dcsimg The Get Rich Slowly Forums • View topic - Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

  GRS Home  Forum Home
Bank Rates Center
   Savings Account Rates
   Money Market Rates
   Highest CD Rates
Insurance Rates Center
  Auto           Health
   Life              Home
Mortgage Rates Center
  Mortgage Rates
  Mortgage Quotes

Last visit was:
A place for Get Rich Slowly readers to ask questions
and exchange ideas
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:25 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:56 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Posts: 405
kaitlyn142 wrote:
Savarel, I'm going to play devil's advocate and disagree.

Marriage is good for society. Not necessarily hetero marriage, but marriage itself. It provides a structure for families. When there are children involved, marriage is a legal framework to keep things more equal. Otherwise, you can have a woman who is a SAHM, gives up her career and retirement earning power in order to raise children, and there would be nothing to stop the man from up and leaving her with nothing after the children are grown. It's a protection. With marriage, the man would have to legally divorce her and give half his retirement account. Without, she's left with absolutely nothing.

Do I agree with getting religion out of civil marriage? Absolutely. But I feel that the spousal benefits are necessary to stable society.


You do understand that something like 50% of the children in this country are born to unmarried parents? Your notions are antiquated. I wish that wasnt true, but it is. Time to make laws to reflect reality, not the ideal.

As for the SAHM scenario, you might hate me for saying this, but a woman is more than capable of earning a living herself(or a man, if a SAHD). Once the children are grown and on their own, then the parents no longer each other anything.

There are plenty of households where both parents work. Its not impossible, and its not even that difficult. Alimony is also an antiquated notion.

In a more practical argument, you are again discriminating against an unmarried couple living together. Lets say one partner works at the Olive Garden to pay the bills while the other goes to the university, graduates, and then dumps his/her partner. Why is marriage specificly required to be compensated?


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:19 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 255
Savarel, my point was less about the children and more about the stay at home spouse. If a couple decides jointly that they want a spouse staying home, the SAHS loses earning potential. That is raises not obtained, 401k matched benefits lost. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars that the SAHS have up on to support the family. If there isn't the guarantee that the SaHS will not be left in the cold, there would be no SAHS. In many cases, this could hurt the family finances because infant daycare is expensive. In my area at our incomes, it would be a wash because daycare would be very nearly equal to one of our incomes.

Personally, in our family, it is far more likely my husband will be SAH. I'm less antiquated and more ruthlessly practical. I would love if we could both work and have quality daycare, but we can't afford it here.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:24 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 255
Eagle, anyone who ever says anything like "women are" and "women think" doesn't respect women. I would never say "my husband thinks x, so eagle thinks x." I'm pretty sure the only thing your wife and I have in common is a vagina. Last time I took biology, that's not where our brain is located.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:28 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Posts: 405
Well, in the interest of keeping this on topic, you totally ignored the argument that you are requiring marriage in order to get a benefit, in this case support from a former spouse.

We can agree to disgaree on alimony, because Ive found nearly every intelligent person I know to disagree with me on this(thankfully I have the... uhh... self-confidence... to avoid changing my mind and continuing my lonely crusade).

However, even given that support should be given to a spouse who allegedly foregoes potentially lucrative raises to benefit the family, there is no reason whatsoever why you would need to be married to receive that benefit. A couple who is unmarried and has children in the exact same scenario(minus marriaged) should still receive the same benefits, or detriments in the opinion of one man, right?

Marriage registration is unneccessary and antiquated.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:47 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 255
But in your scenerio, there is a whole lot of he said she said. The legal framework required to prove anything is so huge as to be insurmountable. It's much simpler to have registered proof. I personally think unmarried couples are taking a huge risk when kids enter the equation. It's one of the reasons H and I got married after 9 years of living together. The legal protection of a binding contract is reassuring.

Plus, to play more devil's advocate, a role of government is benevolent social engineering. Stable, bound families are of a greater benefit to society as a whole, so they want to provide incentives to do so.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1111
kaitlyn142 wrote:
Eagle, anyone who ever says anything like "women are" and "women think" doesn't respect women. I would never say "my husband thinks x, so eagle thinks x." I'm pretty sure the only thing your wife and I have in common is a vagina. Last time I took biology, that's not where our brain is located.


That is your opinion and your perogative to think that way.

First, please quote the specific comment I made so I can understand what you are reffering too. From my perspective you are looking at this in a purely emotional sense. So women are not generally more nurturing than men? You clearly didn't read that I believe both men and women are equally important to society.

I said:
Quote:
Actually I highly value women. Both men and women are equally important to society. Women are often kinder and more sensitive than men. And my wife would argue smarter too. Which I might tend to agree. ;)


Second, you do not know me or my wife. Do not pretend to know me. And if you plan on openly insulting my wife (she's not even on the GRS forum) then I think this will be my last reply to you. Surely there is a mod out there reading this? This is an insult and does not follow with "keeping it civil."

Personally, from my perspective I just think you are upset that you were wrong about the civil rights comment and i was the closest person to take your anger out on. ;)

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:16 am 

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 255
To be fair, I am using this as a chance to call you out on a direct insult from the obamacare thread. It was closed before I could respond to the highly sexist comment you made.

