Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A Convenient MarriageFollow

#52 Mar 23 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Technically speaking a marriage of this kind would be fraudulent, and the resulting financial benefit would be the result of a conspiracy to defraud (which is two felonies for the price of one ^^) ( the conspiracy itself & the Grand Larceny)

based soley on info given in OP

Quote:
That's pretty substantial
Why would it be fraudulent?


I couldn't find anything with a quick search suggesting that this would be fraudulent.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#53 Mar 23 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
It would be fraudulent if the only purpose for getting married was to get cheap schooling. It's probably mostly centred around immigration.

Not really sure how good a link this is, but fwiw
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sham-marriage-lawyers.html

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 9:18am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#54 Mar 23 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It would be fraudulent if the only purpose for getting married was to get cheap schooling. It's probably mostly centred around immigration.

Not really sure how good a link this is, but fwiw
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sham-marriage-lawyers.html

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 9:18am by Xsarus


Still not seeing it. As far as I can tell, the fact that they've been together for three years, and have already discussed marriage, makes this a far cry from a sham marriage, or at least, insofar as the government would attempt to investigate/prosecute for it.

Almost all of the info I could dig up centered on immigration as well, and wasn't relevant.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#55 Mar 23 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Elinda wrote:
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
Technically speaking a marriage of this kind would be fraudulent, and the resulting financial benefit would be the result of a conspiracy to defraud (which is two felonies for the price of one ^^) ( the conspiracy itself & the Grand Larceny)

based soley on info given in OP

Quote:
That's pretty substantial
Why would it be fraudulent?


Yeah, I fail to see how that would be the case. They'd be legally married, so it's not defrauding the university with regards to their legal status.

[EDIT]
Because there are posts I didn't see.

That law is absurd. Those definitions alone are ridiculous... Not living as a "normal married couple" would? Good to know that being anything but average voids your marriage...

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 11:02am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#56 Mar 23 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
The law protects the child from the possibility that the father will never support him in any way.
Smiley: lolSmiley: laugh Oh you.,so naive.

Written law may, but law enforcement, the courts and government do not.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#57 Mar 23 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, people should honestly ignore anything Gbaji has to say about how marriage, divorce or child custody works. Not even from a "he hasn't been there" perspective but because he's made so many hilarious errors in the past that he's probably LESS trustworthy as a source than a random guy from a crowd.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Mar 23 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Which is actually a significant problem with a number of state laws now, because it legally requires women to lie on a legal document.

How so?

Because GASP it's fully possible to give birth to someone else's baby.


Huh? Not accidentally, and not without a whole **** of a lot of legal documents being signed ahead of time (assuming you're speaking of surrogate mothers). What does this have to do with the fact that if a woman is single when she gives birth, the birth certificate will not contain a father's name automatically. Either the couple must sign a document with the hospital attesting that he is the father of the child *or*, if either party is not willing to do so, a legal battle has to be fought. Either by a father wanting to assert his paternal rights, or by the mother wanting to ensure that the father takes responsibility.

If the couple is married, the husband is assumed to be the father. Assuming we agree that a child is better off with a legally recognized father, then marriage protects the child by legally ensuring that it's got one (under most normal conditions of course).

Quote:
Seriously. You can separate from your husband, end up in a serious relationship with someone new, and be barred from using the new guy's name on the birth certificate.


Yeah. Because if you are married, the husband is assumed legally to be the father of any child you bear. That's the whole point.

Quote:
SO, as far as I can see, the law is doing more to disenfranchise children than actually help them. Because I don't doubt at all that there are more kids (knowingly) born to fathers outside the marriage than there are kids born in marriages whose mothers don't want the father's identity recorded.


Irrelevant. In the case where the woman is married someone is automatically legally the father of that child. If she's not, then this does not happen automatically.

You're also missing the most common case. Guy knocks up his girlfriend, then they break up. Then he wants nothing to do with her or the child. Since they weren't married, she has to employ legal action to try to force paternal responsibility on him. If he moves, or doesn't have a permanent address, or in any other way avoids this, it's nearly impossible for her to accomplish. And she has to prove he's the father, which requires some form of paternity test. And frankly, she also may not think it's worth the effort anyway.

