Marriage but not Legally

[Gratus84Participant 60]

This thought has occurred to me. Typically Christian Females will say the usual “I’m not having sex until marriage” bit I am sure most of us are all too familiar with.

Often in Church we interpret the bible in CONTEXT. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the governing body a Theocracy when the bible brings up marriage?? Were things ever FAIR or a lot less biased towards men?

I know Ron Paul when he ran in 2012 his stance on gay marriage was that marriage should be an issue of the Church, not the state.

This gives me more reason to believe “marriage” in it’s current form IS a scam and encourages predatory female behavior, while at the same time, guilt tripping men into getting “Legally” married.

Can you just have the ceremony and never sign the documents?

Can anyone provide a counter argument from scripture against this idea?

But of course, even a theocracy isn’t immune to infection and corruption.

I just remember Sandman’s video about the cycle of Matriarchy to Patriarchy and picture the Alpha male on the Throne.

Wonder if it was ever really like that.

[UntamedParticipant]

It depends where and when.
If you’re talking about king David’s reign then yes, that was a theocracy. Not because it’s mentioned in the Bible but because David had direct communication with our creator. Under such a reign, one might argue that things were more just for men, and weemins had and knew their place in society.
Marriage was not about signing a contract in those days and the state ( or king ) had no monetary benefit from a marriage on its territory but for a token of gratitude. Only when divorcing were they supposed to provide the adultering weemins with a “bill of divorce” and send them home, probably along with the dowry.
In our modern world marriage is a totally different beast. It’s the State that has “jurisdiction” over the marriage. The church ceremony is just for show and your “bill of divorce” will cost you damn near your life.
You could just have the pretty church ceremony and not sign the documents but your union will not be recognized by the state. Big deal… but after some years of living under the same roof you’re become legally married under Common Law and under such the weemins rights still far outweigh yours as a man.

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[RoyDalParticipant]

Gratus84 wrote:

This gives me more reason to believe “marriage” in it’s current form IS a scam and encourages predatory female behavior, while at the same time, guilt tripping men into getting “Legally” married.

I believe the same. Really, divorce is the money maker these days; marriage is only the first step on her route to payday.

Gratus84 wrote:

Wonder if it was ever really like that.

There was a time when divorce was extremely hard to get. In the times Austen and Dickens were writing, it took an act of Parliament to get a divorce (no kidding), and the legal barriers were nearly as difficult in the US. In any case, only the wealthiest women could survive in comfort without support of a man.

In these latter days, that has all changed. A divorce is not much harder to obtain than a business license (easier in some states), and a divorced woman is guaranteed financial support. We all know this.

What about the church’s role in all this? It is a beautiful setting to be photographed by that video company the bride hired, and it provides a lively social life for the new wife. This happy state of spiritual affairs continues right on through marriage counselling when she gets unhappy, to moral support for the newly single mom, and a wonderfully well organized singles group for when she wants to hunt her next prey.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[sidecarParticipant 35861]

Untamed wrote:

You could just have the pretty church ceremony and not sign the documents but your union will not be recognized by the state.

It won’t be recognized for any of the meager legal benefits of marriage: tax bracket, immunity from testifying, immigration, and all that stuff.

However I guarantee it will be recognized as marriage when she goes crying to court to take half your stuff, the majority of your future income, and your retirement.

There is no such thing as an acceptable marriage for men. Not any more.

No marriage. No cohabitation. No procreation. No exceptions.

[UntamedParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Untamed wrote:

You could just have the pretty church ceremony and not sign the documents but your union will not be recognized by the state.

It won’t be recognized for any of the meager legal benefits of marriage: tax bracket, immunity from testifying, immigration, and all that stuff.

However I guarantee it will be recognized as marriage when she goes crying to court to take half your stuff, the majority of your future income, and your retirement.

There is no such thing as an acceptable marriage for men. Not any more.

No marriage. No cohabitation. No procreation. No exceptions.

That’s right. Should’ve added that crucial part.

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8286]

Old Testament marriage: no government documents were signed. You had to win the approval of the father of the woman you wanted to marry. There was an agreement that the woman was the servant of her husband—she was raised to be that way. You had a public wedding ceremony so everyone in your community knew you were married & men didn’t try to have sex with your wife. If they did, they’d be punished in front of a crowd. No divorce. If you don’t like your wife anymore, get a second wife.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[FrankOneParticipant 1442]

Most theocracies are extremely corrupt; whether Christendom, Iran, or Saudi Arabia (the latter two not quite theocracies but getting there). It isn’t so much theocracy that causes this, but concentrated power in one entity that answers to no one. In principle, a theocracy could be run wherein one elects the high priest or imam. Theocracies are also typically intolerant of any other religious beliefs.

And yes, you can have what is typically called a ‘commitment ceremony’, and some ministers will perform them. Obviously, it is not a legally binding marriage. There are also religious sects, such as fundamentalist Mormons, who perform sealing ceremonies (marrying men to multiple women); obviously not legal in the US since bigamy is prohibited.

As for whether it will be recognized as marriage if you split up, the answer is ‘maybe’: Check your State laws. In SOME States, you will enter into common law marriage automatically.

Note that if you have children you will still be responsible for them and have no say in the matter (e.g. whether to put unwanted children up for adoption). You’ll get a chance to make up your own custody agreement BUT if there’s any dispute between you, it will go right to the courts and be handled just like a divorce as far as custody and child support are concerned…

Now, if you mix your assets by using a joint checking account, or both co-sign a mortgage or otherwise comingle your finances that may complicate any future split… If you ARE going to live together, consider signing a Living Together Agreement that stipulates division of property in case of a split, which we all know, is statistically highly likely, probably 50% if like marriage.

There have been cases where palimony (p allhismoney?) was paid even when couple was unmarried (e.g. Marvin case in California). This is rare.

I’m not encouraging you going down this path, if you’re doing it anyway, at least check the common law marriage rules in your State and consider the Living Together Agreement. How she responds to the idea of the Living Together Agreement may also tell you a lot about her…

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

You don’t have to get married to be married.

Spend long enough with a girl and the state will marry you by default.

Even telling a girl you may marry her can see you in court should she want some money.

The answer …. as is normally the case …. is a simple one.

DON’T GO NEAR THEM

PAY BY THE HOUR

LIVE YOUR LIFE FREE.

[Jon the Ex-SquidParticipant 298]

Even if, by some sheer stroke of luck you some day find yourself sitting in front of a rational judge, the odds grow every year that she’ll get pregnant. Marriage is only half the issue for men. Separation from your child and the insult of full financial responsibility is the other half.

You don’t have to be married for the state to get involved after a split. Just by living together, with no legally binding agreements made, you can still be taken to court and made to pay money to the other party. Its called Domestic Partnership and the terms vary widely from state to state. California is arguably the worst in terms of fairness towards men.

In regards to the religious aspects, I’m not very knowledgeable about that aspect of things. I suspect that everyone attending the ceremony would be witnesses that can be called to testify that a greater commitment was made between the man and woman than simply moving in together.

[Author]

Posts