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

#241 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,256 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?
  • 2

Posted Image


#242 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:28 PM

Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?


It's not right at all, but I'm talking more about alimony, that is Kinda bs, she cheated on you and now you are divorced and you still gotta support her.

Even if it was arranged where he pays for child care while she is at work.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#243 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

If he was lied to, which seems the case here, then what you said makes no sense. He was lied to, cheated on, and wanted nothing to do with kids that weren't his.. but should be taken to the cleaners for this.. yeah okay there. Nothing to do with morals my ass.

No fault divorce?
  • 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.

#244 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:52 PM

You make it sound as if he adopted them, a vastly different scenario to believing children are your own and, through being lied to and cheated on, finding out they aren't yours. Not the guy's fault the mother pulled those stunts, why must he have your moral obligation to financially support children that aren't his? I doubt he agreed to an adoption.

This is a forced adoption, in the sense of financial responsibility/liability, on the party who did nothing wrong. Yep, let's make the douchebag pay. That'll teach him to be responsible for children he thought were his. :sadno:

Being a parent is not dependent upon biology.

In this case the best interests of the children are paramount, particularly when one factors in the "no fault" component.

You are arguing to import fault again and that was rejected in the 1985 Divorce Act.
  • 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.

#245 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?

Come on Deb, why would you be floored by this? It is the sort of thought process we see day and day out on CDC from certain posters.
  • 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.

#246 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:59 PM

It's not right at all, but I'm talking more about alimony, that is Kinda bs, she cheated on you and now you are divorced and you still gotta support her.

Even if it was arranged where he pays for child care while she is at work.

No fault divorce.

The 1985 Divorce Act removed fault from divorce. As Mr. Justice Binnie wrote in a 2006 decision when the SCOC revisited the issue of moral blameworthiness said it is clear under the law "that misconduct should not creep back into the court's deliberation" when setting the amount of spousal support.

"Misconduct, as such, is off the table as a relevant consideration,"

Seems pretty clear that neither spousal support nor child support are calculated based on the moral character of one or both spouses.
  • 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.

#247 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:40 PM

No fault divorce.

The 1985 Divorce Act removed fault from divorce. As Mr. Justice Binnie wrote in a 2006 decision when the SCOC revisited the issue of moral blameworthiness said it is clear under the law "that misconduct should not creep back into the court's deliberation" when setting the amount of spousal support.

"Misconduct, as such, is off the table as a relevant consideration,"

Seems pretty clear that neither spousal support nor child support are calculated based on the moral character of one or both spouses.


I understand that and I'm not disputing it, you have said the same thing over and over again.

Ill I am saying is that it sucks for the guy in the rare instance of his wife having screwing him over.

So settle down there, Johnnie Cochran not everyone agrees with and worships all laws in Canada

  • 1
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#248 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:05 PM

It's not right at all, but I'm talking more about alimony, that is Kinda bs, she cheated on you and now you are divorced and you still gotta support her.

Even if it was arranged where he pays for child care while she is at work.


Small note - it's called spousal support in Canada, not alimony. And, who says she's getting spousal support? I didn't read that in the original story. Spousal support is not guaranteed after a divorce - one must make an application, and then the court must determine (1) if it's warranted at all, and (2) if so, how much the spouse will get, and for how long.
  • 0

#249 heysoulsisters21

heysoulsisters21

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 13

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:10 PM

Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?


people that are inconsiderate should be thrown away like orpahns in 5 seconds they change there minds
  • 0

#250 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:00 PM

I understand that and I'm not disputing it, you have said the same thing over and over again.

Ill I am saying is that it sucks for the guy in the rare instance of his wife having screwing him over.

As has been observed:

This is one of those unfortunate cases...in which, it is, no doubt, a hardship upon the plaintiff to be without a remedy but by that consideration we ought not to be influenced. Hard cases, it has frequently been observed, are apt to introduce bad law. ~ Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109


  • 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.

#251 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:06 PM

That's what you get for marrying a skank. He should of went on the Maury Povich show.
  • 1

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig


#252 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,880 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:18 PM



I understand that and I'm not disputing it, you have said the same thing over and over again.

Ill I am saying is that it sucks for the guy in the rare instance of his wife having screwing him over.

So settle down there, Johnnie Cochran not everyone agrees with and worships all laws in Canada

Good luck getting that through to "some posters" here.


Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?

If they aren't the guy's kids, and guy wasn't aware of this beforehand, it makes little sense he be financially obligated to them henceforth merely because he was once doing the responsible thing and taking care of them. When the solution is being a loser dad escaping responsibility due to the off-chance kid might not be his, there is a pretty blatant problem.

Whether or not you see a man wanting to escape from this subjective moral obligation to be financially responsible for a child not his own is not relevant to me whatsoever when you consider how many women engage in the heinous act of aborting their own children in the womb without concern for the "they are human beings" (livelihood) of this offspring so conveniently worried about now. So.. I'm not buying that excuse.

This is a very poor set of laws that, despite the "no fault" garbage gimmick (more like a misnomer), place a man at fault for being a father to kids he believes are his. If he wants to escape upon finding out they aren't really his kids, so fricken what? Let government support the kids, especially with these dumb laws they made, or let the mother support them. If she didn't want this responsibility she should have had an abortion or maybe not cheated on her husband and conceived with someone else. These kids are someone else's responsibility.

"No fault" = "man's fault", that's who gets punished for the acts of someone else. Simple as that. This is highly slanted against a man, which is par for the course on matters such as these. Shouldn't be surprised when quite a number of men don't like this.

Edited by zaibatsu, 23 February 2013 - 11:34 PM.

  • 1

#253 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:23 AM

And to repeat yet again - which of two innocent parties is to suffer??? We have made a societal choice and it is not the children.


Why must the innocent parties have to suffer at all. The court makes it mandatory for the mother to disclose the biological fathers, have them foot the child support bills so the ex husband can continue with his own life. The children don't suffer and the ex husband does not suffer.
  • 0

#254 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:42 AM

Here's what you're missing: the man is not (solely) responsible....if you think child support covers everything, it does not. It is generally supplemental and the woman doesn't sit back and live off the proceeds....it simply means that the kids won't change their standard of living (much) if both parents continue to chip in.

My ex paid child support and it barely covered the grocery bill each month (actually, it didn't). Let alone put a roof over the kids' heads or pay for any extras for them - I did that (working 3 jobs at one point to make ends meet). So child support is just that - a means to continue to HELP support the children. It isn't a windfall by any means but the talk of "taking to the cleaners" etc. makes it sound as such. If the guy wants nothing further to do with the kids based on paternity, then he should not have been involved in their lives in the first place. It takes a level of maturity and selflessness and that decision indicates neither.


Here is what you are missing...The children should be supported by their real father.
  • 0

#255 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,256 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:53 AM

You mean the strangers who donated sperm? We've already discussed the fact that "Father" means more than that...the man who has been there for feedings, first steps and words, homework, watching, nurturing and directing the children as they grow, etc. Whether under false pretenses or not, this man has assumed that role and it doesn't come with a "money back guarantee and refund".
  • 0

Posted Image


#256 мцт вяздк чф

мцт вяздк чф

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,464 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:52 AM

that mom was a slut.
  • 0

KIM JONG UN'S FAVORITE HOCKEY TEAM ARE THE KELOWNA ROCKETS.

JOHN SHORTHOUSE'S VOICE REMINDS ME OF KERMIT THE FROG.


#257 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:07 AM

that mom was a slut.

And that is irrelevant.
  • 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.

#258 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:14 AM

Some of you do realize that children are human beings, right? I am totally floored to see the lack of compassion and empathy here and how the only thing that matters is DNA to some. . Remember, the woman cheated on the guy, the kids didn't. If your dog that you got as a puppy didn't turn out to be the pedigree purebred as sold to you you likely wouldn't just stop feeding it. Throw it out on the sidewalk and say "seeya, you're not what I thought you were". So why, on Earth, would you think it's ok to do this to kids?


