Gay men get divorced at higher clip than hetro

911sAg said:

---

Gay men get divorced at higher clip than hetro

---

I wouldn't disagree with you if it was true, but they're about the same.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

If a man and woman marry let's say after college when you have little assets and build a life together for 20 years what do you believe she is entitled to? I'd argue half for sure as well as child support if she is custodial parent, but that clearly isn't what you believe. I guess some of you think she should be penniless begging for her ex husband's support even if she is the mother of your children and spent years raising them full time? That seems cold as hell, I'd hate to be your wife. Doesn't surprise me though, none of the viewpoints similar to yours seem to have much perspective. Hopefully none of your wives are out looking for a divorce lawyer as you're in for a rude awakening.

This whole dialogue is a silly premise to be honest as it assumes the man is the breadwinner, another misogynistic viewpoint nobody questions here. I know lots of very traditional guys and marriages where that is not the case, the wife is a partner at law firm, a doctor, etc and outearns my guy friends by multiples.

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

It's about the problems of "No Fault Divorce" where either party can file for divorce without having any cause. It works against eh concept of marriage as a lifetime and serious institution. If your partner has done something like cheated or been abusive or something else that's a just cause and a reason to divorce. "I just woke up today and don't love you anymore" is not a valid reason.

Marriage is hard and it's even harder with kids. I'm about to hit 28 years myself and it has ups and downs for sure but part of getting through that is to have the mentality that divorce is simply not an option. You have to work it out and know there are times when you just have to make sacrifices. If you can just bail out when things get hard eventually you will find a reason and often end up regretting it.

If you aren't up for the commitment don't get married but also you won't be able to enjoy the fruits later on. I can tell you for certain that as you get older there is nothing more rewarding than having a life partner and children with the thought of maybe grandchildren some day. I have a few buds that are 50+ and never married. They have plenty of money but pretty empty lives, I would never want that.

---

Do you honestly think a guy like Crowder would say what he did to result in a divorce? Does he seem like someone who has that perspective and would share what may be damaging to him? No.

No fault divorce is fine, nobody should be forced to be married - congrats though you're confirming my point.

---

Another dehumanizing rant. Do you see what you are doing?

You don't know Tucker, I don't know Tucker. All you see is what you want to see

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

I can certainly see her wanting out of that relationship on the basis that it's not what she signed up for. Crowder was functionally a nobody when they got married and I'm sure the idea of her and her children's lives and safety being risked by his future career endeavors never crossed her mind. All conservative political commentators that reach the level he has eventually require full time private security for them and their families. That doesn't make it right to leave but I get the sentiment, and it's hard to blame her especially if she's concerned for the kid's safety.

Also Crowder definitely doesn't seem like the easiest guy to be married to. He has an INCREDIBLY confrontational personality even amongst his friends, and doesn't seem like someone really capable of the sorts of day to day compromises and "let it go" moments that define a successful marriage.

Very sad for his kids more than anything

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

Might be more of an issue that she can divorce him, take half the stuff he busted his ass to accumulate and take the kids just because she wants to regardless of what she did to cause the marriage to go south.

And with divorce judges actually look more favorably on the person who initiated divorce proceedings and if you get the lawyer and file fjrst then there are strategic advnatages such as being able to clean out the joint bank account and use it as a war chest for your lawyer.

Which means people are incentivized to give up rather than try to save the marriage.

In addition if the man is the primary breadwinner he has to pay his wife's lawyer to forcibly take his money and children away from him.

TLDR: marriage is a ****ty institution for men. If you plan on accumulating anything worth owning get a prenup.

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

No fault divorce is very problematic though given it is combined with a legal system skewed heavily in the favor of women. The fact that you can be married to someone and then just leave on a whim WHILE taking a massive chunk of their property and wealth (which in many cases they didn't help attain) literally ruins lives every day.

I wouldn't have much issue with it if the filing party was only granted compensation genuinely proportionate to their contributions, which would very often be nothing but what they brought into the marriage to begin with. But that's literally never what happens.

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

You understand that you sound as patently ridiculous when you say stuff like this as the people who blanket label LGBT people as groomers, right? You're making an outrageously uncharitable interpretation from a very simple concept.

It's not an argument that women shouldn't be allowed to get a divorce, it's that for married individuals divorce should not be an option except for extreme circumstances. That means that the man should not seek a divorce and the woman should not seek a divorce. That marriage's purpose is not primarily a vehicle for happiness, though that can be a consequence of a well managed marriage, but rather a vehicle to create a family.

It's not that women are property it's that a man and woman bound in marriage are accountable to each other and should work to make it work rather than quit. That is not a bad mentality.

This is coming from a person who is neither a Christian, nor a Steven Crowder fan. I think he's a *****, but he's a ***** that she chose to marry in the first place, so there's something about him that appealed to her. Thinking that working on the marriage as hard as possible isn't that ridiculous of a notion. She filed for divorce just over a year after they made a family, to me that is not working hard on it.

Jeez.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I can certainly see her wanting out of that relationship on the basis that it's not what she signed up for. Crowder was a functionally a nobody when they got married and I'm sure the idea of her and her children's lives and safety being risked by his future career endeavors never crossed her mind. That doesn't make it right to leave but I get the sentiment.

Also Crowder definitely doesn't seem like the easiest guy to be married to. He has an INCREDIBLY confrontational personality even amongst his friends, and doesn't seem like someone really capable of the sorts of day to day compromises and "let it go" moments that define a successful marriage.

Very sad for his kids more than anything

---

Wanting to eliminate no fault divorce is asking for women to be trapped in mentally, physically, and sexually abusive relationships. It's also asking for children to be trapped in situations that are not good for them. It's an absolutely psychotic position to want to force two people to remain in a relationship with each other. You're literally wanting to control what two strangers do in their own bedroom.

And for such a fringe position, as I was told earlier on here, it sure seems odd that it gets brought up almost every single hour.

hph6203 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

You understand that you sound as patently ridiculous when you say stuff like this as the people who blanket label LGBT people as groomers, right? You're making an outrageously uncharitable interpretation from a very simple concept.

It's not an argument that women shouldn't be allowed to get a divorce, it's that for married individuals divorce should not be an option except for extreme circumstances. That means that the man should not seek a divorce and the woman should not seek a divorce. That marriage's purpose is not primarily a vehicle for happiness, though that can be a consequence of a well managed marriage, but rather a vehicle to create a family.

It's not that women are property it's that a man and woman bound in marriage are accountable to each other and should work to make it work rather than quit. That is not a bad mentality.

This is coming from a person who is neither a Christian, nor a Steven Crowder fan. I think he's a *****, but he's a ***** that she chose to marry in the first place, so there's something about him that appealed to her. Thinking that working on the marriage as hard as possible isn't that ridiculous of a notion. She filed for divorce just over a year after they made a family, to me that is not working hard on it.

Jeez.

---

Agreed.

It's the wanting to have the government control this which is the insane part.

TXAGFAN said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

If a man and woman marry let's say after college when you have little assets and build a life together for 20 years what do you believe she is entitled to? I'd argue half for sure as well as child support if she is custodial parent, but that clearly isn't what you believe. I guess some of you think she should be penniless begging for her ex husband's support even if she is the mother of your children and spent years raising them full time? That seems cold as hell, I'd hate to be your wife. Doesn't surprise me though, none of the viewpoints similar to yours seem to have much perspective. Hopefully none of your wives are out looking for a divorce lawyer as you're in for a rude awakening.

This whole dialogue is a silly premise to be honest as it assumes the man is the breadwinner, another misogynistic viewpoint nobody questions here. I know lots of very traditional guys and marriages where that is not the case, the wife is a partner at law firm, a doctor, etc and outearns my guy friends by multiples.

---

You really need to challenge this caricature of traditional marriage you've created. It's both insulting and makes you look ignorant

Let's take your scenario of getting married soon after college. They build a life together based off the underlying premise of FOREVER!!! If the woman responded to his proposal with "I can do that for awhile but I reserve the right to leave whenever I want", do you think the man might make different choices? Pick a different partner? Work for/spend the money a little different? Be a little more lax with his idea of fidelity? Maybe refuse to have kids, since they could be taken from him at any minute? It's abundantly clear to me you've never considered what a forever marriage between a serious man and woman entails.

And to further show how ignorant you are of the traditional view of marriage, most men on this thread would agree that if the man wants to abandon his family, he should have to leave everything behind and start over penniless. That's on him. This isn't a sexist thing. It's right vs wrong thing. No matter how much you calls us misogynists or infer our wives are miserable, it doesn't change our position that marriage is forever and willing breaking that vow for no other reason than you feel like it is a seriously ****ed up thing to do. Might be why our marriages last so much longer on average.

In the event of a dual income family, I would not ascribe to these rules above. If you entered into marriage under the terms that you're both working, then take what's yours after the fact. Don't care. Same if there was abuse or infidelity. I don't care if he or she takes you for half your worth or even leaves you broke if you broke the vows first.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I can certainly see her wanting out of that relationship on the basis that it's not what she signed up for. Crowder was a functionally a nobody when they got married and I'm sure the idea of her and her children's lives and safety being risked by his future career endeavors never crossed her mind. That doesn't make it right to leave but I get the sentiment.

Also Crowder definitely doesn't seem like the easiest guy to be married to. He has an INCREDIBLY confrontational personality even amongst his friends, and doesn't seem like someone really capable of the sorts of day to day compromises and "let it go" moments that define a successful marriage.

Very sad for his kids more than anything

---

Wanting to eliminate no fault divorce is asking for women to be trapped in mentally, physically, and sexually abusive relationships. It's also asking for children to be trapped in situations that are not good for them. It's an absolutely psychotic position to want to force two people to remain in a relationship with each other. You're literally wanting to control what two strangers do in their own bedroom.

And for such a fringe position, as I was told earlier on here, it sure seems odd that it gets brought up almost every single hour.

---

Who are you talking to?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

coconutED said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Wanting to eliminate no fault divorce is asking for women to be trapped in mentally, physically, and sexually abusive relationships

---

If the relationship was any of those things, it wouldn't be "no fault."

But you knew that.

---

He beat me to it. This was one of the worst posts on this entire thread. That's the definition of fault. This was nonsensical

TXAGFAN said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

If a man and woman marry let's say after college when you have little assets and build a life together for 20 years what do you believe she is entitled to? I'd argue half for sure as well as child support if she is custodial parent, but that clearly isn't what you believe. I guess some of you think she should be penniless begging for her ex husband's support even if she is the mother of your children and spent years raising them full time? That seems cold as hell, I'd hate to be your wife. Doesn't surprise me though, none of the viewpoints similar to yours seem to have much perspective. Hopefully none of your wives are out looking for a divorce lawyer as you're in for a rude awakening.

This whole dialogue is a silly premise to be honest as it assumes the man is the breadwinner, another misogynistic viewpoint nobody questions here. I know lots of very traditional guys and marriages where that is not the case, the wife is a partner at law firm, a doctor, etc and outearns my guy friends by multiples.

---

My wife and I got married right after college, she worked while I went to med school and that kept our debt down. She then stayed home with our kids after they were born eliminating child care costs and allowing me to work more. If we got divorced, she certainly would have a legitimate argument for getting half of our combined assets.

If however I had put myself through med school, gone out and made a ton of money and accrued wealth before getting married in my 40s to a school teacher with barely anything to her name, she should get very little of anything from me should she then turn around and leave a few years later. Yet that exact scenario plays out literally every day all over the western world and in virtually every case the woman gets a huge cut of the man's wealth. THAT is the issue with no fault divorce as currently constructed, not the fact that the woman is "allowed" to leave.

Also, I don't think some of you understand what "no fault" divorce means. A divorce on the basis of infidelity, abuse, etc. is by definition not a no fault divorce.

There are certainly idiots that have the perspective that it should be government enforced, but I didn't really get that impression from Crowder. He made an offhand comment, but the vast majority of his statement was centered around choosing wrong/his wife not approaching it the way he thought she should. Again, I think he's a ***** and his statement was certainly not well phrased, a common theme for him, but I didn't come away with the impression that he believed she should be shackeled at home doing his bidding.

As Crowder continues to implode personally and professionally, it looks more and more like DW dodged a bullet.

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

I just now got a chance to watch Crowder's video. Some of you are really jumping to some crazy conclusions based on what he said. Talk about hearing what you want to hear.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Also, I don't think some of you understand what "no fault" divorce means. A divorce on the basis of infidelity, abuse, etc. is by definition not a no fault divorce.

---

Who gets to decide what qualifies as abuse? Both mental and physical? Can the husband decide that his spouse can't have friends or a social life? Can he restrict her access to a vehicle? Can she turn down sex or refuse to do certain sexual acts? What if he sits at home and plays video games and refuses to get a job. What if he's never hurt her before but she's growing concerned for her safety?

Letting the state have any opinion on any of this things is a terrible idea. You end up with a judge with the mindset of some of these TexAgs posters and he may just decide that her concerns don't rise to "fault" and she just needs to go home and work harder at it.

Government needs to get out of peoples lives. If it ain't affecting kids and it's between adults the government , and everyone else, needs to mind there own business.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

---

You don't have to have a divorce court divvy up resources if a marriage is desolved. The two parties can handle that on their own if they so choose. No one is forcing the government to be involved in that situation. Now custody with children is different. I have no problems with government being involved in the protection and well being of children. Never have.

And yes I would agree with you. The husband usually gets screwed in the situation and there definitely needs to be some improvement.

I probably agree with you on more points of morality than you realize. I think divorce sucks, abortion is evil, drag queens have mental problems, transgenderism is disturbing, religious upbringing is great for the family, crime is rampant and needs to be punished, and I don't do drugs.

The difference is that I think other people shouldn't be forced by the government to do the same things I do, while you're completely okay with the government using the threat of punishment to enforce your version of morality.

Quote:

---

Who gets to decide what qualifies as abuse?

---

Effectively the person who files the divorce claim on that basis, given the bar in divorce proceedings for such matters is so incredibly low. Which speaks even more to how frivolous most no fault divorces are given that there isn't even an attempt to meet that small burden by most people.

Quote:

---

Can the husband decide that his spouse can't have friends or a social life? Can he restrict her access to a vehicle? Can she turn down sex or refuse to do certain sexual acts? What if he sits at home and plays video games and refuses to get a job. What if he's never hurt her before but she's growing concerned for her safety?

---

All of these can and have been used as grounds for a fault divorce, many times over. You put yourself in a corner here there's just no way out of.

Getting out of a marriage by placing blame on the other party is impossibly easy in the United States, especially for women. And even THEN I'm not opposed to no fault divorce, I'm just opposed to no fault divorce where one spouse gets a **** ton of money and property they have no reason to receive.

Quote:

---

Letting the state have any opinion on any of this things is a terrible idea. You end up with a judge with the mindset of some of these TexAgs posters and he may just decide that her concerns don't rise to "fault" and she just needs to go home and work harder at it.

---

Except the American legal system works in exactly the opposite manner.

Quote:

---

The difference is that I think other people shouldn't be forced by the government to do the same things I do, while you're completely okay with the government using the threat of punishment to enforce your version of morality.

---

Again I have no idea who you're talking to. I haven't said anywhere the government should be able to force people to remain married. I've said no fault divorce is problematic because the government often grafts own party property and wealth they have no genuine claim to.

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

---

Libertarians support property rights, including enforcement of contracts.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

---

You don't have to have a divorce court divvy up resources if a marriage is desolved. The two parties can handle that on their own if they so choose. No one is forcing the government to be involved in that situation. Now custody with children is different. I have no problems with government being involved in the protection and well being of children. Never have.

And yes I would agree with you. The husband usually gets screwed in the situation and there definitely needs to be some improvement.

I probably agree with you on more points of morality than you realize. I think divorce sucks, abortion is evil, drag queens have mental problems, transgenderism is disturbing, religious upbringing is great for the family, crime is rampant and needs to be punished, and I don't do drugs.

The difference is that I think other people shouldn't be forced by the government to do the same things I do, while you're completely okay with the government using the threat of punishment to enforce your version of morality.

---

I'm sure we really do agree on it. I can often take things a little to word for word on forums sometimes.

To be clear, I do not believe in the government forcing or punishing someone seeking divorce anymore than it already is. I simply think that if someone wants out for no other reason than "irreconcilable differences" that the other spouse disagree with, that person should have to start their life fresh. It is radically unfair to the person who asked someone to be with them forever, received a vow from that person to stay forever to then be punished to the tune of half (or more) of the assets and minority custody. That is not justice, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman that started it. You said forever and now you're changing your mind? The other person shouldn't have to give you a penny more than they feel like giving you. They want to split it, then have at it. They want to keep 100% for themselves, that's fine with me. They didn't break the vow.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

---

Libertarians support property rights, including enforcement of contracts.

---

And until Reagan listened to the leftists, that contract used to be for life. I would suggest that the divorced party should assert a binding verbal contract of forever at the alter. He or she promised forever. That was the contract. All decisions made, monies spent, children reared, etc was done under the understanding of "we're in this forever". The divorced party should claim additional damages under the reasoning that x number of years/assets were misappropriated if the contract wasn't actually intended to be forever. The divorced party has missed out on any number of better partners, life experiences, etc because of their commitment to their lifelong vow that the other party has broken

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

What a strange take.

---

All these stars, you read all your fellow conservatives above whining about how women shouldn't be able to get divorced? YOU may not have an issue with it, but clearly that is a common viewpoint in your party.

---

It's amazing watching you ***** and moan about people generalizing gays only to do the same to other groups every chance you get.

---

There are no gays enthusiastically supporting drag for kids on F16, but that thread tonight makes clear you think we are all in on it and if we're not **** us because we share a sexuality (not an organization or membership to any group mind you). There are plenty on right here posting exactly what I said in this thread and others re: women being less than. Do you deny that GOP performs poorly with women because of attitudes in full display on this thread? If you deny it you're being dishonest with yourself just to support your POV that you don't like me. That's not some kind of attack on your character like I'm getting by the way, it's a commentary on the misogyny of your political party.

---

You've yet to describe how a woman makes a life long commitment, breaks it for no reason other than the emotion involved has changed and gets to walk away with primary custody and half the man's money is just, and why having a contrary opinion is viewing women as less than.

If crowder was abusive or cheating, then fine. But if he is as innocent as he claims (I get that he can be lying) then why should she get to break a life long contract with no ramifications?

---

Except it's not a lifelong contract in the eyes of the state. And the state is what matters when it comes to splitting asserts.

---

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. It used to like that in the eyes of the state. It should go back to that

---

Nope. Government sucks. Worry about your own family and I'll worry about mine.

---

So it's not government intervention when they award the vow breaker half of everything and primary custody? That was a totally mutual agreement by both parties?

Example number tree fiddy of libertarians just not getting it. Not unless your advocating for no divorce courts and let the divorced couple settle asset and custody disagreements by whatever means necessary

---

You don't have to have a divorce court divvy up resources if a marriage is desolved. The two parties can handle that on their own if they so choose. No one is forcing the government to be involved in that situation. Now custody with children is different. I have no problems with government being involved in the protection and well being of children. Never have.

