Sagamite:


A house has a value.

You separate it based on how much and proportion of contribution to the value.

I know but if hubby's business fails and he has no money to pay for his debt, then he will have to sell the house. He cannot sell only half of it so the wife will have to sell her half too or else poor dude is in trouble. That's the issue. She will have to move out of the house even though the problem was created by her husband.

carefreewannabe:


I know but if hubby's business fails and he has no money to pay for his debt, then he will have to sell the house. He cannot sell only half of it so the wife will have to sell her half too or else poor dude is in trouble. That's the issue. She will have to move out of the house even though the problem was created by her husband.

She does not have to sell her half.

He can sell his half if he feels like it. That is easy.

If he is in trouble, that is his problem. No one is forcing her.

His debtors can take claim over the half if they wish.

Sagamite:


She does not have to sell her half.

He can sell his half if he feels like it. That is easy.

His debtors can take claim over the half if they wish.

Will she and their kids have to live with strangers in the house then?

carefreewannabe:


Will she have and their kids have to live with strangers in the house then?

They can pay a financial value (rent) if it is their primary home.

Sagamite:


They can pay a financial value (rent) if it is their primary home.

Who?

carefreewannabe:


Who?

The wife.

She has the options of:

- Selling her half and then going to get another property worth her half.
- Buying her husband's half from him so he can use the money to pay his creditors.
- Paying the creditors half of market value rent every month if they take half the property, they (the creditors) still keep their half till the house is sold.

Sagamite:


https://www.nairaland.com/1956761/ladies-consider-marrying-into-polygamous/3#28391870

"Marriage by law is merely a mating association registered with the local authorities because it has some value in the society's configuration, based on the values that local host society desires.

Beyond that (registration), it should not be the business of the authorities how the parties in it decide to enjoy it as long as no physical restraints or violence is used."

I see.

If it's merely a mating association, why must it be registered with the local authorities? I mean, even those who aren't married mate like there's no tomorrow for various reasons - reasons which also hold values for them and the society they find themselves in. For example, people mate:

~ For revenge against cheating spouses

~ To increase their career prospects

~ For acceptance

~ To reduce the occurrences of r@pe

~ To gain popularity

~ To reduce the chances of getting prostrate cancer (according to Nairaland's recently condoned "research"

As per the last line of your post, why is it necessary that marriages be registered? I mean what's the point of knowing who's shagging who if that's what is really all about - mating purposes? You don't even need to be married to mate!

Sagamite:


The wife.

She has the options of:

- Selling her half and then going to get another property worth her half.
- Buying her husband's half from him so he can use the money to pay his creditors.
- Paying the creditors half of market value rent every month if they take half the property, they (the creditors) still keep their half till the house is sold.

Ok.

EfemenaXY:


I see.

If it's merely a mating association, why must it be registered with the local authorities? I mean, even those who aren't married mate like there's no tomorrow for various reasons - reasons which also hold values for them and the society they find themselves in. For example, people mate:

~ For revenge against cheating spouses

~ To increase their career prospects

~ For acceptance

~ To reduce the occurrences of r@pe

~ To gain popularity

~ To reduce the chances of getting prostrate cancer (according to Nairaland's recently condoned "research"

WTF is this, Efemenaxy?

EfemenaXY:

As per the last line of your post, why is it necessary that marriages be registered? I mean what's the point of knowing who's shagging who if that's what is really all about - mating purposes? You don't even need to be married to mate!

- For tax reasons.

- For religious dogma.

- For transfer of assets and estates after death.

- To encourage controlled population growth by having people give birth to a generation that can support the future OAPs.

- To raise kids in a stable environment to reduce public disorder.

Those are some of the reasons why marriages are useful being registered.

For whatever the fck these society value and desire.

Sagamite:


The wife.

She has the options of:

- Selling her half and then going to get another property worth her half.
- Buying her husband's half from him so he can use the money to pay his creditors.
- Paying the creditors half of market value rent every month if they take half the property, they (the creditors) still keep their half till the house is sold.

So basically, they should maintain individual holds of their assets. Married but operating like singles?

So where does the concept of two becoming one fit in? Marriage is meant to be a union. His becomes hers and vice versa. Where is the union in what you're advocating for?

Sagamite:


WTF is this, Efemenaxy?



- For tax reasons.

