Why aren't you alpha?

>why aren't you alpha?
Doesn't matter the answer. You'll shit out the politically correct anecdotes to let you say "see? everything you just posted doesn't mean shit lol pussy!"

Attached: 1530348979532.jpg (988x988, 154K)

Jesus keep it in your pants mel, have you learned nothing?
I'd be pissed to be one of his younger kids, probably not going to inherit jack shit at this point

Should have stuck with her, if he's trying to be a good catholic

i honestly cant believe anyone gets married at all with the way divorce laws are

they got married 30 years ago dude

Ehhh, why doesn't he man up and date a girl his own age, grow up manchild

60 year old women can't give him more kids

>knock up some whore 7 times and expect the tax payers to deal with it

She raised 7 of his children, ran the house, and was married to him for 30 years from before his career took off. If you treat marriage as an equal partnership, like you should, then it's fine for her to get half. It's not like she married him for 2 years and then took half his money.

His a racist prick too so she deserves more for putting up with it

Ummm.... sweetie no..

when Im old and rich, I would spend time to play with my grandkids and become their role model instead of getting into a relationship with a whore that is younger than my children.

good man

Whole lotta assumptions there buddy

This.
Mel believes heavily in the Bible and procreation. He's gonna be shitting out kids til he's dead

The handsomest living man

The Jews even forgave him

You can get away with anything if you look that good

>In america you have to defend this
Our president is 70 with a wife who's 30 years younger than him and they got a child earlier this year, people mainly think it's just alpha behaviour

>got a child earlier this year
Wait where are you from

but Barron is retarded

Attached: 2663fc7e3037c2cabb509ec3351e0b08.jpg (800x463, 47K)

Barron is autistic, it's pretty much the opposite of retarded. He only seems retarded because he lacks the usual retardation. Someday it will all be his

The Republic of Mongolia

Attached: sauli_jenni_vauva[1].jpg (770x524, 57K)

choice twilight-of-fertility babe

it'll come out he's a pedo soon enough

like his face isn't proof enough

Marriage is an outdated concept, if it were purely a religious matter than fine. However it's now tied to tax codes and separate laws.

Why do you need to get married in order to spend your life with some one? Hell do you think you will be the same person in 30 years? What about your partner?

Probably for the best

Barron 2028

This is true but to keep it eugenic we have got to find a way to 1. Save Chad from having to pay all these women 2. Prevent Tyrone from taking advantage of whatever system saves Chad

>older women

Attached: klrab.jpg (244x252, 77K)

Are you baiting me?
I am really not sure with all the retards running around.

Attached: 1530519784987.jpg (600x800, 100K)

>keep it in your pants
The man was married.

>that 19 year old boomer with attitude

They deserve nothing, unless he deems them worthy of an inheritance.

I'd take a racist actor over a pedophile.

Based mel

I was just born beta I was always extremely weak and sickly and it made me depressed. Nothing I ca really do.

t. autismo in denial about being retarded

Unironically this. If you want to have more women actually being tradwives then the incentive should be raising a family together until death surrounded by loved ones. If you're going to take that away after 30 years and 7 kids to move on to other women then yeah, you have to pay for it. Fair is fair. Obviously though this only applies to actual long term commitment on the woman's part, not some short-term game.

u have to believe

this

Because I love a certain legume native to East Asia,

Attached: 1523988918878.jpg (335x369, 35K)

I can’t believe poor guys get married. Think about it:

Mel still has hundreds of millions of dollars. He’ll be fine.

Poor guy making 50 grand a year is fucked.

Attached: 98ED9F21-62D9-4F64-90CF-CC100C931F4C.png (370x320, 10K)

There is no reason anyone should ever get anything from his spouse following divorce.

based Mel

When you enter into a marriage, you are supposed to cease being one person and become a part of the marriage. If a man marries a woman and he pays the bills while she raises the kids, then he divorces her once the kids are grown, she shouldn't be left with nothing while he takes all the assets.

>If this was me my gf will be born in 11 years

Yeah that's fucking weird. Good on him though

YEs. But not half you tard. In no way is 850 fucking millions justified.

See In the eyes of most western countries, dating back to English/European common law, the individual wife and husband cease to exist financially and operate as a unit.

It's the same as if two men enter into a 50/50 business partnership. Regardless of which one contributed more financially, if they dissolve the partnership they will each walk away with half.

As said, you can't complain about women not being traditional while at the same time not being traditional yourself.

You cannot be anything other than one person. Child-support is a sensible idea, since both spouses are responsable for generating human life, and the children cannot take care of themselves. That isn't the case with your spouse. Again, there is no reason why you should be legally obligated to give them anything following divorce.

>The Jews even forgave him

How can one human being be so based?

They were her children too. He supported her while she was raising them. Now that she no longer does that, she gets half of what he has?

>you need hundreds of millions of dollars to raise 7 kids

If you're talking in a purely legal sense then you're wrong on that count too. If the wife stays at home and takes care of the children you're essentially getting a lifetime of labour while she is permanently removed from the job market with no future opportunities to sustain herself.
Consider the cost of paying for a 24/7 maid, chef, and nanny longterm. Yes the kids do eventually grow up, but who is then going to hire a 60+ year old woman with no job experience outside of the home?
If after that you still don't want to pay any money - then why get divorced? Stay married, get a younger mistress, and send the wife elsewhere. It's not like that's never been done before.

Never get married you retards. Put all your income and property into an LLC so you don't actually own or earn anything.

Not tall enough, dad was an alcoholic, grew up playing a lot of vidya instead of physical activity and i was more or less raised by final fantasy characters so my father figures were twink teen pretty boys from Japanese video games.

Damn son.

If the wife stays at home and does as you specify, then I don't see why she should be entitled to half your goods. The wife is not your worker, she is not working for you, she is not an unpaid worker, she is working, in a sense, for her own benefits. In fact, if you want to insist on this ''working'' analogy, it would really be more accurate to say that she is a paid worker, her payment being whatever it is that you are bringing into the marriage.

A childless marriage is no different from me and a friend living together in an apartment, with me, say, paying the bills and him doing the housework. We live together for the sake of convenience, exchanging my ability to pay the bills for his ability to do housework, an exchange that is presumably a true 50/50 exchange, where both ''products'' are of equal value. In reality, the products are never of equal value, housework being worth significantly less than what a rich spouse would earn, and worth more than what a very poor spouse would earn.

Now suppose me and my friend would stop living together and go our own way, there is no reason he should arbitrarily get half of what I own, because I owe him nothing, and I owe him nothing because we were exchanging at (presumably) a true 50/50 rate ; me paying the bills was ''payment'' for his services, and him doing the housework was ''payment'' for me bringing in the money. That his ''skills'' happen to be incidentally not as useful for living on your own compared to mine is his problem, and his alone, not mine. In fact, if that's the case, that devalues his ''skills'' compared to mine, making the winner in the exchange, which is another reason why he is not entitled to anything following our separation.

I am not saying the law works this way. I am not trying to say ''here's how the law works [...]'' I am trying to say something like this '' Here's the right analysis of marriage, and if my analysis is correct, then the law ought to be modified to represent that''

>Barron is autistic, it's pretty much the opposite of retarded
Kek

Listen, stupid, I'm not the guy you're replying to but marriage is the creation of a single legal entity, the husband and the wife. There is no his and hers assets, there are only their, or depending on perspective, our, assets. This is why they're entitled to half. On dissolution of the entity the assets must be split in a way that is fair. If you don't like it don't sign legally binding marriage documents.

This is why you don't get married
If you want kids, adopt a fucker.
If you want to fuck, fuck the fucker

I'm not trying to shill you or anything, but I still disagree. In your scenario you're talking about a housing arrangement with nothing else. However if your friend was also your gay lover, even without marraige many countries would recognize the arrangement as a civil partnership and then yes, he still would be entitled to financial assistance from you, especially if you've been together for decades.
All you are doing is denying the idea that a family unit is meant to be a partnership, so no wonder it makes sense to you.
Personally I see nothing alpha or moral about expecting a life partner to just go away and die quietly once you're done with them. The laws may not always be fair, but they exist to protect people from this very thing.

You two idiots are confusing the division of marital assets and alimony, and speaking as if they're the same thing. Stop it.

He should be defending why he has impregnated a woman who is post wall.

BASED and redpilled

>t.brainlet
stay incel

AGREED

ALSO: NOT FIT RELATED NOW FUCK OFF

Attached: 0A3D1FEC-F8A5-4461-8475-2B60BAE79548.jpg (610x644, 83K)

Why is everyone mad? He didn't sign a prenup. If you plan on becoming that rich and famous then you should have that conversation before tying the knot.

Except the pitiful $450 million he got to keep

>California

This. Pairing off for life might have come natural for our species, but "marriage" is legal fiction
>inb4 not so because muh sanctity of marriage
You cannot belch the above while supporting divorce. You cannot shit on the effects of divorce while supporting the ability to divorce

Divorce laws are not in place to logically divide estates, they are to encourage families to stay together.

The government needs families having and raising well-adjusted kids so they and their off spring can pay taxes and contribute to society.

When you try to seek truth and logic in common law, you will always fail, but if you seek motivators for the continuation and improvement of that society as a whole, you will begin to understand why Jow Forums has swung right, Trump won and how illogical the Democratic Party has become to the entirety of politics in America today

There is almost always a clearly defined breadwinner in every relationship. With no one wanting to lose their hard earned wealth, the divorce laws often work to keep established people married.

Even though you agree with me I disagree with you. Marriage is multi-faceted. It's a cultural, social, religious, political and administrative decision. It exists as an extension of these multivariate institutions and while it can be separated into distinct parts these parts cannot be separated from the whole.

Though it may seem hypocritical you can argue for the sanctity of marriage whilst being opposed to the outcome of divorce but also support divorce for social reasons. All of this being said, none of that has any bearing on what I personally think, I'm simply stating facts.

>9 children
>9 individual offspring that I assume are all gonna make it to adult age and continue his linage
This. This, is what I want.

Attached: 1512511925839.jpg (1024x1340, 163K)

Mel had 850 mil. Split that in half and he and his ex wife got 425 mil. Assuming he made no money since:
When Mel and his ex-wife die, the 7 oldest kids will get $107.9 million each ($425 mil / 9 kids = $47.2 mil per kid from Mel + $425 mil / 7 kids = $60.7 mil/kid from the ex-wife)
The two youngest kids will get the $47.2 mil from Mel.

I think they'll be fine.

> love means love WTF YOU CANT DATE 21 YEAR OLD WOMEN, SHE IS UGLY ANYWAY. I AM 34 WITH A SOLID JOB IN HR. YOU SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORCED TO MARRY SOMEONE CLOSER TO YOUR AGE LIKE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE AAAAARGHHHGHHHHHHHHHHH

Marriage is a legal fiction as far as divorce and divorce laws are concerned, but the two didn't grow from a vacuum. You can't be against the effects of divorce yet support divorce at the same time, as that incel brainlet seem to imply.
The consequences of divorce came to be to try and protect the sanctity of marriage by discouraging divorce. Despite the codified JUSTing, divorces still happen because the penis is powerful

Attached: henry-viii.jpg (2048x1307, 351K)

Good man.

It's the only way to stop the world falling into another dark age

This is wrong and I explained why in my post. Take your thinly veiled pol/r9k LARPing about religion back to where you came from.

>about religion
>/ourguy/ Henry VIII literally made his own religion so he can have more wives
>Though it may seem hypocritical you can argue for the sanctity of marriage whilst being opposed to the outcome of divorce but also support divorce for social reasons. All of this being said, none of that has any bearing on what I personally think, I'm simply stating facts.
These are facts, and are also cherry picking stuff from religion/culture/society/laws that suits you. It's either full compliance to one, or none at all. Siding with "sanctity of marriage" because it benefits you in discouraging your wife from riding the cock carousel then casting it away when you want to upgrade to a newer model is just a bitch move.

>400milion to some bitch
Mel got cucked

>he's ascribing positions to me that I do not hold
>he broad stroke dismisses things at his discretion
>he doesn't have an actual argument
I'm not interested in your angle. Marriage is multifaceted and cannot be divorced from each of these factors. Whether you like it or not that is the status of marriage now and it has been the status of marriage for at least the last 1,000 years. The fact that you think marriage exists to stop your partner fucking others suggests that you're probably an insecure incel. Regardless, I'm going to bed because there is nothing you can say that will impart your fantasy onto reality.

cant believe he had the audacity to claim jews run Hollywood. jews are a minority in the USA. The odds of all the people in powerful positions in finance, the media and Hollywood just happening to be jewish is absurd - assuming there isn't some kind of absurd conspiracy of plot for them to be loyal to each other and working together to subvert and discriminate against the rest of population. simply ridiculous

>I'm not interested in your angle
Whether or not you're interested is irrelevant. Just pointing out the hypocrisy in people who side with "muh religion" when it suits them, then switches side to "muh legal processes" when it don't, then when the JUSTing occurs, switches to "muh society."
>The fact that you think marriage exists to stop your partner fucking others suggests that you're probably an insecure incel
Most religions go with monogamy, and various jurisdictions have their own versions of "adultery," with some jurisdictions even categorizing it as a criminal offense. So yeah, traditionally, there is a strong one-penis policy in marriage, unless you're a CHAD Mormon or Muslim.
I mean, don't be mad that your hypocrisy has been spread wide open for all to see while you're acting all high and mighty. It's you're choice to cherry pick from different systems when it suits you, and again, I'm just pointing out the objective fact that doing so is hypocritical and is a bitch move.

It's not a legal discussion, stupid.

If my friend was also my gay lover, how does that change anything? He is not entitled to financial assitance, because we have been exchanging services of equal values ; there is no ''debt'' to pay. Again, I am not talking about HOW things work, but how they SHOULD work. I am not describing marriage in terms of how the law views it, but I am attempting to describe it as to how it actually is, and marriage does not magically turns 2 people into 1. I reject the idea of a romantic partnership which transfers the ownership of my things to this ''single unit'', which doesn't mean that we can't, in practical terms, treat them or use them as if they were owned by this ''single unit'', but that in reality those things can only be owned by an individual. Maybe that's how marriage actually functions today, and if that's the case, I cannot think of a good reason for marrying ; marriage becomes inherently disadvantageous to the breadwinner.

Realistically, life partners don't go away and die quietly, especially in those high stakes divorce where the women has more than enough connections to live an above average lifestyle following the divorce. Now, in a different context, it might be a good idea to leave something for your loved one following the divorce, but no legal document should bind you to it. Now, you might say, ''just don't sign a marriage document if you don't agree with it'', but some countries have things like domestic partnerships. These things should not be.

oh no now he's only... still a millionaire

It's about kids. Tons of childless couples never marry. When kids are involved though it's not likely that the father will get custody if the mother dies - more often than not it's to the grandmother's discretion in that case.

You can easily get married and sign prenups, even keep your surname if that's what you want. And if you're having kids without that security and commitment you're an irresponsible fuck anyway and it's the fault of the parents, not the institution of marriage.

I don't know the laws where you live, but generally the father is always entitled to custody and the grandmother has no say unless she proves he's unfit of course.

The UK, thought it was the same more or less worldwide but i guess I'm probably wrong then.