And yes I would agree with you. The husband usually gets screwed in the situation and there definitely needs to be some improvement.

I probably agree with you on more points of morality than you realize. I think divorce sucks, abortion is evil, drag queens have mental problems, transgenderism is disturbing, religious upbringing is great for the family, crime is rampant and needs to be punished, and I don't do drugs.

The difference is that I think other people shouldn't be forced by the government to do the same things I do, while you're completely okay with the government using the threat of punishment to enforce your version of morality.

---

I'm sure we really do agree on it. I can often take things a little to word for word on forums sometimes.

To be clear, I do not believe in the government forcing or punishing someone seeking divorce anymore than it already is. I simply think that if someone wants out for no other reason than "irreconcilable differences" that the other spouse disagree with, that person should have to start their life fresh. It is radically unfair to the person who asked someone to be with them forever, received a vow from that person to stay forever to then be punished to the tune of half (or more) of the assets and minority custody. That is not justice, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman that started it. You said forever and now you're changing your mind? The other person shouldn't have to give you a penny more than they feel like giving you. They want to split it, then have at it. They want to keep 100% for themselves, that's fine with me. They didn't break the vow.

---

I got no problems with this at all. The rules really are unfair in cases where one party just wants out and the other doesn't (no underlying abusive, cheating stuff being the case). I agree with you that it's not fair for the one that doesn't want out to have to give up half for example.

Appreciate your insight.

Edit: Odd autocorrect

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

Lol

TXAGFAN said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

The clip i saw of this guy on show talking about his divorce is so incredibly out of touch and speaks to the problematic GOP narrative with women. He genuinely seems disappointed his wife can simply divorce him and he can't make her stay with him.

---

It's about the problems of "No Fault Divorce" where either party can file for divorce without having any cause. It works against eh concept of marriage as a lifetime and serious institution. If your partner has done something like cheated or been abusive or something else that's a just cause and a reason to divorce. "I just woke up today and don't love you anymore" is not a valid reason.

Marriage is hard and it's even harder with kids. I'm about to hit 28 years myself and it has ups and downs for sure but part of getting through that is to have the mentality that divorce is simply not an option. You have to work it out and know there are times when you just have to make sacrifices. If you can just bail out when things get hard eventually you will find a reason and often end up regretting it.

If you aren't up for the commitment don't get married but also you won't be able to enjoy the fruits later on. I can tell you for certain that as you get older there is nothing more rewarding than having a life partner and children with the thought of maybe grandchildren some day. I have a few buds that are 50+ and never married. They have plenty of money but pretty empty lives, I would never want that.

---

Do you honestly think a guy like Crowder would say what he did to result in a divorce? Does he seem like someone who has that perspective and would share what may be damaging to him? No.

No fault divorce is fine, nobody should be forced to be married - congrats though you're confirming my point.

---

If Crowder did something to cause "fault" then she should be able to divorce him. As it stands she is able to just say it isn't working out and walk away with at least half his assets and likely custody and a huge stipend for the children he will be lucky to see half the time.

Sorry but I don't think you have any perspective on this as a gay man. I know one of my best friends just went through a divorce. Married for over 20 years and the nicest guy you will ever know, incredibly generous and kind. His wife waited until he sold his business and got a monster payout and just dropped the divorce on him without warning and for no cause, she just wanted to be free. Took him absolutely to the cleaners and destroyed him psychologically, worst thing is he didn't do anything wrong. Know another couple guys who were in a similar situation that committed suicide. It's like cutting off your soul for some of these guys who have spent their lives trying to build and provide a home and life for their wives only for them to just bail on them. Nice guys truly finish last in no fault divorce.

Hollywood doesn't make movies about the evil wife that screws over her husband even though that is by far the more common scenario, the laws are still set to favor a woman like it's 1955 only now she is free of any obligation. That's why marriage needs to have a high bar and be difficult to get out of for both sides and if there IS cause there should be serious consequences. It is not something that should be taken lightly but there is nothing more rewarding.

Make no mistake either, there are guys that are absolute scum and screw over women as well. Strong marriage laws help to reign them in as well because if you do give cause you should pay dearly in the divorce proceedings.

Great post. I find it hilarious that said poster thinks anyone really cares what a gay man thinks of hetero marriages, women, children, parenting, and the unfortunate dissolution of a marriage. I got a guy that works on my ranch equipment. He's really good at it. I don't want his opinion on what my cardiologist told me.

I'm fine with no fault divorce because I also believe that no two people should be compelled to stay together for any reason. If my wife of 23+ years wants out, I will not try to convince her to stay. Get the F out of my house then. It would be likewise for her. Got in to it with that mindset and you're more likely to be fine and stay on the same page.

InfectionAg had some absolutely perfect commentary on this thread.

I am not a lawyer nor a marriage councilor. But over a decade ago I watched a good friend get absolutely destroyed in a divorce when it came down to custody. Over many months he let his ex whittle him down to living in a garage apartment, driving a used POS, and having his paycheck completely decimated, just so he could have his young sons every other weekend. And he was a senior engineer at an Austin based tech company and made great bank. At lunch one day, it hit me, and I told him "just let it go, give her nothing more, lose custody". He looked at me like I was crazy but he got it. And he did. Over time his sons wanted their dad back. And he gained his dignity back by knowing that his ex leverage his ability to be a good father on nothing more than what he was willing to pay her to be one. Which is just disgusting but still a reality for men in family courts.

Anyway.................don't give a sh** about what Oprah has to say about anything because it's just Oprah.

Urban Ag said:

---

Great post. I find it hilarious that said poster thinks anyone really cares what a gay man thinks of hetero marriages, women, children, parenting, and the unfortunate dissolution of a marriage. I got a guy that works on my ranch equipment. He's really good at it. I don't want his opinion on what my cardiologist told me.

I'm fine with no fault divorce because I also believe that no two people should be compelled to stay together for any reason. If my wife of 23+ years wants out, I will not try to convince her to stay. Get the F out of my house then. It would be likewise for her. Got in to it with that mindset and you're more likely to be fine and stay on the same page.

InfectionAg had some absolutely perfect commentary on this thread.

I am not a lawyer nor a marriage councilor. But over a decade ago I watched a good friend get absolutely destroyed in a divorce when it came down to custody. Over many months he let his ex whittle him down to living in a garage apartment, driving a used POS, and having his paycheck completely decimated, just so he could have his young sons every other weekend. And he was a senior engineer at an Austin based tech company and made great bank. At lunch one day, it hit me, and I told him "just let it go, give her nothing more, lose custody". He looked at me like I was crazy but he got it. And he did. Over time his sons wanted their dad back. And he gained his dignity back by knowing that his ex leverage his ability to be a good father on nothing more than what he was willing to pay her to be one. Which is just disgusting but still a reality for men in family courts.

Anyway.................don't give a sh** about what Oprah has to say about anything because it's just Oprah.

---

THIS. The concept that a man who wants to do the right thing and be a good Dad is the one who is most screwed over is one of many problems. My friend btw ended up in a crap apartment and of course his wife got the nice house so his kid didn't like coming to see Dad as much. Of course his wife was poisoning the son against him and he was basically getting his soul ripped out.

What really got me was in the middle of it I was at a concert with my wife and saw his wife partying it up with some new dude and driving up in the new Benz convertible my friend bought her when he sold his company.

Fortunately my friend is starting to pull out of it after a lot of prayer and support, he went on a few mission trips actually to Central America and is finding some peace. I know other guys who have not pulled out of the spiral.