Let's reverse the roles...do you think that IF she was doing the cheating...she would have gotten things this bad?azanon said:
Or let's assume she was the doctor? And the cheater? Would she have gotten things this bad?
No. That's the answer.
Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
A Misconception about Marriage
- Thread starter Desdinova
- Start date
Or let's assume she was the doctor? And the cheater? Would she have gotten things this bad?
No. That's the answer.
bigjohnson
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 37
But the 15 civilized States are no fault - there is no such legal concept as being "at fault" for a divorce in those States. Thus, they are no fault States. You could screw your teenage harem in the town square, and while you might be arrested for a variaty of offenses due to that activity there would still be no fault attached to your divorce.Latinoman said:
If a man can prove his wife committed adultry and that's the reason he's leaving her, especially if he can show a history of trying to resolve the problem and forgave it a couple times prior, then yes, I think he can walk away with a majority of the assets as well as some form of stipend from his doctor wife.Latinoman said:
Male/Female bias isn't near as bad as most of you are dying to believe it is. A lot of the time the man is the reason the marriage f***** up, hence the reason he loses so often in division of assets. I watch Judge Judy when i get home, and i've lost count as to how many times guys have taken advantage of women just for sex and assets from them promising that "they love them" until the women finally catch on that they're being scammed.
I know of SEVERAL incidents in which the man proved that all his children (due to DNA) were not HIS...but the product of his wife's lover(s).azanon said:
The men asked for divorce...and guess what...the judge FORCE them to pay CHILD SUPPORT for those children. They paid child support for the children of another men.
Before I decided to leave, I did a LOT of research. Quite a bit, I might add. Not just from news or the Internet...but also from men in my SAME situation that were getting divorced. Men that I knew. I asked lot of questions too.
It is NOT very friendly proposition for men. I know that for a FACT.
The times that have been "friendly" has been because prenups or because the man managed to work hard on influencing his ex to make things friendly (my case) or because the woman is criminal/drug/alcohol/don't want the children.
Dad Blood
If DNA tests prove that you're not your children's father, do you still owe child support?
Cathy Young | November 2002
Imagine raising a family for years, only to find out one day that your children are not really yours.
Imagine, after the divorce, being told by the courts that you have to continue paying financial support for these children.
Is this a Kafkaesque nightmare, or an unfortunate necessity to protect the children's interests?
No one knows exactly how many men -- and children -- around the United States are confronting this question in their own lives, but the individual cases that have made it into the spotlight are wrenching.
One such story, told recently on NBC's Dateline, is that of Morgan Wise, an engineer in Big Springs, Texas. Wise's fateful discovery, several years after his divorce, was prompted by the desire to help treat his 6-year-old son for cystic fibrosis: When he took a blood test to find out which cystic fibrosis gene he carried, it turned out that he didn't have the gene at all. Both parents have to be carriers for a child to inherit the gene.
Subsequent genetic tests showed that of the four children born to Wise's former wife during their 13-year marriage, only the eldest was his. "I never experienced a heart attack, and I can tell you, I had one that day," Wise told Dateline. "I mean...a part of me died."
When Wise went to court asking to be relieved of the child support payments that consumed a third of his take-home pay, he was turned down. Wise was later barred from contact with all four children because he had discussed the issue of their parentage with them in violation of the judge's order, but he still had to keep the checks coming. In January the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Wise's appeal.
To some extent, Wise and others in his position are victims of a gap between law and technology. The law basically presumes, as in ancient Rome, that a woman's husband is the father of any child born during the marriage. While a court may rule in favor of the cuckolded husband, what legal precedent exists is not on his side. Rulings in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and California have also held that if the husband acknowledged the children as his for the duration of the marriage, he cannot deny paternity afterward.
When it comes to unmarried fathers, the law is more flexible, but a man who did not initially dispute a paternity claim may also find it tough to do anything about it later, particularly if he at some point acted as a father to the child. In Georgia, Carnell Smith, now 41, voluntarily assumed responsibility for a child his former girlfriend told him was his, paying more than $40,000 in child support during an 11-year period. In 1999, when the mother went to court to seek more money, Smith, by then married with two children, sought genetic testing and learned that he wasn't the girl's father. The courts were not swayed, and by now Smith's total child support bill has reached $120,000.