- For religious dogma.

- For transfer of assets and estates after death.

- To encourage controlled population growth by having people give birth to a generation that can support the future OAPs.

- To raise kids in a stable environment to reduce public disorder.

Those are some of the reasons why marriages are useful being registered.

For whatever the fck these society value and desire.

In case of accidents, to be allowed to see the husband / wife when he / she is in coma and to be allowed to make decisions for him / her when he / she is not able to.

For school teachers to know how to call mummy and daddy. It is confusing when each family member has a different name.

What else?

Thinking hard.

EfemenaXY:


So basically, they should maintain individual holds of their assets. Married but operating like singles?

So where does the concept of two becoming one fit in? Marriage is meant to be a union. His becomes hers and vice versa. Where is the union in what you're advocating for?

Who told you marriage MUST be two becoming one?

What makes you think marriage has to be a union? And a union you define?

Your Shush?

The platitudes you have heard banded about?

My definition of marriage is my business with whoever I engage in one with. Just the way your definition of marriage is your business with whoever you engage in one with.

You don't and can't define mine for me, and I don't and can't define yours for you, except you are marrying me. That would make you the luckiest woman on Earth by the way.

Under my approach, you will be 149.346% free to define your marriage as a union where 98 becomes 3 and you can become superman, wonderwoman and vice versa. You can operate like a yo-yo or TV batteries.

It is bespoke. Just put it in your marriage agreement for YOU and YOUR PARTNER.

Just don't force your views on others. I came to this world alone and will die alone. I am not a Schizophrenic.

EfemenaXY:


So basically, they should maintain individual holds of their assets. Married but operating like singles?

So where does the concept of two becoming one fit in? Marriage is meant to be a union. His becomes hers and vice versa. Where is the union in what you're advocating for?

This is what I have just been thinking as a rather pragmatic and less romantic person who considers prenups fair and useful.
It all sounds so ... un-family like.

Sagamite, what about LA FAMILIA?

carefreewannabe:


In case of accidents, to be allowed to see the husband / wife when he / she is in coma and to be allowed to make decisions for him / her when he / she is not able to.

For school teachers to know how to call mummy and daddy. It is confusing when each family member has a different name.

What else?

Thinking hard.

Thank you.

Efemenaxy, more details of the reasons for registration for you.

carefreewannabe:
Sagamite, what about LA FAMILIA?

You decide how you wanna live as a family.

That is not necessarily linked to how you divide when you are no more a family.

Sagamite:


You decide how you wanna live as a family.

That is not necessarily linked to how you divide when you are no more a family.

True.

Sagamite:


WTF is this, Efemenaxy?

Mind boggling, innit?

What's wrong with my list? Those are valid reasons too, aren't they?

Sagamite:


- For tax reasons.

You don't have to be married to claim that. Merely living with your partner is enough.

Sagamite:
- For religious dogma.

Marriage isn't the exclusive preserve of the religious. Even non-religious people / atheists get married too.

Sagamite:
- For transfer of assets and estates after death.

That can be achieved without having to get married. Having a will is sufficient.

Sagamite:
- To encourage controlled population growth by having people give birth to a generation that can support the future OAPs.

Oh please! Come on Saga. There aren't any laws restricting the number of kids a person can have...unless of course you live in China and are bound by it's laws of one child per person for it's citizens. Even single parents here in the UK until recently were earning more than their working counterparts in terms of Social Benefits given to them. The more kids you push out, the bigger your slice of the national cake. It got so bad - to the point where it was common knowledge that you'll lose more if you decide to work, with your large brood.

Sagamite:
- To raise kids in a stable environment to reduce public disorder.

That's an ideal scenario but not always practical. You've got societal misfits from two parent families just as you've got those who've contributed well to society from single parent backgrounds.

Sagamite:
Those are some of the reasons why marriages are useful being registered.

For whatever the fck these society value and desire.

Societal values and desires are subjective and vary from region to region. The institution of marriage isn't that varied and is generally the same across the globe, apart from a few deviants of course (which is the norm for most things in life anyway).

Ranchhoddas:
you don't wanna know.

Exactly

This feminism thing is going too far..how can Efemena be arguing/fighting with sagamilo her husband in public. No respect for the head of the family

Sagamite:


Who told you marriage MUST be two becoming one?

What makes you think marriage has to be a union? And a union you define?

Your Shush?

The platitudes you have heard banded about?

My definition of marriage is my business with whoever I engage in one with. Just the way your definition of marriage is your business with whoever you engage in one with.

You don't and can't define mine for me, and I don't and can't define yours for you, except you are marrying me. That would make you the luckiest woman on Earth by the way.

Under my approach, you will be 149.346% free to define your marriage as a union where 98 becomes 3 and you can become superman, wonderwoman and vice versa. You can operate like a yo-yo or TV batteries.

It is bespoke. Just put it in your marriage agreement for YOU and YOUR PARTNER.

Just don't force your views on others. I came to this world alone and will die alone. I am not a Schizophrenic.

If marriage isn't a union, then what is it? A business decision / agreement? And if that's what it really is, then how is that relationship any different to that which one holds with his or her colleagues at work?

Why get married then? You certainly don't need to marry your co-workers even though you operate in a certain environment with clear-cut expectations from you with regards to your conduct, performance and business decisions. As I type this, I'm thinking of the response you gave to Carefreewannabe about what should happen if a man decided to go into business, it goes bust with him having to sell the family home to offset his debts to his creditors.

Now that divide and conquer solution scenario you gave is no different to what happens in your average working place. You only get paid (rewarded) for what you put it. Same as how you say assets should be divided up in case of a divorce settlement between a man and his wife.

carefreewannabe:

In case of accidents, to be allowed to see the husband / wife when he / she is in coma and to be allowed to make decisions for him / her when he / she is not able to.
For school teachers to know how to call mummy and daddy. It is confusing when each family member has a different name.
What else?
Thinking hard.

Sagamite:


Thank you.

Efemenaxy, more details of the reasons for registration for you.

Single unmarried people also have accidents and slip into comas. The next of kin (most likely a family member) gets called upon to make that decision. So there again, you don't need to be married for the doctors to decide whether or not to switch off your life support or make decisions for your when you're incapacitated and unable to do so.

Re: teachers needing to know whom to call mummy and daddy - again, you're thinking in terms of traditionally monogamous marriages. Schools admit kids from single parents, orphans looked after by the state / council. In the latter case, do they need to know who mummy and daddy are?

jennykadry:
This feminism thing is going too far..how can Efemena be arguing/fighting sagamilo her husband in public. No respect for the head

Of course I lurrrrrvvvvveeee and respect my Sagalicious Faka-Faka Boom-Boom of a hubby.

But I dey vex small. He publicly demoted me back to 3rd wife and it hurts like hell! All my scheming and planning to lay my hands on those fertile farmlands is nought. Zilch.

EfemenaXY:


Mind boggling, innit?

What's wrong with my list? Those are valid reasons too, aren't they?

I said "Marriage by law is merely a mating association registered ...." and somehow you came up with "Why is all mating not registered"?

That is like me saying "A motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels" and you turning around and saying "Then why do all vehicles not have two wheels".

EfemenaXY:

You don't have to be married to claim that. Merely living with your partner is enough.

You don't get this point too.

Governments give couples in marriages tax benefits. They do this because they like people to get married and it is easier to monitor as there is a public declaration.

Otherwise, I, living in a two-bedroom council estate in Peckham with 12 other people, can claim we are married without any verification. And when I move, I would still claim it because it is not registered.

EfemenaXY:

Marriage isn't the exclusive preserve of the religious. Even non-religious people / atheists get married too.

I know!

And they all define it in different ways. And only accept it when registered.

Some societies promote it based on religion.

EfemenaXY:

That can be achieved without having to get married. Having a will is sufficient.

Many people do not have a will or don't write one before they die. Some die unexpectedly young, some old and too lazy to.

Marriage helps the government sought it out easily.

EfemenaXY:

Oh please! Come on Saga. There aren't any laws restricting the number of kids a person can have...unless of course you live in China and are bound by it's laws of one child per person for it's citizens. Even single parents here in the UK until recently were earning more than their working counterparts in terms of Social Benefits given to them. The more kids you push out, the bigger your slice of the national cake. It got so bad - to the point where it was common knowledge that you'll lose more if you decide to work, with your large brood.

I did not say that.

What I said is that governments encourage marriage to limit rabbit-like conceptions and encourage an environment which is best for a child.

As for single-mother promotion, that is the stupidity you get when you listen to 'funky liberal progressives' with their delusional Utopian solution to problems and issues. Solutions that are only proffered because they want to look like "I am a good person", cool or different, not because it is the most efficient and effective.

EfemenaXY:

That's an ideal scenario but not always practical. You've got societal misfits from two parent families just as you've got those who've contributed well to society from single parent backgrounds.

I know it is not always practical but many governments want marriage because it gives you better odds than single-parenthood.

EfemenaXY:

Societal values and desires are subjective and vary from region to region. The institution of marriage isn't that varied and is generally the same across the globe, apart from a few deviants of course (which is the norm for most things in life anyway).

The institution of marriage is highly varied across the world. It is not the same across the globe.

It is colonisation, Western cultural domination and the globalisation due to technology that is changing that.

EfemenaXY:


Single unmarried people also have accidents and slip into comas. The next of kin (most likely a family member) gets called upon to make that decision. So there again, you don't need to be married for the doctors to decide whether or not to switch off your life support or make decisions for your when you're incapacitated and unable to do so.

Re: teachers needing to know whom to call mummy and daddy - again, you're thinking in terms of traditionally monogamous marriages. Schools admit kids from single parents, orphans looked after by the state / council. In the latter case, do they need to know who mummy and daddy are?

No Efe, this is not what I meant, teachers do not know by what name to call the parents when parents have different surnames even when they know who mummy and daddy are.

EfemenaXY:


If marriage isn't a union, then what is it? A business decision / agreement? And if that's what it really is, then how is that relationship any different to that which one holds with his or her colleagues at work?

It is whatever you and your partner decide it to be.

Others will decide what they want theirs to be.

If they want it to be like that of his or her colleagues at work, that is their business and their business only.

Yours can be the union of Isreal and Palestine if you wish. Just don't expect your dogma to be forced on others.

EfemenaXY:

Why get married then? You certainly don't need to marry your co-workers even though you operate in a certain environment with clear-cut expectations from you with regards to your conduct, performance and business decisions.

Feel free to get married for your own reasons and let others marry or don't marry for their own reasons. There is nothing in the law dictating what marriage should be except you are in a place like Saudi Arabia where Islam is a way of life.

EfemenaXY:

As I type this, I'm thinking of the response you gave to Carefreewannabe about what should happen if a man decided to go into business, it goes bust with him having to sell the family home to offset his debts to his creditors.

Now that divide and conquer solution scenario you gave is no different to what happens in your average working place. You only get paid (rewarded) for what you put it. Same as how you say assets should be divided up in case of a divorce settlement between a man and his wife.

Well what I suggested and what happens in the work place just happens to normally be the fairest way for all parties.

That said, you and your partner are free to come up with any unfair mechanism to either of you. It is YOU PEEPS' marriage.

EfemenaXY:

Single unmarried people also have accidents and slip into comas. The next of kin (most likely a family member) gets called upon to make that decision. So there again, you don't need to be married for the doctors to decide whether or not to switch off your life support or make decisions for your when you're incapacitated and unable to do so.

Re: teachers needing to know whom to call mummy and daddy - again, you're thinking in terms of traditionally monogamous marriages. Schools admit kids from single parents, orphans looked after by the state / council. In the latter case, do they need to know who mummy and daddy are?

For unmarried people, the next of kin would always be the parents or sibling, not their partner.

If I am in a coma now, the person that the authorities would likely call is my brother because he stays in the UK, not my girlfriend.

And he would most likely tell them to switch off the life-support machine because he would see it as his opportunity to inherit all our land in Sagamu on his own.

jennykadry:
This feminism thing is going too far..how can Efemena be arguing/fighting with sagamilo her husband in public. No respect for the head of the family

Feminism don scatter him head.

I need to call UK Home Office to tell them I am cancelling my sponsorship of her right to stay.

Make we send am back go Africa and learn to be a woman.

EfemenaXY:


Of course I lurrrrrvvvvveeee and respect my Sagalicious Faka-Faka Boom-Boom of a hubby.
But I dey vex small. He publicly demoted me back to 3rd wife and it hurts like hell! All my scheming and planning to lay my hands on those fertile farmlands is nought. Zilch.

For Sagamu, na only first son they inherit everything.

