Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada


  • Please log in to reply
276 replies to this topic

#121 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:31 PM

And Single moms across the world are rejoicing.

I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene.


If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead.
  • 0

#122 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,402 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:37 PM

If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead.


Yup, once was enough for me to figure it out :lol:
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#123 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,570 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

If you are content to take on that much financial risk go ahead.


If "financial risk" is a check mark for someone looking for a relationship, then any relationship they pursue is probably already in jeopardy...

Basically, you're saying one should never get involved in a relationship because of finances.
Guess what happens when you get divorced - you lose half of everything you ever made (financially).
Which means, if you were to divorce a second time - you've lost everything.

Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#124 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:50 PM

If "financial risk" is a check mark for someone looking for a relationship, then any relationship they pursue is probably already in jeopardy...

Basically, you're saying one should never get involved in a relationship because of finances.
Guess what happens when you get divorced - you lose half of everything you ever made (financially).
Which means, if you were to divorce a second time - you've lost everything.

Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships.

Um not quite true - it means you've lost 75% of everything. If you've lost 50% of everything in the first divorce that leaves you with 50% of your stuff. But if you now lose 50% of that due to another divorce technically you've only lost 25% of the original amount, so really a second divorce is a bargain.
  • 0
Posted Image

#125 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,570 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

Um not quite true - it means you've lost 75% of everything. If you've lost 50% of everything in the first divorce that leaves you with 50% of your stuff. But if you now lose 50% of that due to another divorce technically you've only lost 25% of the original amount, so really a second divorce is a bargain.


Kind of...I was thinking along the lines that you re-acquired more wealth in your second marriage...so I guess it's somewhere between 75% but not quite 100% (as you say that would be technically impossible). I guess you can't really "accumulate" it at all as several factors come into play, like cost of living. I guess it would be best to just say that it would suck.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#126 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:25 PM

Kind of...I was thinking along the lines that you re-acquired more wealth in your second marriage...so I guess it's somewhere between 75% but not quite 100% (as you say that would be technically impossible). I guess you can't really "accumulate" it at all as several factors come into play, like cost of living. I guess it would be best to just say that it would suck.

Basically I'm saying marry a rich girl :towel:
  • 0
Posted Image

#127 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:59 PM

so really a second divorce is a bargain.


ah yes, wholesale divorces. what a steal!
  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#128 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,568 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

"Being in a relationship far outweighs any financial risk IMHO....after all, we were made for relationships. "

we were made to procreate but I'm not so sure about the relationship point.
  • 1

#129 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:22 PM

You're right - it's not the man's fault. Nor is it the children's fault. There are two innocent parties here who are suffering because of the mom. So the question is, which innocent party should bear most of the burden? The man, or the children? I would argue that the children should not bear the burden since the man is in a better position to replace his lost income.

The mom, and neither of the innocent parties. Or maybe the government for having such dumb ass rules like this.
  • 0

#130 Hyzer

Hyzer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:09 PM

ah yes, wholesale divorces. what a steal!


"2 divorces for barely the price of 1". A steal indeed.

Edited by Hyzer, 18 February 2013 - 10:09 PM.

  • 0

#131 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,852 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

Option 3: Make the mom find out who the dad is and give responsible dad an opt-out chance, making the mom pay both portions if she can't find out.

Kids are already taken care of with government benefits/programs.

Child support in this fashion being required for the father even though he really isn't the father (not his fault he didn't know) is a method of screwing a dad for being both lied to and being responsible. In no way, shape, or form is this the decent thing to do, and it encourages loser dads who skirt child support.

I'd suggest people consider the bigger picture here but a section of people only wish to obsessively look at the children rather than all in the equation. This is why such laws written are horrendous.

Society being forced to support a deadbeat's legal obligations is not fair, and as a society we should not stand for it. Kids deserve better. If you are willing to shirk on your parental duty, they should throw you in jail and make you pay back society back.
  • 0

#132 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,312 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

The actions of the mother are completely irrelevant, legally and morally. The welfare of the children are the priority, in both contexts, and the man was supporting the kids up to that point, he should do so, regardless of paternity.....he might not be their father, but he is their dad, and I'm sure he will continue on in that role.......he should if he's any kind of man anyway.

Edited by stawns, 19 February 2013 - 01:49 PM.

  • 3

#133 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,312 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:47 PM

dbl post

Edited by stawns, 19 February 2013 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

#134 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

The mom, and neither of the innocent parties. Or maybe the government for having such dumb ass rules like this.


And how, exactly, will the mom bear the burden? By paying child support to herself? If she has to look for extra money herself, then that means that the children are bearing the burden and the dad is getting off free. So your solution is really to make the kids bear the burden, which is the worst solution of them all.
  • 1

#135 SpinDrive

SpinDrive

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 10

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:02 PM

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?

Edited by SpinDrive, 19 February 2013 - 04:03 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Believing in religion is like believing Raymond is going to win the Rocket Richard.


#136 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:59 AM

Why oh why don't we hold women to the same standards of personal responsibility and accountability as men?
  • 1

#137 Duodenum

Duodenum

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,647 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 07

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:35 AM

I'd be cool with a law in such cases that had the stand-in father continue to provide for the kids until they're 18. After that, the mother pays the father back in equal payments over the same # of years that he provided with some slight alterations. Perhaps give the mother a bit of a grace period if the kids are still living at home and going to school.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#138 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:34 AM

Why should the government pay?


Same reason a man pays - children's financial well being. That's the goal of such laws forcing men to financially support others' bastards, isn't it?
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#139 Russ

Russ

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,389 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 06

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:40 AM

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?

I am wondering that second point you made also.
  • 0
Xbox Live - Lenerdosy
PSN - Lenerdosy

Interested in a game of NHL or BF3? Send me a friend request and lets play.

#140 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:28 AM

What I'm wondering is (and maybe I don't have all the facts) why does the mother get custody in the first place? She is the one who broke the wedding vows not once, but at least three times. On top of all that she lied to her husband AND children. That doesn't exactly seem like being a responsible parent to me.

EDIT: I'm also wondering if the father got custody, would the mother have to pay child support?


First question: I don't think a court would consider those factors as having an impact on who gets custody. Just as with child support, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. While it sucks for the dad that the mom cheated, this does not necessarily affect the best interests of the children. Of course, an argument can be made for either side in court, and the court has the discretion to take whatever into account that it thinks may affect the best interests of the children.

Second question: yes, the "access" parent - i.e. the one who has access rights, but not custody - pays child support. So if the dad were to get custody and the mom only access/visitation rights, then the mom would pay child support. Child support is determined by the BC child support guidelines. However, if the acces parent spends more than 40% of the time with the child, then the court has the discretion to vary the child support amount.
  • 0

#141 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

Same reason a man pays - children's financial well being. That's the goal of such laws forcing men to financially support others' bastards, isn't it?

That seems very twisted and bitter.

The goal is the the best interests of the child.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#142 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:33 PM

That seems very twisted and bitter.

The goal is the the best interests of the child.


It's just wrong to fulfill the best interests of the child on another man's dime.
  • 1

#143 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

It's just wrong to fulfill the best interests of the child on another man's dime.

That is a policy choice and IMHO the correct one.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#144 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

That is a policy choice and IMHO the correct one.


In principle, it's just plain theft though.
  • 1

#145 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:47 PM

In principle, it's just plain theft though.

No, it is not.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#146 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:55 PM

It's just wrong to fulfill the best interests of the child on another man's dime.


Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.
  • 2

#147 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 20 February 2013 - 12:58 PM

Either the children or the man have to bear the burden - there's just no other way around that. Unless the mom has a money tree growing in her backyard, she can't do it. So the policy choice is between the kids and the dad. To me the choice is clear.


Not his children, not his property, not his problem.

Edited by Buggernut, 20 February 2013 - 12:58 PM.

  • 0

#148 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,686 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

Canada has been a feminazi and mangina run country for decades now, so its no shock when rulings go this way.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#149 Kesler Is Bestler

Kesler Is Bestler

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 06

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:56 PM

No one knows for sure... except your mother and then ...well not always.
But if you think about it motherhood does have it's priviledge. Your mother could only be your mother. No other woman could have been your mother, it's not possible. Your father on the other hand can be any poor slob.


Lolwat
  • 0
After picking Schroeder:-

GOD George BushING DAMNIT GOD George BushING DAMNIT George Bush George Bush George Bush George Bush George Bush Gary Leeman George Bush George BushING Gary LeemanTY George Bush Roger Millions George BushER!

GOD DAMN THE George BushING CANUCKS!


#150 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

Not his children, not his property, not his problem.

Children are not property.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.