How is it insulting your wife to say we are nothing alike? A woman who thinks like me could never marry a guy like you. So I can easily infer your we are not alike.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:27 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Posts: 405
kaitlyn142 wrote:
But in your scenerio, there is a whole lot of he said she said. The legal framework required to prove anything is so huge as to be insurmountable. It's much simpler to have registered proof. I personally think unmarried couples are taking a huge risk when kids enter the equation. It's one of the reasons H and I got married after 9 years of living together. The legal protection of a binding contract is reassuring.


Err... Registered proof of what? Being married? That doesnt show proof of forgoing income in order to suppor the family, which is still required to get spousal support post-divorce. In the Savarel world, marriage wouldnt be required to receive such support, only the proof that one party sacrificed for the other. Unmarried couples are only taking "huge risks when kids enter the equation" because of biased and unfair marriage laws. If these laws were updated to reflect modern society, then there would be no risk and you and your husband would not have been pressured into marriage by obsolete laws.

kaitlyn142 wrote:
Plus, to play more devil's advocate, a role of government is benevolent social engineering.


*facepalm*

No, no, no. The role of government is most certainly NOT to attempt to social engineer its populace, since one man's benevolence is another man's nightmare.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1111
kaitlyn142 wrote:
To be fair, I am using this as a chance to call you out on a direct insult from the obamacare thread. It was closed before I could respond to the highly sexist comment you made.


Oh so this anger and frustration has nothing to do with this thread. The Obamacare thread was closed. Whatever discussion was there stays there. If you have a problem with a comment I made report it to the mods. I don't believe comments I made were sexist. I may not have the same views as you on homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things in a civil manner. Not personal attacks on me or my spouse. Can we agree on that? If not then like I said I will no longer engage you in conversation.

Edit: To add the section in italics.

_________________
~ Eagle


Last edited by Eagle on Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:32 am 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1952
Savarel wrote:
Well, in the interest of keeping this on topic, you totally ignored the argument that you are requiring marriage in order to get a benefit, in this case support from a former spouse.

And here I was, thinking that the topic was freedom of speech, a CEO's right to speak about his beliefs, and whether the reaction to that speech was appropriate. Silly me. But than again, Eagle's threads have a way of drifting. I notice that when new, focused threads are created based on topics he originally brought up, he's strangely silent.


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:05 am
Posts: 1111
VinTek wrote:
Savarel wrote:
Well, in the interest of keeping this on topic, you totally ignored the argument that you are requiring marriage in order to get a benefit, in this case support from a former spouse.


And here I was, thinking that the topic was freedom of speech, a CEO's right to speak about his beliefs, and whether the reaction to that speech was appropriate. Silly me. But than again, Eagle's threads have a way of drifting. I notice that when new, focused threads are created based on topics he originally brought up, he's strangely silent.


I didn't actually create the marriage tangent for a change. That was Savarel, DoingHomework, and kaitlyn142's doing I believe. Nice jab though VinTek ;) :clap:

_________________
~ Eagle


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:47 am 

Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1952
Eagle wrote:
I didn't actually create the marriage tangent for a change. That was Savarel, DoingHomework, and kaitlyn142's doing I believe. Nice jab though VinTek ;) :clap:

Well after all, you did accuse me of seeming to be more interested in your English than actually discussing your points. But when there are new threads that actually refute your points, you don't make much of an appearance. Yes, you did show up to in the thread about the National Debt. I acknowledge that. But you've been strangely silent about the ACA, both in relation to the National Debt and the FUD that was dispelled. Come on in. The water's fine. :)


Top
Offline Profile   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:53 am 

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:31 pm
Posts: 405
VinTek wrote:
Savarel wrote:
Well, in the interest of keeping this on topic, you totally ignored the argument that you are requiring marriage in order to get a benefit, in this case support from a former spouse.

And here I was, thinking that the topic was freedom of speech, a CEO's right to speak about his beliefs, and whether the reaction to that speech was appropriate. Silly me. But than again, Eagle's threads have a way of drifting. I notice that when new, focused threads are created based on topics he originally brought up, he's strangely silent.


Well, not really on topic in regards to the thread's original topic, but more so to avoid two potentially volatile personalities engaging in... debate... over a potentially volatile topic(gender roles in the household). Seemed like a good idea to steer things back toward the new topic that emerged.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:57 am 

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:11 am
Posts: 192
Religion and sexual orientation. Americans. You are fu***ng nuts.


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
 Post subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:40 am 
Moderator

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5395
Eagle wrote:
Fascist regimes use fear and terror to seek to eliminate their opposition. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But completely eliminating the opposition such as what has been suggested that CFA should just go bankrupt is just not the American way.


Eagle, since you brought it up, the conservative christian movement bears far more resemblance to fascism than anything the left advocates. The salient characteristic of fascism is the advocacy of a strong national identity of one culture, one ideology, one ancestry. Using code words such as "traditional family," "shared anglo-saxon heritage,"christian nation" and so forth are exactly what fascists do initially. Fascists also attack immigrants, gays, and any other group that they can villify. A few fringe individuals often employ violent acts to further the cause, and the mainstream of the fascist movement, while publicly denouncing the acts, often turn these individuals into heros or martyrs in private. (Let's see...Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, gay-bashing, protesting at abortion clinics, protesting at military funerals...hmm, that sounds like fear and terror to me.)

Sound familiar?


Top
Offline Profile E-mail   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Moderators: kombat, bpgui, JerichoHill Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki