The debate "Marriage is really only good for women and cancer to men" was started by
March 11, 2017, 9:19 pm.
3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Pugsly posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, SalonY posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Pugsly and 2 visitors agree.
roopa, human, blue_rayy, thereal, theshadow0, Jericho, debater123, Azzah, Mr_Beuller, SalonY, AyYildiz05, Moonlight and 10 visitors disagree.
if marriage is good for one partner then nodoubt its good for other & vice-versa
Again...if marriage seems cancer to the male partner then its must bought by his dear female...then its quite clear Both remains unhappy....
Marriage become successful when both partner get satisfaction from each other...if marriage brings happiness for female partner then nodoubt its bought by her Male one..So it proves...if a marriage is good for a woman than it is also good for a man...
Hahah...but the truth is that its neither Good nor a cancer...
if I say its just opposite then what would u say??
the whole distribution of pay seems screwy. it was brought up as a feminine issue. any job that is woman dominated is devalued in both pay and respect. but then I see a whole bunch of mess in the broader pay distribution.
who chose who gets paid how much? forget low wage workers, that is part of the discussion, but more complex....
why exactly are scientists and doctors making less than CEOs and bankers? is it somehow easier to do high level science or neurosurgery than it is to run a company? I somehow doubt it.
and note I didn't say owners of private companies. your company blows up you get every penny of profit. no limit, but no gaurantee. CEOs are employees with a salary. why do they get such insane amounts?
also, you did a complete tangent in the sjw thread so I'll commit that crime here :p
if the gdp has been growing this entire time.
and the stock market has gone up 25% since 2008... where did that money go?
investment in companies? there should be tons of jobs...
more money in circulation? there should be wage increases....
don't you just feel robbed by the same people your party is sucking up to with massive giveaways in our belt tightening health reform or the Republicans demonizing of the estate tax that doesn't affect 99% of us at all...?
a woman making more money is a household making more money. it is not more money at your expense. it is more money for all of us. this isn't about men vs woman. immigrant vs citizen. black vs white. there is a leak in our economy and it's screwing all those groups. please realize this and come to the bernie sanders wing of the left. if we can support him and teach him how to do math, this nation will be greater than ever. but even without math it's better than treasonous corruption.
Work place inequalities? If the woman has one kid that right there shows that she was forced to jump out the work place.
Yes, that's true you can think the British and the bible for that. Some states had laws that fought this.
the beatings of wives was made illegal at the turn of the century, you are right.
however marital rape only became illegal in all 50 states in 1993... that's very damn recent.
50 years ago you couldn't just as assult your wife. I really am curious why you think that.
I'm pretty sure the alimony in most states is done by a simple gender blind formula. it is the workplace inequality that weighs the scale in the woman's favor. the child thing remains a bias. that is the one stereotype that works in a woman's favor. I'm all for fixing it along with workplace inequalities.
however, many people dismiss woman's complaints in the workforce while crying fowl over men's rights in court. if you acknowledge and take issue with both then I agree with you 100%. however if you're only interest is self interest (woman's rights only as a woman, or in your case men's rights only as a man) and trying to create a double whammy where one sex gets screwed in every situation, then no.
No and 50 years ago have nothing to do with each other. If I wanted to go in the past and say well this happened so it justifies this; then you must have a mind of a sheep. To scared to face the reality and just point at the past and say I can do this because my parents may of went through this.
your right. marriage equality needs to address men's issues as well... however calling it a cancer was more than a bit disproportiante.
shall we compare the injustice men face in marriage court now, vs the injustice women faced in a marriage 50 years ago? with no divorce option, no ability to support herself, and no ability to say no to her husband who is within his legal right to beat her regularly?
the current situation may be unfair, but the cancer was the way marriage was to women not too long ago. in the words of Archer the wise... "phrasing!"
How many times do you think the man gets something out of a divorce? Even when he's the bread winner he still loses the chance to see his kids when he wants; he still has to pay a shit load of money in child support. What if he doesn't have the money; he gets thrown in jail.
only a few decades ago, there was no such thing as spousal rape. also domestic violence was treated as a "couples dispute"
this was here in america, not that long ago at all.
and if the woman was making more money the man can divorce and take half her shit.
the whole half thing is only if the woman isn't working at all... why did you marry her exactly?
we have slavery?
The f*** are you talking about; you can still rape your spouse.
all a woman has to do is get a divorce and they get the kids and half of the man's shit!
we should absolutely fix all injustices, but to call any inconvenience cancer may he a tad to far.
slavery and routine rape. for sure
which one do you think should be fixed first?
inequality in financial and offspring distribution?
or slavery and routine rape?
second one. that's what you should fix first.
I'm confused as to your confusion. how about more information about what confuses you.
i'm really confused. i think the first one . idk.
marriage and marriage rights are constantly evolving and changing to this day. but let me ask you, what is more important to fix first? fixing distribution of money and children if it breaks down? or eliminating the system of defacto slavery women could face without divorce or the concept in intramarital rape?
marriage was a cancer to woman, we fixed the priority issues, and now it at worse is a slight inconvenience to men (relatively speaking).
marriage has always been far better for the man. currently it is slightly better for the woman in this nation. but to call that relatively tiny inequality for this short period of time a cancer, is so weak and whinny it makes me wonder how we can call men the "stronger sex"
if men are stronger than they should protect the weaker woman and give them some slight advantages. it's fine to say marriage is unequal and should be fixed. progressivism ftw. but to whine and call it a cancer is just weak. especially considering it was far far more unequal against woman for the vast majority of our history.
this makes no sense.