Comments on: And we thought the U.S. government was obsessed with marriage!

By: Onely

Onely — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:58:57 +0000

I don’t know how other countries treat their unsingles, but you can read Onadraught’s comment below about how the Australian government pays people 5,000 per baby. . .

Just for fun, I googled Chattel. Here is Electric Law’s definition (it “belongs to the person of a MAN” apparently):

CHATTEL – Personal property, movable or immovable, which is less than a freehold; for example, a book, a coat, a pencil, growing corn, a lease.

A term which includes all kinds of property except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels.

Chattels Are Personal Or Real. Personal are such as belong immediately to the person of a man; chattels real are such as either appertain not immediately to the person, but to something by way of dependency, as a box with the title deeds of lands; or such as are issuing out of some real estate, as a lease of lands, or term of years, which pass like personally to the executor of the owner

By: Singletude: A Positive Blog for Singles

Singletude: A Positive Blog for Singles — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:18:26 +0000

Dear God! I just want to barf that the Saudi Arabians are selling women like chattel! Not that that’s anything new over there, but it’s so creepy when you can substitute a promise like “you too can get a free car” with “wife.” I guess any make and model will do as long as she’s not used.

I do think these extreme practices make the U.S. look better, but that doesn’t mean what goes on here isn’t a problem. That’s similar to the argument that neocons haul out every time someone criticizes any aspect of America: “If you don’t like it, move to Africa.” Um, no. I’m not saying that it would be preferable to live in a third-world country. I’m saying that this country could be better.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think some other Westernized countries are even worse than the U.S. and give married couples, especially those with children, even more benefits. I support more socialized services here, but sometimes it seems like socialized services go hand in hand with more special benefits for marrieds. Wish we could have more of the former with less of the latter!

By: Onely

Onely — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:24:26 +0000

BBLLLLEEEEEAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHH

By: Onely

Onely — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:41:40 +0000

You’re right, Lauri–It would be great to get some stats on how many legal rights are provided to marrieds in the US versus in, say, some European countries. (In your free time. . . ) = ) = )

By: Onadrought

Onadrought — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:02:11 +0000

Can’t think of something similar in Australia to get couples together, however, the government, in it’s quest to get people breeding, gives you more than $5500 (about $5000 US)to have a child. A baby bonus. It’s not income tested, so Nicole Kidman, being an Australian, can get it too (I’m sure she didn’t claim it).

Can you imagine what this has done to the teenage birthrate? And addicts? They think $5000 is a huge amount, but of course it can’t raise a child. Living in a country with a decent welfare system which I am all in in favour of, I just don’t think people should be given money to couple or to make babies.