Sagamite:


I said "Marriage by law is merely a mating association registered ...." and somehow you came up with "Why is all mating not registered"?

That is like me saying "A motorcycle is a vehicle with two wheels" and you turning around and saying "Then why do all vehicles not have two wheels".

Arrgghhh! Stop messing with my head. You'll only succeed in confusing me!

What I meant with my question was, if marriage is merely a registered mating association, then why register it in the first place, seeing as a lot of unregistered mating goes on anyway?

Sagamite:

You don't get this point too.

Governments give couples in marriages tax benefits. They do this because they like people to get married and it is easier to monitor as there is a public declaration.

Otherwise, I, living in a two-bedroom council estate in Peckham with 12 other people, can claim we are married without any verification. And when I move, I would still claim it because it is not registered.

Okay, I get you now...

Sagamite:

I know!

And they all define it in different ways. And only accept it when registered.

Some societies promote it based on religion.



Many people do not have a will or don't write one before they die. Some die unexpectedly young, some old and too lazy to.

Marriage helps the government sought it out easily.

It's only "easier" for the government to sort out if the married spouse didn't leave a will before their demise. You do have cases where a married person may decide for reasons best known to them to leave a will instructing that all of his or her assets be given to non-family members or even to their local dogs / cats home. This is where you then have the miffed, by-passed family member(s) contesting the will at court.

That aside, even those who made their millions without getting married still have their estate shared out to family members in the absence of a will. And if no family member is identified, it eventually goes back to the Treasury. (Have you ever watched the program Heir Hunters? Quite insightful...)

Sagamite:

I did not say that.

What I said is that governments encourage marriage to limit rabbit-like conceptions and encourage an environment which is best for a child.

As for single-mother promotion, that is the stupidity you get when you listen to 'funky liberal progressives' with their delusional Utopian solution to problems and issues. Solutions that are only proffered because they want to look like "I am a good person", cool or different, not because it is the most efficient and effective.

I know it is not always practical but many governments want marriage because it gives you better odds than single-parenthood.

At one point, Britain had the highest number of teenage pregnancies in the whole of Europe. Advocating for marriage certainly didn't limit those rabbit-like conceptions. I do agree with your point about bringing up a child in a two parent environment could be for a child on condition that that child is loved by both parents. But this again is too generalistic. The modern family is not always shaped by your pre 60's model of mum and dad, Peter and Jane ladybird-like stories...

Sagamite:

The institution of marriage is highly varied across the world. It is not the same across the globe.

It is colonisation, Western cultural domination and the globalisation due to technology that is changing that.

Now that's a very interesting point. Valid one too. Why didn't I think of that?

carefreewannabe:


No Efe, this is not what I meant, teachers do not know by what name to call the parents when parents have different surnames even when they know who mummy and daddy are.

Prefixing the forename with Ms. or Mr always works as per Ms. Sandra...or Mr John. I don't see how that should pose an issue in the first place.

EfemenaXY:


Prefixing the forename with Ms. or Mr always works as per Ms. Sandra...or Mr John. I don't see how that should pose an issue in the first place.

Yeah, that might work in the UK but not in Germany. Anyway, no issue sweets just another reason to get married.

Sagamite:


It is whatever you and your partner decide it to be.

Others will decide what they want theirs to be.

If they want it to be like that of his or her colleagues at work, that is their business and their business only.

Yours can be the union of Isreal and Palestine if you wish. Just don't expect your dogma to be forced on others.



Feel free to get married for your own reasons and let others marry or don't marry for their own reasons. There is nothing in the law dictating what marriage should be except you are in a place like Saudi Arabia where Islam is a way of life.



Well what I suggested and what happens in the work place just happens to normally be the fairest way for all parties.

That said, you and your partner are free to come up with any unfair mechanism to either of you. It is YOU PEEPS' marriage.

This your line of argument is just wack!

So marriage isn't a union but a business decision with subjective views on what's fair and what isn't? And the point you make about people defining what it should mean to them - yes, I get that - but some form of univerality (if that's a word sef) is needed na, don't you think? Of all the billions of people walking on the surface of the earth, if say, 1 billion of them do get married, how sustainable would it be to have 1 billion definitions of what their union marriage is?

I don't see how saying marriage is a union between the involved parties is pushing one's dogma on others.