76% of Women Agree War on Women Exists, Do You?

I agree with you that divorces should be harder to come by. Leaving a woman alone at the age of 50 is cruel and harsh, and the state has never been able to make up for the protections her husband gave her. And no fault divorce has beaten children up with sticks, Children are just cut in half and divided up, like the rest of the property.

I think the state should financially reward successful marriages, every year. It would save billions of dollars from not only rehabiliting the lives of children wrecked through divorce, but the actual government monies spent on chasing dads around for their child-support checks, which actually, I have read, is more costly than welfare itself. Just take all of the money used to support divorces, and say to each couple. "Oh you're still married? Congratulations--here's your reward check! Most young people could use it.

But as to the argument that marriage is the only way that homosexual couples can visit each other in the hospital, or bequeath money in a will to each other--the concept is nil. Anyone can visit a sick person in the hospital, as long as the patient consents. Anyone can hold the hand of a dying friend. And anyone can will money to whoever they want.

The difference is in taxes. A married couple pays less taxes on money that is left for them. And this has to do with the fact that most generally the woman is the one who lives the longest and is left behind, when she has no means to support herself.

And by the way a widow is a widow. And a woman, for that matter is still a woman, regardless of whether she has given birth to children. So because women are simply physically weaker, the State has a interest in supporting the institution which best supports her.--unless we are willing to watch women live and die in destitution. As a nation, we have so far chosen not to do that.

As I have already mentioned, two big strapping men, can afford to pay their own way. They can both work up until retirement. Nor do either of them need to abandon work for child-bearing or child-related issues. Wealth is never the issue with homosexual couples. They are simply not struggling like a young, heterosexual family, just starting out. If the gutters need cleaned out, or the roof repaired, or a shed needs to be built or repaired in a homosexual relationship, there are two men who can perform labor which requires strength. In a heterosexual relationship, there is one man who can perform labor which requires strength.

And they are certainly no worse off than single people, who also don't get marriage tax-breaks, and who have to pay more taxes when they inherit money.

You can't gauge a happy marriage. What you can gauge is the length of a marriage. And every year that a marriage stays intact benefits children. Women of course, enjoy the most protection that marriage offers in her older years.

Females who choose a homosexual union are going to get a very bad deal. As you noted. When strength in necessary in a task there are 0 men in that relationship. They also experience more domestic violence than women in heterosexual relationships. Why should the State be interested in supporting this relationship, when it offers no benefit to the State?

Keep in mind, no one has a constitutional right to be married. The State however has the authority to criminalize and or refuse sanction of any marriage that might harm the welfare of the State. What possible interest could the State have to protect any homosexual marriage, even less a lesbian marriage? Since marriage was institutionalized for the protection of women and children, why should the State be interested in protecting a marriage which simply serves women no better than living alone?

When homsexuals decide to practice homosexuality, they are making a decision to be sterile. Homosexuals can and do live heterosexual lives. They always have. It isn't impossible for them to enjoy sex with women. We even have historical documentations that men who enjoyed sex with each other were also able to have sex with women and procreate. If a man decides to not partake of that option, then he is deciding that he prefers homosexuality over children.

In any case, the homosexual union is by its very definition sterile. And as I mentioned previously, the State has no reason whatsoever to protect a union that does not benefit it, and can even harm it. However, the homosexual in regards to federal benefits, social security payouts, immigration..all of these things, is not less advantaged than any other single person who is also forgoing all of these benefits.

If it is in the State's interest to apply laws equally, the the State must also enforce women's draft registration into military combat duty in the case of a war. It must also remove all affirmative action regulations, including equal pay, if a company can prove that the woman they hire is doing less work. The state must also abandon an interest in protecting women against rape, and treat is as any other assult. The state must treat divorces as equals and end the awarding of women child custody or child-support. --All things being equal.
------------------------------

As a matter of fact, men are calling for this. I am linking you to this not trying to cause WWIII but to make you aware that there is growing men's movement afoot that is accusing women of a sense entitlement, largely of wanting to have things both ways--to be treated equally, and also to be given additional priviledges based on their gender. The concept of equality works a whole lot of ways that you and I might not enjoy so much:

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...


-----------------------------... (edited)

Really, let's examine this.

1. Women get to live leisure lives at the expense of men while contributing very little to the individual household, and nothing to civilization with the exception of the minority of women who work in sciences that do contribute to civilization.

2. Who is it that's dying in military combats? Men!

3. Who is it routinely prosecuted for sex under the rape laws in all legal systems? Men!

4. Who is it that gets alimony, and child support at a massive cost to the public to maintain the bureaucracies to enforces those forms of tyranny on men? Women!

5. Men are 99% globally of the incarcerated population worldwide, and even women who do get incarcerated for the same things men do, women get only a fraction of the incarceration time that men do, and in misandric societies like Western Countries, and Arabic Countries there's not so much as 1 reported case of a woman being executed while men routinely get executed!

6. I don't believe in allopathic medicine, so I'm only mentioning this to prove a point. Billions and billions and billions of dollars in the misandric society known as America goes to fund breast cancer research, while a tiny fraction of that goes to fund prostrate cancer research.

7. All a bitch as to do is scream and everyone in hearing range of her will come running to her aid just because she's a woman, that does not happen for a guy.

8. Men aren't allowed to defend themselves against a woman when she's physically assaults a man, and there are plenty of women who physically assault men.

9. A man will get 30 years incarceration for sex with a female age 15, 14, or 13, while women who are sexually active with teenage males seldom get prosecuted for that, and when they do they typically don't get more than 3 years in a concentration camp.

10. Of all the men who get assaulted by police, and military forces in all countries which men comprise well over 90% of those who get beaten with knight sticks, sprayed with mace by these thugs in costume, etc, when it happens to 1 single woman it makes global news, while the men it's happening to get ignored by the mainstream, and the alternative media! Case in point Egypt. When the military forces were murdering men during the Arab Spring Uprising in the streets of Cairo, the criminal acts of the police, and military forces did not get any media attention until one woman was assaulted by police, and her shirt was torn off, and her blue bra was showing, then it became global headline news worthy.

So what's your point here?
(less)

-----------------------
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

Again, WIC, and Welfare are different things altogether from Alimony, and Child support because WIC, and Welfare are funded through taxation, Alimony, and Child Support are imposed on men, and ONLY men, not only at the expense of individual men, also through taxation because taxation is used to fund the child support agencies, and the court system that enforces alimony on men.

We're not dealing here with two programs that are only funded through taxation at what amounts to pennies on the dollar per citizen, which is what WIC, and Welfare are. We're dealing with the systems of alimony and child support that are EXCLUSIVELY imposed on men at a great, a very great cost to society, much greater cost than WIC, and Welfare because of the massive bureaucracies that are taxation funded to enforce them. Why should an ADULT woman be entitled to such things? and again I'm referring to SPECIFICALLY alimony, and child support. Why should an ADULT woman be entitled to those 2 things?


reply