This is a ridiculously common scenario. And the children absolutely suffer from it. It's arguably the greatest determinant of socio-economic outcomes within our society. It's one of the key statistics people look at with regard to African American communities, since it's so directly related to continuing a cycle of poverty and crime.

Quote:
For the record, most states have procedures in place to remove the father in cases where he is not biologically the sire, but it's an absurd band-aid on an antiquated system. The fact is that no law should exist to presume paternity.


The kid isn't harmed (much) if he grows up thinking that the guy married to his mom is his dad, but later in life discovers that "Uncle Bill" is really his biological father from back when his parents were living the free-love hippy lifestyle or something. He's vastly more harmed if we assume that he has no legal father until a paternity test is performed or something. That's just ridiculous.


And yeah, I'm well aware that some of this is social fabrication, but it's better than the alternative. The problem of fathers who are not legally responsible for their children taking little or no responsibility on their own is the 800lb gorilla in this issue. We created these rules because they ensure that children are more likely to be financially supported by two parents instead of just one. So you're arguing, not that marriage doesn't do this, but that this is somehow a bad idea? That's pretty crazy IMO.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 3:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Mar 23 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The law protects the child from the possibility that the father will never support him in any way.
Smiley: lolSmiley: laugh Oh you.,so naive.

Written law may, but law enforcement, the courts and government do not.


But those same potential impediments exist if she's not married to the father. Plus she has to go through a whole set of additional legal steps to establish paternal responsibility in the first place. Everything else being equal, the child is much more protected from a deadbeat dad if the parents were married when the child was born than not.


I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Mar 23 2012 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
You're also missing the most common case. Guy knocks up his girlfriend, then they break up. Then he wants nothing to do with her or the child. Since they weren't married, she has to employ legal action to try to force paternal responsibility on him. If he moves, or doesn't have a permanent address, or in any other way avoids this, it's nearly impossible for her to accomplish. And she has to prove he's the father, which requires some form of paternity test. And frankly, she also may not think it's worth the effort anyway.

I think you're pulling this fact out of your ***. You're basically saying that out of marriage there isn't a good legal recourse and that it's way way more difficult then the exact same situation where the two people are married. Maybe this is the case, but I'm going to need some actual laws or cases to establish this. Remember, this isn't a one night stand, it's two people in a relationship, who then break up after there is a kid. To make it easier, you don't have to consider details about actually getting a divorce, the guy just runs off in both situations.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Mar 23 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
From a purely anecdotal standpoint, I can look at my mom and her siblings as an example of children growing up in an unhappy household. My grandparents should not have stayed together, and probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. My grandfather (who is now deceased) was a guy who loved to play practical jokes, but didn't think before hand about how they might make people feel. He cracked jokes in the same manner. My grandmother is someone who is extremely sensitive and blows up over the littlest things. Shortly after they got married, she spent all day trying to make him a stew for dinner. At one point when she left the kitchen for a few minutes, he snuck in there and put a bunch of pepper or some other spice in the stew to make it taste funny. He only meant it as a joke, but she got really upset and vowed never to cook for him again. They pretty much made each other miserable. Both of them became alcoholics as a result.

My mom got lucky, she married her high school sweetheart (my dad obviously) and they were very happy until my dad got a brain tumor and died after a year and a half battle. My mom's younger sister married a commercial fisherman who was nearly 10 years older than her, and was miserable because he was gone so often. Eventually, this led to her cheating on him because she didn't feel her needs were being met, and they ended up divorcing. She's been single ever since, but trying desperately to find someone. She also has one of the worst cases of middle child syndrome I have ever seen, and is perpetually a victim. Nothing is ever her fault, it's everyone else's. My uncle had a couple romantic relationships, but nothing serious for the most part. The last time he had a relationship, she cheated on him with his best friend. That was over 25 years ago. Not sure if that happened before or after I was born. He eventually moved back in with my grandparents to work on the bamboo plantation they started up. He still lives with my grandmother to this day. Now granted, there's no guarantee that my aunt and uncle's issues were caused by growing up in an unhappy household, but I think it's pretty likely. And I think it's pretty safe to say that it sure didn't help matters any.

As to the OP, I don't find anything wrong with a marriage of convenience. If your son and his gf were already talking about marriage, and this is just the push they need to actually do it, that's not a big deal. However, if they aren't ready to get married, then they obviously should wait until they are ready. There's no guarantee he's going to get a job at the university she's going to anyways.

My boyfriend and I have actually been considering something similar. Although we're living 4.5 hours apart right now, after I finish my degree I'd like to go over to Korea to teach English for a while. I don't know how long, maybe just a year, maybe 2 or 3, maybe longer. It depends on how much I like it I guess. I'd like him to come with me, and it would obviously be a lot easier to make that happen if we were married. We've been together for 4.5 years, and until September had been living together for a little over three years. We've talked about getting married, and we both feel emotionally ready, we just don't have any particular motivation to do it. Honestly, it just doesn't seem that important now a days.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#62 Mar 23 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're also missing the most common case. Guy knocks up his girlfriend, then they break up. Then he wants nothing to do with her or the child. Since they weren't married, she has to employ legal action to try to force paternal responsibility on him. If he moves, or doesn't have a permanent address, or in any other way avoids this, it's nearly impossible for her to accomplish. And she has to prove he's the father, which requires some form of paternity test. And frankly, she also may not think it's worth the effort anyway.

I think you're pulling this fact out of your ***.


Is it, or is it not a fact that by default, if a woman who gives birth is married, her husbands is automatically assumed to be the father of the child for legal purposes? There's no need for additional legal action, right? I'm making a true statement that we all **** well know is true, so why the tap dance?

Quote:
You're basically saying that out of marriage there isn't a good legal recourse and that it's way way more difficult then the exact same situation where the two people are married.


Let's leave off "good legal recourse", since that's subjective. There is legal recourse for a single mother to ensure that the father of her child takes legal responsibility for the child. But it requires direct action on her part. We can speculate as to how much more difficult it is, but it absolutely *is* more difficult.


I guess I"m just not sure what you're really arguing about, much less why. Ignoring cases where the father has died (which apply equally anyway), how many children born to married women don't have a legally recognized father? Zero, right? Is the number of children born to single mothers who don't have a legally recognized father also zero? I mean, I don't know the percentage right off the top of my head, but we both know that it's greater than zero. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's probably quite a bit greater than zero.


Marriage makes that percentage zero. Thus, it provides legal protection for the child from that state. Obviously, it doesn't protect them if their father dies, or if their father ignores his responsibility. But it at least ensures that someone is always listed as the legally recognized the father of that child. Assuming that we place any importance on that at all, this is kinda important.

Quote:
Maybe this is the case, but I'm going to need some actual laws or cases to establish this.


Establish what? That if a married woman gives birth, her husband is automatically considered the legal father (and half guardian) of the child? Or that if a single woman gives birth no one is automatically considered the legal father of the child?

I didn't think that was in question. Is it? Why? How do you think the laws work?

Quote:
Remember, this isn't a one night stand, it's two people in a relationship, who then break up after there is a kid. To make it easier, you don't have to consider details about actually getting a divorce, the guy just runs off in both situations.


I'm not sure what you're asking. It seems like you're trying to complicate this too much. It's really very simple. If the woman is married when she gives birth (and btw, most (all?) states prohibit divorce during a pregnancy), legal paternity of the child is established because of the state of marriage that exists. The husband is automatically the father. If the woman is not married paternity is not automatically established at birth and additional legal action must be taken (by both parties) to establish paternity.

Why is this confusing to you? I honestly don't understand what case you're arguing or why you think it matters. Everything else being equal, a child is less likely to suffer without a father if there is a legal establishment of paternity at some point. Marriage between the child's parents guarantees that paternity is established. Absence of a marriage makes it a crap shoot. I just can't figure out how many different ways I have to explain this to get you to understand. Everything else being equal, a child born to married parents is more legally protected in this regard than one that is born to a single mother.

Again, I thought I didn't need to argue this point. Seemed like something everyone would understand and accept right off the bat. Is there really this much confusion about how marriage affects paternity? I thought everyone understood this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Mar 23 2012 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
And there is legal recourse. If you were in a prior relationship that ended with you getting pregnant, it would be very easy to obtain a court-mandated DNA test. And that effectively puts the father in the same situation as any divorcee when it comes to child support (and the ability for them to get him to pay).

It gets harder the less you are able to prove the encounter happened, but not impossible until you simply don't know who the father was.

And marriage laws don't protect against that case at all, so it's hardly the argument you should make.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#64 Mar 23 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Even with divorce, SOMEONE has to take action. The man or the woman.

You act like a single mother has to jump through all these legal hoops to get her boyfriend to take care of their child. I'm pretty sure it's a lot less hassle than going through a divorce. And cheaper.
#65 Mar 23 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, people should honestly ignore anything Gbaji has to say about how marriage, divorce or child custody works. Not even from a "he hasn't been there" perspective but because he's made so many hilarious errors in the past that he's probably LESS trustworthy as a source than a random guy from a crowd.



I generally read his posts in Cliff Claven's voice.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#66 Mar 23 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You know, Normie, it's a little known fact that, when you get married, you have to sign a huge contract. It's just like a mortgage contract. That's why Ma doesn't want me gettin' hitched...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Mar 23 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And there is legal recourse.


I never said there wasn't recourse. The point being you have to take that recourse, versus not having to do anything at all.

Quote:
If you were in a prior relationship that ended with you getting pregnant, it would be very easy to obtain a court-mandated DNA test.


"Easy" being a relative term though. It's going to cost the woman money and time. And she has to clearly identify the man (you'd be surprised how many people date without knowing the full names, home addresses, etc of the partner, something which kinda isn't the case if you married him), the court has to locate the man, serve said papers, and he has to show up for the test. There are a whole set of steps and actions which don't have to happen to do this if you are married. I'll also point out that DNA testing isn't commonly done during the pregnancy, but after the baby is born (it's a **** of a lot easier and cheaper anyway), so painting this like it's something easy to accomplish prior to the birth is misleading at best.

Quote:
And that effectively puts the father in the same situation as any divorcee when it comes to child support (and the ability for them to get him to pay).


Yes. After going through a bunch of legal hoops which are not required if you're already married. Can we agree that if you are married, you don't have to do that stuff and thus, it's easier and the children are more likely to have a legally defined father?

You can argue that getting married is even more legal work (and you'd be right), but you're presumably less likely to get resistance from the guy when filing paperwork to get married, than when filing paperwork to establish paternity if you *aren't* married. And if nothing else, it's a pretty good test for the guy, right? If he's not willing to marry, there's a good shot he's not going to be willing to take responsibility for a child either. Seems like there's less harm if you try to get married and fail versus trying to get him to accept paternity after having a child with him.

Anyone actually disagreeing with this?

Quote:
It gets harder the less you are able to prove the encounter happened, but not impossible until you simply don't know who the father was.


Sure. But I still think you're over thinking this. At the end of the day, 100% of children born to a married woman have a legally defined father. Somewhat less than 100% of children born to single mothers do. We can bounce different speculative conditions around all day long, but it still comes back to that fact. Marriage protects the child from even the possibility of not having a legal father (in any case where one could exist at all).

Quote:
And marriage laws don't protect against that case at all, so it's hardly the argument you should make.


Against what case? I'm pretty sure that 100% of married women know who their husband is. You're missing that I'm talking about ensuring that every child has a legally defined father. Even if the case occurs where that legally responsible man *isn't* the biological father, it's still better to have one, right? It's like you want to argue a norm by looking only at the edge cases.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 6:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Mar 23 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
It would be fraudulent if the only purpose for getting married was to get cheap schooling. It's probably mostly centred around immigration.

Not really sure how good a link this is, but fwiw
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/sham-marriage-lawyers.html

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 9:18am by Xsarus


I was thinking about this. Doesn't this make any kind of loveless marriage illegal? Like, say you get married, have kids, fall out of love, but stay together because your still friends and want to give your kids a stable environment. That would technically be a sham marriage by these definitions.

