Comments on: There Is ZERO Benefit For A Man In Marriage. 3 Popular Marriage Myths Debunked!

By: Fletcher Rammonstein

Fletcher Rammonstein — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:25:40 +0000

Wow - I feel sorry for you. You must have been stuck with some real bitches to feel so burned. Poor bastard.

By: Ugg

Ugg — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:20:25 +0000

You know, because of my position on marriage, I get this a lot. Yet despite comments like yours.. I’ve still yet to hear any tangible benefit to marriage for a man?

For women, marriage to a man who makes more (which is the majority of cases), depending on the states, is the best financial move she can make. In California, women can even sue for money you haven’t even MADE yet.

I’m not anti-marriage. You just have to understand that the definition of “marriage” has changed drastically in the last 50 years. What used to be a union of two people for love, now has all sorts of legal and financial binds strapped to it.

By: KS

KS — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:36:45 +0000

There’s irrefutable statistical evidence that cohabiting couples have a significantly higher rate of divorce (in some studies as much as 4 times higher) once married than couples that did not live together first. You claim you’re “anti-divorce” not “anti-marriage”, but your advice of living together for 5-10yrs would suggest otherwise.

By: Ugg

Ugg — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:18:29 +0000

I’d buy that. The “5-10 years” guideline is just a loose thought, so don’t take that too seriously. The matter of importance is that people are obviously not getting to know each other well enough previous to marriage. Otherwise, married life wouldn’t be so different.. right?

If you have another suggestion that would result in less divorces and pointless marriages, feel free to suggest it If I knew all the answers, I’d have a talk show!

By: freeatlast

freeatlast — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:50:14 +0000

what a moronic, self-absorbed, unloved person would try to rationalize with….

By: i used to think that

i used to think that — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:01:02 +0000

hi, i read your stuff, and yes, it makes some sense… but sometimes you meet someone with whom everything seems to connect, you have the same interests, theres great chemistry, friendship, love, commitment etc… and marriage is simply the next step toward a life-long highly mutual partnership.

By: The truth

The truth — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:21:15 +0000

So, so true! Marriage is merely a contract between you, the person you love, and the State. If you both love each other and feel compelled to be married - do it in the way it was intended. A contract between you, your spouse, and God…not the State. Exchange rings, have a celebration party, and most importantly….live together in a State that doesn’t recognize a “common law marriage”. Nevada is one such State.
This way you can fulfill your marriage fantasy and if things do not work out down the road, (statistically speaking; they will not), you can merely part as friends and go back to where you were before and “dissolve” your marriage before God….no State intervention and no complications.
My relationship is founded on this principle, and anyone who may disagree with it is simply in a marriage for “other” reasons. The rise of homosexual rights in this Country has given rise to benefits of “significant others” that were previously denied to unwed couples. If a heterosexual can offer those same types benefits without marriage, what would be the problem with this proposal?

By: Ugg

Ugg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:29:16 +0000

I think a lot of people use the law as a form of backup, secretly hoping that fear of legal actions down the road will help ensure fidelity.

I know many folks would balk at this idea, but I think in today’s world it’s actually one of the healthiest ways to look at it. Worse comes to worse, if after a long while of “imaginary marriage”, if you then decide you’re still so in love you want to make it “legal”, there’s no big change in life, just in “status”.