Because the products of your spouse cheating on you would be more an object of contempt. I'm not saying to kill them, but you may understandably want to free your hands of them completely and not continue to be burdened with the costs of their further existence.

With the puppy in your example, you at least have the option of putting it up for sale or giving it away to the SPCA without any legal obligations.

Edited by Buggernut, 24 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

  • 0

#259 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:57 AM

Because the products of your spouse cheating on you would be more an object of contempt. I'm not saying to kill them, but you may understandably want to free your hands of them completely and not continue to be burdened with the costs of their further existence.

Object of contempt??? :shock:

You may want to "free your hands" but society through Parliament, the provincial legislatures and the courts says otherwise based on very basic principles. Status as a parent does not depend solely upon biology but rather standing in loco parentis regardless of the father's lack of knowledge (fault/morality), the cheating spouse (fault/morality) is irrelevant and the overarching principle is the best interests of the children.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 24 February 2013 - 10:58 AM.

  • 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.

#260 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

Because the products of your spouse cheating on you would be more an object of contempt. I'm not saying to kill them, but you may understandably want to free your hands of them completely and not continue to be burdened with the costs of their further existence.


You must not have kids. Love for your kids doesn't just go away, no matter how tough the situation is.
  • 0

#261 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,880 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 04:12 PM

You must not have kids. Love for your kids doesn't just go away, no matter how tough the situation is.

Awful presumption.

It's not uncommon for men to have a disconnect from children that aren't theirs. I don't know where you got this presumption but it sounds like the imposition of your own subjective morals upon others. With an ex of mine I was engaged to, I would have accepted her daughter as my own, but it was not the same as when I had children of my own.

Hell, it's not uncommon for women who go through a c-section versus natural birth to have a disconnect which is why they tend to be offered counseling.

It makes no sense that a man be financially or morally obligated to be responsible for children he learns aren't his.

Edited by zaibatsu, 24 February 2013 - 04:20 PM.

  • 0

#262 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,044 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 05:26 PM

Awful presumption.

It's not uncommon for men to have a disconnect from children that aren't theirs. I don't know where you got this presumption but it sounds like the imposition of your own subjective morals upon others. With an ex of mine I was engaged to, I would have accepted her daughter as my own, but it was not the same as when I had children of my own.

Hell, it's not uncommon for women who go through a c-section versus natural birth to have a disconnect which is why they tend to be offered counseling.

It makes no sense that a man be financially or morally obligated to be responsible for children he learns aren't his.


They aren't men in any way
  • 2

#263 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,880 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:06 PM

They aren't men in any way

Did you read that from Cosmo?
  • 0

#264 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:18 PM

Did you read that from Cosmo?

Nope, it is all in here...

Posted Image
  • 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.

#265 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,824 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:17 PM

regardless of what the guy thinks, the woman in this case is at fault morally. the kids are innocent.

in the end, if the kids see you as the father, that may be enough for most people. but I can see why some men will walk away.

guys, raise kids on your own risk. these kinds of story are a big part of human history. the fact that sperms from 2 different men will kill each other in the womb goes to show you that it is a fact of life for human existence. H sapiens are not strict monogamous creatures.


Or you can just date a normal and loyal girl that won't cheat with anyone??


easier said than done. I bet the guy in this case thought she was normal and faithful too.

Edited by Jaimito, 24 February 2013 - 07:26 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#266 smokes

smokes

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 03

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

Women have more rights now than men
  • 0

#267 thepedestrian

thepedestrian

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 06

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:47 AM

They aren't men in any way


I can't believe two people upvoted this stupidity.
  • 1

#268 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:35 PM

Or you can just date a normal and loyal girl that won't cheat with anyone??


The ones that do always openly and loudly say "I'm not normal and loyal, and I cheat!".
  • 0

#269 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

Women have more rights now than men

Nope.
  • 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.

#270 Tru_Knyte

Tru_Knyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,355 posts
  • Joined: 25-December 05

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

Out of curiosity, if the roles had been reversed would the woman have been forced to pay the spousal support? E.g. if children were from prior relationship

Edited by Tru_Knyte, 26 February 2013 - 12:53 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image




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.