Curious George
Veteran Member
Because they equally contributed to the earnings.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why should husband and wife/wives own property jointly?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
What has the government or the law to do with it.
To share equally is the natural state of equals in a partnership.
They certainly are.
I've been thru this with owners & tenants, who must often prove what type of estate they hold, eg, leasehold. freehold, in order to secure service.
The electric company here (DTE) is the entity who even assigns the property's mailing address.
Property ownership/rights are complex.
People often have no idea just how much so, until they get involved in disputes & title problems.
The 'crime' of marrying multiple wives is punished by having multiple wives.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This is one of many concerns. I never claimed that it covers all aspects of wedlock. Not sure why it should. Marriage is complicated, and there are many concerns involved. But, let's not get distracted. My question to you was very clear. Why do you consider wives to be "dependants" of their husbands in the same way that children are?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Because it is very inconvenient when someone takes your house -or transportation -or food -and tells you they have as much right to it as you do -even though you worked for it, built it, grew it, bought it, whatever....
1/5 each
Draka
Wonder Woman
Having separate ownership makes no sense. When you legally bind yourself to a partner you are also legally binding your property as well. You are, in effect, saying "you are my partner in life and what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine." In marriage the idea is to give oneself fully to another. This includes your belongings. And people in such relationships tend to want to take care of each other. At least that is the agreement going in. If one runs out on the relationship they have broken said contract and forfeit rights to what they have brought in. If one dies then the other doesn't have to deal with greedy family members in order to keep what they have built together. If one develops a mental or physical incapacity to where they are incapable to handle or make decisions about their property anymore then the other has full rights to do so as their names are on everything as well. These are safeguards. To leave everything to "nature" is to go against what a marriage is. Which is not, in any way, "natural", but a man-made concept and legal partnership. A contract we, as humans, have developed to suit us.
Such arrangements are handled via what is called "pre-nup" agreements. If people entering into a relationship are so concerned that they get out of the relationship exactly what they bring in (which in my opinion shows a clear attitude that they believe the relationship will fail and want to plan ahead for such occurrence and is a red flag), then they draw up a pre-nuptial agreement contract that lays out exactly what the parties each financially bring to the marriage and how much each is entitled to should the union dissolve. Now, if that isn't boiling down what should be a partnership built upon love to a business partnership I don't know what does. Laying out who owns what, who gets what, who is entitled to what before even entering into a relationship does not speak of a loving relationship at all. But of those who are only concerned of their financial status.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What they earned before marriage might be another story, but, during the marriage, they all contribute to the earning of property. One example might be a mother or father who chooses to stay home and take care of the kids/house so that the other can dedicate more time to their career. That is clearly the stay-at-home spouse helping to earn the money.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Especially when it comes to child care. Sometimes childcare is so expensive that, with many jobs, you barely break even after paying for it. It can really be better, if possible, for someone to be able to stay home with little ones for a while as paying for someone else to care for them can be quite expensive.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
So I can stay at your place, then? Eat your food? I like to travel!
I'm purdy sure ownership and the right to use something are at least really closely related.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Well, not legally.
Disagreeing with private ownership=/=inviting you into my private ownership, sorry bud
I'd have needed money for a ticket, anyway.
If everyone did everything right -there would be no need for laws against what is wrong.
Ownership, however, is not inherently wrong. There is enough for everyone to own what is necessary. Ownership is necessary for safety, privacy, security, peace of mind, etc.,etc.,etc....
Many decisions lead to unnecessary inequalities. We are only responsible for how our own decisions affect others, but may choose to assume responsibility for others -plead their cause, etc....
perhaps we are also responsible to do so to some degree....
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Well, not legally.
Disagreeing with private ownership=/=inviting you into my private ownership, sorry bud
The Earth naturally produces more than enough. One seed or plant makes many others... a few animals make many others.... water recirculates.... everything becomes something else....
but we make it otherwise.
Luk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Ecc 11:1 Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
Prov 11:24 There is one who scatters, and yet increases all the more, And there is one who withholds what is justly due, and yet it results only in want.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Rowwwrrrrrrr -can't even make a valid point these days...
But....... yes, we do -except when people feel they have as much right to our stuff, etc., as we do.
We don't gain any of those things if someone helps themselves to our tires and rims, front door, food, etc., because it is somehow wrong to own stuff.
Ownership is not the problem -people are the problem.
It becomes a problem when people steal legally and own unrighteously -through unfair wages, unrighteous decrees/laws, outright theft, etc.... But ownership is still not the problem.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
When stuff goes missin', stuff don't work right.
So maybe not everyone has tires and rims -maybe they have cart wheels -maybe a goat -and deserve to own them without me taking them.
If you want to change the world to allow everyone access to everything everyone else can access, you will need to own at least a few items before you can even start.
Some people can't fly in a plane, but If I want to go where they are and help them better their situation -maybe allow them to fly in a plane later, it would be great if I had a bag with some clothing, toothbrush would be a plus.
In a strange land with no clothing or toothbrush? Someone had a right to use them other than yourself? No worries -you can take whatever you want from the locals!
They would love that!
We have to live in this world -even if we want to make a better one.
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Not at all -you just seem to have something in your mind that superimposes itself onto what I am saying.
The right to own things is a thing.
You cannot share what you do not own -that would have nothing to do with you.
You would not have it in the first place.
You have a point -it is just pointed the wrong way -namely... at me.
If you were the sort of native who would be happy to share what you have -there would also be a point at which it would not be good to share too much -and you would not likely like it if people presumed upon your kindness or took whatever they wanted of what you had.
That is the essence of ownership -it is very much inherent. One may have a right to something another does not -based on various factors -and, overall, because things would not work as well otherwise.
If ownership is not inherent, my ancestors could not have stolen anything from anyone.
...but they did.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Did they have equal property wealth before entering into the relationship?
While they live together lovingly and happily they do enjoy the property irrespective to whom it belongs.
Why shouldn't they have the same ratio of property as did they have "before entering into the relationship", if the marriage breaks or in case of death of any one of them? Why should one suffer for others?
The rationale, please.
Regards
In some cases it could be a useful safeguard.
Regards
Did they have equal property wealth before entering into the relationship?
While they live together lovingly and happily they do enjoy the property irrespective to whom it belongs.
Why shouldn't they have the same ratio of property as did they have "before entering into the relationship", if the marriage breaks or in case of death of any one of them? Why should one suffer for others?
The rationale, please.
Regards
In some cases it could be a useful safeguard.
Regards
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Sometimes the ones who argue the most agree the most. Awesome exchange.
At least it was for me -hopefully, I was not perceived as being rude....
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I agree that people, governments, corporations, etc... do not have the right to own things in some of the ways they presently do -which actually keep others from being able to own what they rightfully should..... the determining factor being the well-being of all. Resources must be managed -but that includes not withholding them when rightfully due. Resource management is the essence of ownership and transfer of ownership -and should produce the greatest good for all.
Many look to native American cultures as an example when they speak against the idea of ownership -but it was not unheard of for even them to own or possess things.
The following is from http://fee.org/freeman/property-rights-among-native-americans/
"Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights.
Because agricultural land required investments and because boundaries could be easily marked, crop land was often privately owned, usually by families or clans rather than individuals. For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers. Europeans recognized this ownership, and deeds of white settlers indicate that they usually approached lineage leaders to purchase this land. Prior to European contact, other Indian tribes recognized Mahican ownership of these lands by not trespassing.[3]
Farther from the rivers, however, where the value of land for crops was low, it was not worth establishing ownership. As one historian put it, no one would consider laying out a garden in the rocky hinterlands.[4]
In the Southeast, where Indians engaged in settled agriculture, private ownership of land was common. The Creek town is typical of the economic and social life of the populous tribes of the Southeast, writes historian Angie Debo. Each family gathered the produce of its own plot and placed it in its own storehouse. Each also contributed voluntarily to a public store which was kept in a large building in the field and was used under the direction of the town chief for public needs.[5]"
Many look to native American cultures as an example when they speak against the idea of ownership -but it was not unheard of for even them to own or possess things.
The following is from http://fee.org/freeman/property-rights-among-native-americans/
"Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.[2] The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights.
Because agricultural land required investments and because boundaries could be easily marked, crop land was often privately owned, usually by families or clans rather than individuals. For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers. Europeans recognized this ownership, and deeds of white settlers indicate that they usually approached lineage leaders to purchase this land. Prior to European contact, other Indian tribes recognized Mahican ownership of these lands by not trespassing.[3]
Farther from the rivers, however, where the value of land for crops was low, it was not worth establishing ownership. As one historian put it, no one would consider laying out a garden in the rocky hinterlands.[4]
In the Southeast, where Indians engaged in settled agriculture, private ownership of land was common. The Creek town is typical of the economic and social life of the populous tribes of the Southeast, writes historian Angie Debo. Each family gathered the produce of its own plot and placed it in its own storehouse. Each also contributed voluntarily to a public store which was kept in a large building in the field and was used under the direction of the town chief for public needs.[5]"
Last edited: