Ok, I can't really go around telling people not to marry. But you're here reading this, right? At least the title worked as clickbait.
What I can tell you, though, is that there is absolutely no reason to marry. Modern marriage is a disgrace to men, and more than a fraud, what it really is is a trap. Literally. I'm talking to men here, and when I tell you that you have been indoctrinated your whole life to aspire for marriage with a false empty promise, damn right I'm telling you the truth.
There's no agenda to this take. I do not tell people not to date, hookup or be involved in LTR. I don't expect people to go MGTOW either, or to go register to Red Pill forums. That's not the intention at all. How you manage your sex life/relationships is none of my concern. I don't care. You need to understand that marriage has absolutely nothing to do with that. And in order to read this you need to keep an open mind. Separate marriage from any idealism you have about love, romance, sex, or anything else. They are absolutely not symbiotic and you do not need marriage to sustain any of those concepts.
Why am I interested to write this on gag? Because I know I'm talking to the right crowd. People that come here usually are very optimistic when it comes to marriage, and lots of you are even having a hard time to get a date, which only pushes you faster to get in commitment with any woman you're with.
70% of men between the ages of 20 - 34 aren't married in the USA. Many because they couldn't and many by choice. Over 50% of men will not marry in the USA. That's what the stats tell us. This means many consider marriage to be out of the question, others just can't accomplish to attain said individual they would marry (for any reason you can think of), while the remaining 50% are falling into the trap and being part of the ever increasing divorce rates, in which about 80% of them are started by women.
The facts speak for themselves.
Oh, but I'm a Christian and God commands me to remain a virgin until I marry.
Ok, I'm directing this to a very specific crowd here. To make my point here lets move towards same-gender marriage.
Do you know why you do not have, other than religious arguments, a rational/logical argument to be against same sex marriage?
Because marriage is a contract. It's a civil right in which every single person, doesn't matter who or to whom they are signing said contract, can participate. Whether marriage is more beneficial to gay/lesbian couples, may be a subject for later... but for now I'm directing myself at straight couples, conditioned to common/general divorce laws.
Whenever you say same-gender marriage is not Biblical, you're doomed in your argument. A democracy is not biblical. A representative form of government is not biblical. A judiciary independent of a theocracy is not biblical. Marriage as a contract is not Biblical. Therefore, having the State involved in your marriage is not
..drum roll....
Biblical!
Modern marriage IS NOT Biblical marriage. Get that through your head.
In ancient times, marriage was not considered a Christian institution, because there wasn't such a thing. In the Old Testament, married couples pretty much were a couple ready to start a family, and by tradition the ceremony was held to public acknowledgement of said marriage.
Fast forward to the Roman times, marriage STILL wasn't an Institution. There was no State invested in marriages, it was considered a sacrament by then. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation, which did not view marriage as a sacrament and called on the developing nation-states of Europe to provide oversight of marriage as an institution.
Having said that, religious leaders can refuse access to their religious institutions and benefits (by constitutional right), but no one has the constitutional right to refuse same-gender couples access to the state institution of marriage. So if you want to hold your virginity until you sign a contract with the State... ok, be my guest, but that contract (I'm just giving you the heads up here) isn't the model of marriage your religion follows. It died a long time ago.
But I am so in love. I want to affirm commitment to this woman. I want her company, and her love forever.
I get it lovebirds. I know how that goes/feels at first. I have lived together with two women so far (I'm 28) and have been in 3 long term relationships (+1 year). I had to go through those experiences to see what I'm talking about now objectively. As I explained before, not even Christian marriages come from the same mold of modern marriage, how or why do you even rationalize that for a woman to stay with you, willingly, and for you to love her and enjoy her company you "need" to marry?
I discussed about this with another gagger, who happens to be a lawyer and I'm going to quote him on why marriage exist in the first place, just because I couldn't possibly explain this any better:
Marriage was a type of business contract involving the conveyance of property, estate planning, and contractual promises so that the family of the wife was satisfied their daughter would be taken care of (in exchange for often a dowery), and the family of the husband who was satisfied in the financial and social merger between the two families. That's the history of the marriage contract.