Or that consummation bit. Say you marry someone when they are extremely ill (for instance, terminally ill, because I imagine that's most common). You may not be consummating your marriage... ever. Is it a "sham" marriage as a result?

Or what if you are just two asexuals? Can you not have a real marriage?

These laws are ridiculous...

And can I say, that I find it hilarious that gbaji is using the "but that costs a lot of time and money" argument to support why these marriage laws should be in place, but he rejects the same argument for why exclusion of gays is legitimate. Smiley: lol

I will never take him seriously.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#69 Mar 23 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
Why would it be fraudulent?


Yea, Elinda, since you know both parties, you could know personally its not fraudulent...... but a marriage for purposes other than those stated in the civil contract (or through misrepresentation) is "technically" fraud & depending on the State (or Judge) could be annulled by one of the parties based on that.

I speak not as an, Attorney but as someone who has known of two different Marriages that were annulled:

One was two people who met in a 12 step recovery program & got married.... the woman found out after they had been together a couple months that the man was an occasional, recreational drug user. She got an Annullment based on Fraud (marital).

The other was a friend of mine who married an illegal immigrant from Scotland & when he found out she was cheating on him, he dissolved based on the same thing (even though he knew she had overstayed her Visa).
____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#70 Mar 23 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
This isn't the same thing as either situation you gave or people who get married for immigration status.

If you get married based on immigration status, and you have absolutely no relationship outside of the marriage contract, then that is a fraudulent marriage. This is why you have to prove that you live together, actually have a life together, etc, so people aren't just hooking up so their buddies can stay in the states.

As far as annulments go, there are plenty of reasons people can cite as being in a "fraudulent" marriage. This is mostly a Catholic church thing, since you can't get married twice in the Catholic church, unless you previous marriage was annulled, which usually means the person seriously violated some of their vows, like fidelity, honesty, etc. The state isn't going to just come in and dissolve marriages based on a marital commitment being made because of a financial decision. If there were people who went around validating marriage contracts based on legitimacy, I think "financial reasons" should be one of the top reasons people do get married.
#71 Mar 24 2012 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
I honestly didn't think anyone would disagree with this.
Why would you? You never expect anyone to actually have any experience in the matters you speak of since you never do.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#72 Mar 24 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
If they are rushing into a marriage that they might not feel ready for in order to get a financial break, I'd heavily suggest a prenup, but maybe that's just me.


This. A thousand times this. And said prenup better be extremely favorable to your son. EXTREMELY!

BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Employees pay $500.00 a year for as many credits as they want to take.


Wow... is this commonplace? I might have to consider the option if I ever decide to go back to school.


I don't know if you've ever heard of Tulane University. It's a fairly well-known private university in New Orleans. It has tuition for undergrad studies in the astronomical range. When i graduated high school (which was 17 years ago now), they had a policy that any child or spouse of any employee got free tuition. I had a good friend whose mother worked in one of the offices there who took advantage of this.

Oh, to show how expensive the tuition was: I received scholarships and grants equaling to $18,000 per semester and still could not afford to attend.

Edited, Mar 24th 2012 12:08pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#73 Mar 24 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
It's also one of the top party schools in the nation. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#74 Mar 24 2012 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
/shrug

And on the off chance that he should knock her up during their marriagebusiness transaction, the child will be better protected by the law than otherwise and be more likely to enjoy positive outcomes as a result. So mission accomplished!
can't...resist...urge

No, the child will likely suffer from bad Romantic Relationship modelling, being around a couple who are presumed to be a couple, but are not actually in love with one another. And either the couple will do what they wanted to do originally, and get divorced sooner, when the child is very young, making the born-in-wedlock thing moot, or the couple will do the worst of two bad alternatives, and stay together "for the child". Cue child picking up on and being exposed to tensions and fights between unhappy adults, whom for stress reasons are likely to be worse modellers and explicit parenters to their child.


Hey Kaolian

Just nuke this thread, please.


WHY DID I CLICK THAT PICTURE I WISH YOU A FIERY AND PAINFUL DEATH


Seconded.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#75 Mar 24 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Hey Kaolian

Just nuke this thread, please.


WHY DID I CLICK THAT PICTURE I WISH YOU A FIERY AND PAINFUL DEATH


Seconded.
The link says "spider-that-could-probably-eat-you.jpg" why would you still click that if you're scared of spiders?

EDIT: cut out unnecessary quotes.

Edited, Mar 24th 2012 8:37pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#76 Mar 24 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's also one of the top party schools in the nation. :P


Nah, most of the kids at Tulane are too uptight and into good grades for it to be a good party school. Now, LSU in Baton Rouge is another story altogether...
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#77 Mar 24 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,798 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're also missing the most common case. Guy knocks up his girlfriend, then they break up. Then he wants nothing to do with her or the child. Since they weren't married, she has to employ legal action to try to force paternal responsibility on him. If he moves, or doesn't have a permanent address, or in any other way avoids this, it's nearly impossible for her to accomplish. And she has to prove he's the father, which requires some form of paternity test. And frankly, she also may not think it's worth the effort anyway.

I think you're pulling this fact out of your ***. You're basically saying that out of marriage there isn't a good legal recourse and that it's way way more difficult then the exact same situation where the two people are married. Maybe this is the case, but I'm going to need some actual laws or cases to establish this. Remember, this isn't a one night stand, it's two people in a relationship, who then break up after there is a kid. To make it easier, you don't have to consider details about actually getting a divorce, the guy just runs off in both situations.


What he's trying to say is that in order to be served with a paternity suit, you have to be served. If the man in question cannot be found, he cannot be served. The suit can still go through but the woman will probably never see a dime of child support. In the case of a married couple, the husband is assumed to be the father and, unless both parties attest to it, his name is put on the birth certificate. In the case of a divorce, there is no paternity suit there is just a judgement of whether child support is due. In this case, the courts would have the recourse of a garnishment of wages among other options to make sure the mother gets some, if not all, of the child support she is due.

It's not that out of marriage there isn't a legal recourse, it's that out of marriage the legal recourse has about twice as many steps and the extra steps are about twice as hard as compared to in marriage.

That is what he means by better protected by the law.

At least, I think.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#78 Mar 24 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's also one of the top party schools in the nation. :P


Nah, most of the kids at Tulane are too uptight and into good grades for it to be a good party school. Now, LSU in Baton Rouge is another story altogether...


Party school and good academics aren't actually mutually exclusive, despite public perceptions. Penn State is regularly at the top of the list when it comes to party schools, but they are also a great school.

Tulane has been in the top 20 for partying in the past few years (Princeton Review). Doesn't mean that everyone parties, and doesn't mean that all the parties slack. Party hard, work hard. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#79 Mar 24 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
***
2,798 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It's also one of the top party schools in the nation. :P


Nah, most of the kids at Tulane are too uptight and into good grades for it to be a good party school. Now, LSU in Baton Rouge is another story altogether...


Party school and good academics aren't actually mutually exclusive, despite public perceptions. Penn State is regularly at the top of the list when it comes to party schools, but they are also a great school.

Tulane has been in the top 20 for partying in the past few years (Princeton Review). Doesn't mean that everyone parties, and doesn't mean that all the parties slack. Party hard, work hard. :P


Oh i know about the Princeton Review lists. My argument is that Tulane only gets on that list because it is in New Orleans. i'm sure a LOT of students there party, and party hard.

I'm just saying, LSU, which is 70 miles from New Orleans, parties harder and it's harder to party in Baton Rouge because of archaic laws about when you can sell alcohol and other things.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#80 Mar 25 2012 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,325 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Just move to Canada, Northern Europe, Australia or New Zealand already.


Haha ha ha. Our healthcare is nice but post sec is a ripoff here.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#81 Mar 25 2012 at 1:18 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Just move to Canada, Northern Europe, Australia or New Zealand already.


Haha ha ha. Our healthcare is nice but post sec is a ripoff here.

Don't laugh until you go to the publicly available CIA World Factbook pages online and start looking at country rankings by any criteria you can think of. All of the above almost always top the USA in rankings of everything positive. Northern European nations especially. The USA CIA publicly admit to it. Then you can laugh. And worry for the Home of the Free (and the wealthiest nation in the world) why things aren't better for them.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#82 Mar 25 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#83 Mar 25 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#84 Mar 25 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.

Other religions? You mean like Mormons and Baptists?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#85 Mar 25 2012 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.

Other religions? You mean like Mormons and Baptists?


And Jehovah Witnesses. Don't forget them or they will knock on your door twice as much.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#86 Mar 26 2012 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.
My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.
I'm guessing by recent you mean in relation to since the existence of dinosaurs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Mar 26 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.


As opposed to the recent trend where oppression has been redefined to mean "someone refusing to give me free stuff".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 26 2012 at 10:24 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Oh man, I actually hit the red down-rate button in the Asylum. What am I doing?

Sorry, gbaji. I disagree with your thesis, you ignorant, selfish, festering necrotic **** hole.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#89 Mar 27 2012 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,252 posts
There ya go, Ari. You're learning!
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#90 Mar 27 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to the recent trend where oppression has been redefined to mean "someone refusing to give me free stuff".
This site has been oppressing me for years!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#91 Mar 27 2012 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,893 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.
My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.
As opposed to the recent trend where oppression has been redefined to mean "someone refusing to give me free stuff".
But don't you worry, you'll always have your timeless "You can't have what I have because you're different" retort.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#92 Mar 27 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.


As opposed to the recent trend where oppression has been redefined to mean "someone refusing to give me free stuff".
I know, the right to tell others how to live with a theocratic nanny government costs nothing, guys

Mother Father knows best! (can't have any of those uppity women telling us what to do)
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#93 Mar 27 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to the recent trend where oppression has been redefined to mean "someone refusing to give me free stuff".
This site has been oppressing me for years!


Still bitter about not getting your comic book, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Mar 27 2012 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
My free comic book.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#95 Mar 27 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Comic book? I thought it was a magazine I wasn't getting.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#96 Mar 27 2012 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Was it Spider-Man? I'd feel pretty oppressed too if it were Spider-Man they were holding out on.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Mar 27 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Comic book? I thought it was a magazine I wasn't getting.
It doesn't matter, as I received nothing, so I'm being oppressed.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#98 Mar 27 2012 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Criminy wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Because too many people who live here are ignorant morons who don't care about anyone but themselves.


My favorite part is this recent trend to try and use religious freedom to justify oppression of others... even when that means other religions.

Other religions? You mean like Mormons and Baptists?


And Jehovah Witnesses. Don't forget them or they will knock on your door twice as much.


Or come into your place of work and try to convert your customers and tell your co-workers that their baby is a devil child because they dared have him out of wedlock. Seriously, there is a customer at my work who does this, and the management doesn't do anything about it. There is a reason I don't wear my pentacle necklace to work, she'd probably try to exorcise me.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#99 Apr 03 2012 at 11:13 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Or come into your place of work and try to convert your customers and tell your co-workers that their baby is a devil child because they dared have him out of wedlock. Seriously, there is a customer at my work who does this, and the management doesn't do anything about it. There is a reason I don't wear my pentacle necklace to work, she'd probably try to exorcise me.


This would simply encourage me to (purchase and then) wear a pentacle necklace to work on a daily basis.

And I would have my iPhone at the ready to tape the "exorcism." That'd be comedy gold.
#100 Apr 03 2012 at 11:21 PM Rating: Good
Yes, it definitely had the opportunity to be comedy gold. It also has the opportunity to get me fired, and I can't really afford to chance that. =x I'm not saying I would get fired, but you never know. I'd rather not chance it.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#101 Apr 04 2012 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,848 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Yes, it definitely had the opportunity to be comedy gold. It also has the opportunity to get me fired, and I can't really afford to chance that. =x I'm not saying I would get fired, but you never know. I'd rather not chance it.


You'd be able to win a ton of money in the subsequent lawsuit, so double win?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Bijou, Driftwood, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (49)