The 1996 federal welfare reform law directs that voluntary acknowledgment of paternity by an unwed father should be treated as a conclusive and binding establishment of paternity, although it allows for a 60-day rescission period; a 2000 Department of Health and Human Services report on paternity establishment strongly urged state child support collection agencies to follow these guidelines and to encourage the courts to do so as well. Interestingly, the report also noted that over 40 percent of local child support agency staffers surveyed supported genetic testing for putative fathers. Many of these employees felt that affidavits acknowledging paternity were often signed in the flush of excitement over the birth of a child, and some even expressed concerns that a mother's new boyfriend might acknowledge paternity knowing that he was not the father, "out of kindness, pity or foolishness."
At present, four states -- Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio -- allow men to use DNA tests to disprove previously acknowledged paternity. Similar "paternity fraud" legislation is pending in California and in Georgia, where the initiative has been spearheaded by none other than Carnell Smith.
It might seem like a matter of simple justice. Why should a man support a child who isn't his? If DNA testing can be used to exonerate people accused of rape or murder, why not use it to exonerate men accused of fathering children?
Nevertheless, such proposals remain controversial. Earlier this year, an editorial in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that the Georgia bill dealing with DNA and paternity was "moving forward at an alarming pace" and warned, "Somebody in the General Assembly needs to apply the brakes to it quickly."
What exactly is the peril opponents of such legislation are trying to avert? One common response is that one has to consider the best interest of the children. Yet the exoneration of a falsely accused "father" does not mean that no child support will be paid; the real "culprit" can be pursued instead. Morgan Wise, for instance, has unsuccessfully tried to argue that his former wife's lover or lovers who fathered the three boys he once believed to be his should be the person or persons paying child support.
Moreover, paternity fraud often ends up robbing its victims' real children. Bert Rid****, a California father of three, has spent the last 11 years paying child support for a girl he has never met, a girl whom DNA tests have shown to be someone else's daughter. As a result, he and his family have had to move in with his brother-in-law, in whose house the three children are crammed into one room. His wife has had to go on welfare.
Critics of paternity fraud legislation also emphasize the social, emotional, and psychological damage children are likely to suffer when Daddy suddenly discards them. And there is no doubt that children get badly hurt. Morgan Wise may have been shafted by the system, but it's difficult to view him with unalloyed sympathy when one learns that, after losing his claim for relief from child support payments, he took his battle public -- with the inevitable result that the rumors reached the boys' school, and he ended up telling them he wasn't their real father.
"Regardless of the circumstances of conception, for the child this is the only father he or she has known," Los Angeles attorney Jenny Skoble, director of the Child Support Project at the Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law, wrote recently in Insight magazine. "If this man disappears from the child's life, the child not only loses his financial support, but suffers the well-known emotional effects of being abandoned by a parent."
That's often true, and it's unfortunate (though it is worth noting that the women's advocates typically making these arguments rarely show much concern about divorced fathers' complaints that their ex-wives intentionally disrupt visitation). Yet the reality is that no court can force a parent to be emotionally involved with his children and to participate actively in raising them. A court can only force him to pay up. It's true that courts sometimes bar the alleged father not only from using DNA test results in a paternity challenge but from having the children tested, so as to avoid potentially traumatizing them. Even so, a father who is unsure of his paternity may well withdraw from the children.
It is sad, of course, when a man who has been a de facto father to a child for years suddenly and abruptly abandons him or her. (Conversely, there is something self-serving and opportunistic about the position of some fathers' advocates that a man who has learned that his child is not biologically his should be able to continue contact and visitation but shouldn't pay child support.) But surely a good portion of the blame for such tragic situations rests with mothers who cheat and lie. The men who fight back don't necessarily believe, as some critics claim, that biology alone makes you a father; often, they are reacting to being deceived and used.
"What you're saying is that all a man is, in terms of a father to a child, is a sperm donor," Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C., told the Los Angeles Times. "We think that's really bad social policy." Agreed. But our current social policy all too often reduces a man to a cash machine.
If DNA tests prove that you're not your children's father, do you still owe child support?
Cathy Young | November 2002
Imagine raising a family for years, only to find out one day that your children are not really yours.
Imagine, after the divorce, being told by the courts that you have to continue paying financial support for these children.
Is this a Kafkaesque nightmare, or an unfortunate necessity to protect the children's interests?
