject that cruelness to a human being?

Thank you, Bill, for showing me the way. I can now fill my schedule with a plethora of short torrid love affairs, one night stands and never have crying brats furthering the overpopulation of the world. Kudos!