Does it sound like something to do with love, companionship or romance to you? He further elaborates:
Thereafter, as society played out the marriage contract, it noticed that children born "out of wedlock" were substantially disadvantaged (as were children who were born to just one parent, or no parents, or abusive parents, or lazy parents, etc.). So, the equitable doctrine of "moral obligation" came into being (eventually codified in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601), the historical basis for "child support" outside the marriage contract creating such third party benefits by MUTUAL CONSENT witnessed before a formal ceremony.
What happened was that, eventually, it became apparent children living in single parenthood was not beneficial to society, as it is a known fact that children who grew up without a mother, or specially without a father figure had more chances of becoming criminals, or developing drug addictions and such. On this video, you see Ben Shapiro mentioning a little bit about this:
But marriage has some "benefits", you tax incentives and your social image will be favored if you are married.
I gotta ask, are these "perks" you mention a reason for you to marry, or just a way for you to say it ain't THAT bad? Let that sink in for a moment...
Having tax incentives, which feel a little bit TOO MUCH like social engineering, doesn't compare to how much you are going to be spending when you marry. I'll mention the exact same example from one of my closest friends who got divorced last year, that I mentioned in another take.
The courts gave his wive a significant portion of his income in child support. About the same as his own house payment. My friend was extremely pissed and depressed, but then we sat down... We did the math and realized it was a good thousand bucks less than she was consistently spending out of their joint account every month. The joke here is, and this was a realization for me at the time, when you're divorced she only has access to half your paycheck. Wives are so insanely fucking expensive, triply so if you have kids with them.
In terms of the "social benefits", like increasing your chance of getting a job, or health insurance and such... I honestly don't give a shit and find it even completely unnecessary to address here. They seem substantially outweighed by the huge divorce rate.
I want to have kids
If there is one understandable reason to get married that's to continue a family legacy. BUT as a guy, you need to remember that any sort of potential benefit you see in marriage for you children, the State does not see those children as yours, but your wife's. The ball is on her court on every single aspect you can think of in the marriage. And children would actually put you in even a far worst position than if you were married without children.
But... but... prenups?
Depending on the State, the spousal support provisions maybe or may not be upheld in court. A valid agreement might be set aside if the provisions make the spouse eligible for welfare. Actually, a court may require spousal support to the extent necessary to take the spouse off welfare. So no, it doesn't necessarily have men covered in this regard.
In terms of child support, it CANNOT be determined in a prenup. The court will follow State guidelines wherever it is that you are located in. I'll just say we know how that usually turns out...
So is prenup a smart call, regardless?
No, as there are numerous incredibly broad grounds upon which judges can invalidate a prenup, such that they often provide the illusion of protection more than actual protection. A lawyer should correct me if I'm wrong on this so don't quote me on it, but from an asset protection perspective, unless you have a couple with millions held in elaborate trust structures that can't simply be undone in court of equity. Prenups just don't work like they are supposed to.
Going back to the previous user I quoted, he applied some very interesting logic to this that I also find necessary to include here:
A "prenup" is one of the most retarded contracts. Well drafted and executed pre-nupts are extremely hard to "hack" (e. g., what Cioffi-Petrakis did with her "fraud in the inducement" claim, because a "merger clause" is NOT the exact same thing as a "disclaimer of extraneous oral representations"). So, if all your lawyer does is pull up a form he got from a $400 book he bought on Westlaw's website and "thinks" he did his job, you end up with the Cioffi-Petrakis case.
But the reason it's a retarded contract, conceptually, is because the only purpose of the prenup (contract B) is to invalidate or limit the terms of the marriage contract (contract A). Well, if that's what you want to do, I don't know, why not think about NOT ENTERING INTO CONTRACT (A) IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Shouts out to @pnl86
Most Helpful Opinions