Quote:
Originally Posted by Dextro
I find it extremely unfair that some people get tax breaks and other government advantages just because they signed a contract with each other. It's a seriously outdated notion and to me represents yet another way that religion has affected everyday life. If I ever get married it'll probably be because whoever I'm with wants to, not because I'll particularly push for it.
|
I don't think it's religious in nature. Society has traditionally depended on and expected growth of its population. It's sort of expected that marriage leads to children, but children are expensive to rear; thus, to encourage child-bearing, there's that tax incentive.
It's a perfectly valid argument to say that tax incentives should only be given to people who have children (and I include adoptive parents - including homosexual couples - in that). The rules seem a little strange as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigress
My favourite auntie who is such a sweet lady and I sometimes spend some summers with her is a role model of what not to do. She told me about the guy she was dating when they were both 21. They mutually split because they were too young to marry but she really loved him. Now she regrets it with everything because the one she went on to marry in the end left her with 2 small kids and went off with another one. Her kids are my age now but she never dated anyone again. I would never want to settle for second best like she did. ^.^
|
Who's to say that she wouldn't be worse off with the first guy? As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. The tough thing about making a commitment to be with someone for the rest of your life is that it's impossible to know how they'll change, or for that matter, how you'll change. Even if you date someone for years it's impossible to fully know what's ahead. Even if they're not actively hiding anything, they may undergo experiences that radically transform them. Did your aunt really think that she was going with "second best" when she married her ex-husband? She probably felt that she was making the best choice possible at the time, and with time it just didn't pan out.
My wife and I have both changed since we met. Alongside our personal changes and circumstance changes, our relationship has changed as well. In some ways it has changed for the better; in some ways it has changed for the worse. Looking ahead, we have a few location changes ahead of us, career developments, children, and other life-changing experiences to go through. We've done a great job of growing together and staying pretty well synchronized with one another, and we're both devoted to keeping things that way. All the same, I recognize that we have some challenges ahead of us, and we'll both need to work to ensure that the relationship continues to flourish through them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolks
I always thought the problem with "nice" guys was the passive aggressive idea that "being nice" solicited an equal return of love/romance/sex.
|
There are many reasons behind this, but I think the big problem with "nice guys" is that they're too passive. Many "nice guys" consider outright hitting on a girl to be "bad boy" territory. The fantasy that "nice guys" harbor is to get close to a girl, learn about her, and basically charm her. When it seems like she's into you and things are a sure bet, that's when you try to shift the relationship in a romantic direction.
You can only generalize so much, but a lot of girls don't like that. One thing that a lot of girls (and guys) claim to be appealing about guys over girls is how forthright they are. They just come out and say things; you don't have to guess hidden intentions or the true meaning behind wordplay.
It may seem aggressive to express interest and force a girl to decide whether she's interested enough to go on a date with you, but I think you can do that and still be a "nice guy."