Reply With Quote
Imagine the alimony he's going to be paying in 5 years.
Enough Romney, enough Obama, enough abortion, enough global warming. Board is getting stale.
I'm cool with this. Discuss.
Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be en led to family rights.
She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.
But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as "absurd and totally illegal".
The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.
Imagine the alimony he's going to be paying in 5 years.
M W W - all good
otherwise, ewwwww.
If they're not hurting anyone, who cares.
Mitt Romney's grandfather wonders why this thread got started.
What do you have against WWW?
I'm down with M B S.
Man Beer Steak.
Imagine all the fun he's going to have in the mean time.
The sanc y of the >= 1.0 vagina/penis ratio must be preserved!
I could never be faithful. Like Homer said, they smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one! But you can't stop at one. You wanna drink another! And another!
Three-way is overrated unless you could grow a second tbh.Imagine all the fun he's going to have in the mean time.
See, I don't have an open enough mind...didn't even think of it.
No, no no....with two wives dude can have sex TWICE a month.
We have an "open" relationship arrangement.
...nevermind. 101's was better.
I guess as long as they pro-create..they are ok.
You're gonna to that to a steak? What the 's wrong with you?
I don't care that much about the union itself. The only question that the government / society should care about is how to treat the en y for tax purposes. Do you treat the extra party as a spouse? Dependant?
Spouse. Seems like the tax issue is as simple as just one more deduction.
That's because you are a bigoted singlist.
Stop Singlism!
Leslie Talbot
Listen up, singletons. If you've given up on the dating scene and resigned yourself to a lifetime of solitude culminating in a fatal fall in the shower and subsequent consumption by starving house pets, here's something else to fret about:
You're a member of the only minority subject to officially sanctioned discrimination--call it singlism.
As one of our nation's 90 million unmarried citizens, I've become inured to the social pressure to couple up--the backhanded insults and armchair psychoanalysis meted out by friends, co-workers, and well-meaning strangers at the bus stop whenever my marital status comes under scrutiny. And, believe me, I've heard it all. Selfish? Check. Immature? Check. Emotionally unstable? Check. Too picky for my own good? Check, check, and check.
But I've never bought into the prevailing notion that a perfectly fulfilling singular existence is little more than a karmic consolation prize. As far as I'm concerned, there's no more unfulfilling existence than one spent trapped with the wrong person. Take my word for it--a loveless marriage will sap your spirit and your sanity a lot more quickly than a lifetime of dateless Saturday nights. For me, then, and for many of the 41% of adults in this country who are single, singlehood is not merely the right choice. It is the responsible choice.
That's why I'm always so perplexed when confronted with evidence that the rest of the world believes otherwise.
From the workplace to the voting booth to your own backyard, the message to singles is clear, consistent, and omnipresent: Married:good! Single: bad! And, just to be sure you don't miss the point, there's no shortage of folks ready to pile on, just itching to remind you that, no matter how responsible and productive a member of society you think you are, without that "special someone" waiting for you at home, you are but a societal dilettante, unworthy of the rights, privileges and respect extended so enthusiastically to the coupled.
Single people make up a significant portion of the workforce, so you might think their employers would make at least a token effort to keep them happy. You'd be wrong. In their zeal to appear "family friendly," companies often overcompensate at the expense of singles, pressuring unmarried employees to travel more frequently, work more weekends and holidays, stay later during the week and refrain from taking time off during school vacation season, regardless of rank or seniority.
Not that all this extra work translates into a higher salary. A 2004 study by economists Kate Antonovics and Robert Town found that marriage increases men's wages by as much as 27%. All told, when pension, insurance and other benefits are factored in, married workers frequently end up out-earning their single counterparts by thousands of dollars a year.
Corporate America isn't any friendlier to singles on the consumer side of the equation, opting instead to shower their discounts on the wedded in the form of preferred insurance rates and "family" memberships at gyms and country clubs. And if you're considering a solo cruise or vacation to a posh resort or spa, make sure you've saved up enough to cover the "singles supplement" you'll be charged for daring to occupy an entire room by yourself. Happy trails!
Unfair, you cry? Don't look to the government for any redress, because they're in on it too. Anti-discrimination laws cover race, religion, gender and age--but singles go woefully unprotected at the federal level. In fact, when it comes to singlism, the government is one of the worst offenders, waving the tax code like a magical fairy wand of approval over married couples.
As a single homeowner, you can pay the same sale price, down payment, mortgage interest and property tax as that lovely couple in the identical house down the street--but should you choose to sell your home, you are en led to only half the maximum capital gains exemption they will receive.
And, whatever you do, don't die--at least not if you have loved ones and want to leave stuff to them. A married couple can leave each other as much property, retirement savings and Social Security benefits as the surviving spouse can carry off, tax free. A single person's property, however, can be subject to all manner of taxes, or, in the case of Social Security payments, funneled back into the Federal trough in their entirety, regardless of total lifetime contributions.
For the record, I don't begrudge married people their due. And I will gladly pony up my share of the cost to keep the playgrounds open and public schools afloat. Contributing to the common good is the price we all pay for living in a civilized world, and if I can make someone else's life a little easier in the process, then, hey, more power to me. Besides, I'd rather have your children sitting in class perfecting their spitball skills than screaming in the restaurant booth beside me.
But I refuse to accept the idea that marriage alone should call for en lements. After all, if single really is so bad, why are there so many of us? Why are we the fastest-growing demographic in the country today? And why, for every single deemed "unlucky in love," do I know a half-dozen more who deem themselves "lucky to have gotten out of that last nightmare relationship in one piece?"
The fact is, more and more Americans are deciding to marry when it's right and if it's right--not whether or not it's right. That's a state of affairs worth being thankful for. Now, if we could just get the singlists off our backs.
Next up: siblings
Hey, boutons deserves to be happy too.
Really, one shark week a month is all I can handle. I can't imagine living through two of 'em.
hahaReally, one shark week a month is all I can handle. I can't imagine living through two of 'em.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