No one knows exactly how many men -- and children -- around the United States are confronting this question in their own lives, but the individual cases that have made it into the spotlight are wrenching.
One such story, told recently on NBC's Dateline, is that of Morgan Wise, an engineer in Big Springs, Texas. Wise's fateful discovery, several years after his divorce, was prompted by the desire to help treat his 6-year-old son for cystic fibrosis: When he took a blood test to find out which cystic fibrosis gene he carried, it turned out that he didn't have the gene at all. Both parents have to be carriers for a child to inherit the gene.
Subsequent genetic tests showed that of the four children born to Wise's former wife during their 13-year marriage, only the eldest was his. "I never experienced a heart attack, and I can tell you, I had one that day," Wise told Dateline. "I mean...a part of me died."
When Wise went to court asking to be relieved of the child support payments that consumed a third of his take-home pay, he was turned down. Wise was later barred from contact with all four children because he had discussed the issue of their parentage with them in violation of the judge's order, but he still had to keep the checks coming. In January the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Wise's appeal.
To some extent, Wise and others in his position are victims of a gap between law and technology. The law basically presumes, as in ancient Rome, that a woman's husband is the father of any child born during the marriage. While a court may rule in favor of the cuckolded husband, what legal precedent exists is not on his side. Rulings in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and California have also held that if the husband acknowledged the children as his for the duration of the marriage, he cannot deny paternity afterward.
When it comes to unmarried fathers, the law is more flexible, but a man who did not initially dispute a paternity claim may also find it tough to do anything about it later, particularly if he at some point acted as a father to the child. In Georgia, Carnell Smith, now 41, voluntarily assumed responsibility for a child his former girlfriend told him was his, paying more than $40,000 in child support during an 11-year period. In 1999, when the mother went to court to seek more money, Smith, by then married with two children, sought genetic testing and learned that he wasn't the girl's father. The courts were not swayed, and by now Smith's total child support bill has reached $120,000.
The 1996 federal welfare reform law directs that voluntary acknowledgment of paternity by an unwed father should be treated as a conclusive and binding establishment of paternity, although it allows for a 60-day rescission period; a 2000 Department of Health and Human Services report on paternity establishment strongly urged state child support collection agencies to follow these guidelines and to encourage the courts to do so as well. Interestingly, the report also noted that over 40 percent of local child support agency staffers surveyed supported genetic testing for putative fathers. Many of these employees felt that affidavits acknowledging paternity were often signed in the flush of excitement over the birth of a child, and some even expressed concerns that a mother's new boyfriend might acknowledge paternity knowing that he was not the father, "out of kindness, pity or foolishness."
At present, four states -- Louisiana, Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio -- allow men to use DNA tests to disprove previously acknowledged paternity. Similar "paternity fraud" legislation is pending in California and in Georgia, where the initiative has been spearheaded by none other than Carnell Smith.
It might seem like a matter of simple justice. Why should a man support a child who isn't his? If DNA testing can be used to exonerate people accused of rape or murder, why not use it to exonerate men accused of fathering children?
Nevertheless, such proposals remain controversial. Earlier this year, an editorial in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that the Georgia bill dealing with DNA and paternity was "moving forward at an alarming pace" and warned, "Somebody in the General Assembly needs to apply the brakes to it quickly."
What exactly is the peril opponents of such legislation are trying to avert? One common response is that one has to consider the best interest of the children. Yet the exoneration of a falsely accused "father" does not mean that no child support will be paid; the real "culprit" can be pursued instead. Morgan Wise, for instance, has unsuccessfully tried to argue that his former wife's lover or lovers who fathered the three boys he once believed to be his should be the person or persons paying child support.
Moreover, paternity fraud often ends up robbing its victims' real children. Bert Rid****, a California father of three, has spent the last 11 years paying child support for a girl he has never met, a girl whom DNA tests have shown to be someone else's daughter. As a result, he and his family have had to move in with his brother-in-law, in whose house the three children are crammed into one room. His wife has had to go on welfare.
Critics of paternity fraud legislation also emphasize the social, emotional, and psychological damage children are likely to suffer when Daddy suddenly discards them. And there is no doubt that children get badly hurt. Morgan Wise may have been shafted by the system, but it's difficult to view him with unalloyed sympathy when one learns that, after losing his claim for relief from child support payments, he took his battle public -- with the inevitable result that the rumors reached the boys' school, and he ended up telling them he wasn't their real father.
"Regardless of the circumstances of conception, for the child this is the only father he or she has known," Los Angeles attorney Jenny Skoble, director of the Child Support Project at the Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law, wrote recently in Insight magazine. "If this man disappears from the child's life, the child not only loses his financial support, but suffers the well-known emotional effects of being abandoned by a parent."
That's often true, and it's unfortunate (though it is worth noting that the women's advocates typically making these arguments rarely show much concern about divorced fathers' complaints that their ex-wives intentionally disrupt visitation). Yet the reality is that no court can force a parent to be emotionally involved with his children and to participate actively in raising them. A court can only force him to pay up. It's true that courts sometimes bar the alleged father not only from using DNA test results in a paternity challenge but from having the children tested, so as to avoid potentially traumatizing them. Even so, a father who is unsure of his paternity may well withdraw from the children.
It is sad, of course, when a man who has been a de facto father to a child for years suddenly and abruptly abandons him or her. (Conversely, there is something self-serving and opportunistic about the position of some fathers' advocates that a man who has learned that his child is not biologically his should be able to continue contact and visitation but shouldn't pay child support.) But surely a good portion of the blame for such tragic situations rests with mothers who cheat and lie. The men who fight back don't necessarily believe, as some critics claim, that biology alone makes you a father; often, they are reacting to being deceived and used.
"What you're saying is that all a man is, in terms of a father to a child, is a sperm donor," Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C., told the Los Angeles Times. "We think that's really bad social policy." Agreed. But our current social policy all too often reduces a man to a cash machine.
A judge is not going to have pity for a stupid man anymore than I would.Latinoman said:
One has to be pretty dumb to have allowed multiple children to be fathered by another man during a marriage and not know it. If he did know it, but didn't divorce her immediately upon discovering it, then he just bought some kids.
So, if a woman is stupid or naive enough as to married a man that is a cheater or whatever...she gets a free ride?azanon said:
And it doesn't have to be multiple...it could be ONE.
Fact is...men get screwed the worst.
That's is a FACT...as paying child support for a child that is not his for 18 or so years is a bad punishment. In reallity, he is doing what the Government typically does for single mothers that NEED $$$ and have zero support from the father of the child.
By the way...women are much better than men when it comes to decieving this kind of things. Heck, the vast majority of men do not even understand how menstrual cycles, ovulation, and all that stuff works.azanon said:
The ONLY sure way to know if somebody is our child is by DNA test.
For all we know...my kids are not mine and your child is not yours.
I'm not sure what you mean. If the woman gets pregnant by another man, and the husband discovers is quickly, is able to prove it, and acts on it (read: files for divorce), then i'm quite confident he can get out of paying child support.Latinoman said:
Latinomen, there are some people too broke or cheap to hire decent lawyers too. You cant just talk about judgements of cases without considering other things such as this.
It's probably just punishment for a man that's stupid enough to not know his kids from someone else's. As stated above, you act on it right away with the help of a good lawyer, you will win.
I think he's usually holding the married man responsible for not handling the situation appropriately (ie: raising someone else's kids for years THEN not wanting to take care of them later in a divorce, not divorcing immediately upon a quick discovery, the wife being able to demonstrate the man cheating during the marriage too, hiring a bad lawyer while the wife hires a good one, etc.)
.....
Who's fault is it for marrying a wife that has a propensity to cheat, Latinoman? Sometimes the accountability started even before the marriage. I know of guys marrying certain women that i know their character, and i'm going to tell you; i have no sympathy for these men. You sleep in the bed you make.
Where's LMS when i need him? LMS, tell them about what marrying hors will do to your life.
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
I remember that story, it gave me chills. There has been similar instances where a couple divorces and the courts decided for the guy to pay child support for the children that his wife had from a previous marriage because he had been the primary father figure since he married the woman when the children were young. The kicker is that he had not adopted the children!!! :nervous:Latinoman said:
Many men don't discover that too quickly. Heck, some discover that months after the child is born.azanon said:
For the same token, many women that are also too broke or cheap to hire decent lawyers END UP on TOP (winning) too!
The system was designed to help women. Do you thing marriage was invented to help men??? LOL. No!
The law is not set to punish people for being "stupid". The law is set to punish MEN much more than WOMEN.
If you can prove it or if you find out. Some people truly don't know. Do you have any idea how many MARRIED or COMMITTED women I have had sex with? Quite a bit. And most of them either go back to their husbands or keep it a secret.
Come on...you were implying that men did not get as screwed as we made it think in here. Then you come with all those caveats.
So, you advocate for women that cheat to STILL get the men's $$$?
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
"Accidental pregnancy" is almost a cottage industry now. The laws regarding support, alimony, paternity liabilities, etc. were all instituted, and evolved from a pre-sexual revolution era when women weren't expected to be able to take accountability financially for themselves and the wellfare of their children singlehanded.
In this century things are far different, and the burden of financial responsibility is already well established in our society even before we decide to have kids (or have that decision made for us). The crux of all this is that while it takes a man and a woman to concieve a child, it is a woman who decides what to do with that pregnancy. We're constantly told "it's her body" and she has the final choice in the matter. It is far too easy for a woman - already familiar with her own personal conditions - to skillfully and emotionally manipulate a man into believing the birth control failed or she's alergic to latex (condoms) or it's "impossible for her to get pregnant at this time of the month."
Once a woman is pregnant, then a whole new set of social contrivances come into play to lock the 'perceived' father into accepting his new role. The first is an appeal to decency or a questioning of his manhood. He should "do the right thing" as "all Men should" - irrespective of whether he is or isn't the biological father and irrespective of any fraud on the part of the woman. There's an entire world of social edicts that trap a man even more thouroughly than the legal liabilities that are enforced on him.
In this century things are far different, and the burden of financial responsibility is already well established in our society even before we decide to have kids (or have that decision made for us). The crux of all this is that while it takes a man and a woman to concieve a child, it is a woman who decides what to do with that pregnancy. We're constantly told "it's her body" and she has the final choice in the matter. It is far too easy for a woman - already familiar with her own personal conditions - to skillfully and emotionally manipulate a man into believing the birth control failed or she's alergic to latex (condoms) or it's "impossible for her to get pregnant at this time of the month."
Once a woman is pregnant, then a whole new set of social contrivances come into play to lock the 'perceived' father into accepting his new role. The first is an appeal to decency or a questioning of his manhood. He should "do the right thing" as "all Men should" - irrespective of whether he is or isn't the biological father and irrespective of any fraud on the part of the woman. There's an entire world of social edicts that trap a man even more thouroughly than the legal liabilities that are enforced on him.
Bonhomme
Master Don Juan
The moral of the story: don't marry unless you're well past the infatuation stage of the relationship and you're absolutely certain you can trust your partner with your life... because that's what you may well end up handing them.
********
I think custody/child support should be handled differently: whoever is expected to foot most of the bill for the kids should be given most custody if he/she wants it and is fit to have custody.
********
I think custody/child support should be handled differently: whoever is expected to foot most of the bill for the kids should be given most custody if he/she wants it and is fit to have custody.
keoss
Don Juan
Desdinova,this post is a masterpiece , it answers so many questions , and shut so many useless mouth.
It's not women's fault , it's ours.We are the leaders , they are the followers (i'm not a macho man, hey waite a minute,I AM).
anyway , thanks .
It's not women's fault , it's ours.We are the leaders , they are the followers (i'm not a macho man, hey waite a minute,I AM).
anyway , thanks .
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
Wow, that was easy...keoss said:
Francisco d'Anconia
Master Don Juan
Bump because this is an epic thread.
bigjohnson
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 37
In many places fault has no bearing. If you are talented, driven, committed to working hard to improve your life and she isn't you can expect to pay a stiff penalty for being gifted, while she gets a payday for sitting on her fat ass.azanon said:
The law in most places expects that both parties to a marriage should be entitled to a lifestyle like they are accustomed to enjoying without taking into account that all people are not in fact created equal.
It's a form of socialism that we accept as a society.
Last Man Standing
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,961
- Reaction score
- 36
Latinoman's examples give good reasons why you shouldn't marry a hor!!! But, you all will - so suffer the consequences!!!
A Misconception about marriage:-
1. We make each other feel good, so why not spend the rest of our lives together?
Love is not always about feeling good. Have you ever been angry with your parents over something short-termed, like being grounded for not doing chores? You feel angry, you might even get upset and lose your temper, but in the end it all works out and you learn an invaluable lesson. But the whole time, you never really stopped loving your parents. Love does not hang on emotions. If you've ever heard someone refer to the "honeymoon" period, you know that after a few years, much of the newlywed romance begins to fade. What remains is true love, and the sacrifices you make for one another. If the love between a husband and wife depends on "feeling good", what happens when a big argument hits? You may not feel good for days, or even weeks. But if you know that love is still present when the feelings are not, the foundation will be strong and a marriage will survive.
2. Once we're married, I won't go out with my friends every night and he will only drink on special occasions.
With a variety of bad habits being interchangeable in the statement above, what you must know is that getting married doesn't "magically" change things. The way to change bad habits is through spiritual and mental perseverance over time. Think about it--if his constant TV watching annoys you, how will it feel when you live together? It is important to still have a balanced social life even in a marriage, and if sudden life changes are not common in a single person's life, there is not going to be a big difference in the life of a couple in moving from dating to marriage.
3. When we get hitched, I can finally kick him of that annoying habit.
How would you feel if someone walked up to you, started a conversation, then asked you out, saying, I want to date you so that I can change the way you dress--it's really weird. You probably wouldn't agree to the date. In assuming that after the wedding you have all control over your spouse, you are not living as Jesus did in dying for us. Our Savior didn't get to pick and choose what sins He would free us from--they are all the same, washed clean by the Mystery of Faith. We can't choose what parts of a person we want to love, it's a package deal; all or nothing.
4. She goes to a different church than me, but after we get married we will go together.
Whose church will you end up going to? If you have differences you are not willing to reconcile now, they are not suddenly going to disappear after the honeymoon is over. Some denominations even have different beliefs and understandings of the sacramentality of marriage. Husband and wife may not even be on the same level when discussing the importance of faith to the marriage. Whether because of differences or a mix-up in priorities, pushing God to the top of the list is usually harder than letting Him slide to the bottom. Many couples give up, thinking that if it is such a hard decision to come to, why not just put it out of our lives completely. Faith gets lost and children are not raised with the values they need for life.
1. We make each other feel good, so why not spend the rest of our lives together?
Love is not always about feeling good. Have you ever been angry with your parents over something short-termed, like being grounded for not doing chores? You feel angry, you might even get upset and lose your temper, but in the end it all works out and you learn an invaluable lesson. But the whole time, you never really stopped loving your parents. Love does not hang on emotions. If you've ever heard someone refer to the "honeymoon" period, you know that after a few years, much of the newlywed romance begins to fade. What remains is true love, and the sacrifices you make for one another. If the love between a husband and wife depends on "feeling good", what happens when a big argument hits? You may not feel good for days, or even weeks. But if you know that love is still present when the feelings are not, the foundation will be strong and a marriage will survive.
2. Once we're married, I won't go out with my friends every night and he will only drink on special occasions.
With a variety of bad habits being interchangeable in the statement above, what you must know is that getting married doesn't "magically" change things. The way to change bad habits is through spiritual and mental perseverance over time. Think about it--if his constant TV watching annoys you, how will it feel when you live together? It is important to still have a balanced social life even in a marriage, and if sudden life changes are not common in a single person's life, there is not going to be a big difference in the life of a couple in moving from dating to marriage.
3. When we get hitched, I can finally kick him of that annoying habit.
How would you feel if someone walked up to you, started a conversation, then asked you out, saying, I want to date you so that I can change the way you dress--it's really weird. You probably wouldn't agree to the date. In assuming that after the wedding you have all control over your spouse, you are not living as Jesus did in dying for us. Our Savior didn't get to pick and choose what sins He would free us from--they are all the same, washed clean by the Mystery of Faith. We can't choose what parts of a person we want to love, it's a package deal; all or nothing.
4. She goes to a different church than me, but after we get married we will go together.
Whose church will you end up going to? If you have differences you are not willing to reconcile now, they are not suddenly going to disappear after the honeymoon is over. Some denominations even have different beliefs and understandings of the sacramentality of marriage. Husband and wife may not even be on the same level when discussing the importance of faith to the marriage. Whether because of differences or a mix-up in priorities, pushing God to the top of the list is usually harder than letting Him slide to the bottom. Many couples give up, thinking that if it is such a hard decision to come to, why not just put it out of our lives completely. Faith gets lost and children are not raised with the values they need for life.