They ought to ban marriage.

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

Quote:

---

Women who are emotionally, psychologically, and mentally abused will have an extremely hard time proving things.

---

A. if they're abused, that's not the situation we're discussing. No one is suggesting abused women be trapped in a marriage.

B. I dont think that's hard to prove.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

---

You just agreed "this to infinity" to someone saying that government should have no involvement in marriage. The system we have now is very hands on by the government both at the conception and the dissolution of a marriage.

---

In the post I said that to, it said little to no involvement. Hence why I said the way things have been going for decades upon decades, while not perfect, doesn't need to be replaced by something that only makes it more difficult than it needs to be to get divorced.

Who does it benefit to make it harder for a couple to get divorced?

---

Maybe I'm wrong, but given his posting history I inferred Tea Party's statement to mean that government needs to be out of the marriage game as much as possible, not just making a statement in support of no-fault divorces.

beerad12man said:

---

As a child of a divorce, I would 100% rather my parents pursue happiness than fake it for my sake. So I couldn't disagree more with that. loveless marriages offer nothing of substance to a child compared to two divorced parents.

The key is both parents being in their kids life. Not that they have to force it to remain together. Often times, that would only make it worse for the child.

---

Thank you for this. Divorce is hard, but it's very important that children see a model of what a healthy husband/wife relationship looks like. Throw in multi-generational enmeshment, controlling behavior, and an aversion to counseling, and divorce becomes the best choice of all available options.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

You're making that up. No one said that. Were there more or fewer children being raised in broken homes?

---

You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?

Gee...what a great metric to use.

There were fewer because they were not ALLOWED to be divorced. So, many children grew up in a different kind of broken family. The one where everyone yelled all the time and no one was happy. But, at least they were together.

---

Exactly how people rationalize their behavior. They tell themselves it'll be better for the children if they leave them. But it's a lie. Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches. As soon as we stop enjoying our marriage, it's "eff them kids". And we diminish the harm we're doing to them. We even pretend it's the best thing for them. Total lies. It's all balogna.

---

I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.

Everything you said is bull*****

There is plenty of mental abuse that occurs that damages kids in those bad marriages. That would not be allowed to be terminated if you had your way. The kids would just have to accept it so that you could feel good that your religion was forced on them.

---

Username checks out

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

I disagree. The basic morality or lack of said morality of the American people destroyed marriage in the United States.

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

That happens all of the time already. Tell me, do you honestly think that the heavy hand of government attempting to force a deadbeat dad into being a not-deadbeat dad is going to work?

I don't. And it isn't the local, state or federal government's place to interject into people's personal lives simply because somebody across the street thinks they should live life the way they think they should.

If one party in a marriage wants a divorce, that marriage is over almost all of the time. It takes 2 people to make a marriage work, not one person forcing the other to stay and using the government as the chains. You want to make things better, change the child custody laws and establish framework that is more equitable to both parties in any divorce.

Seven Costanza said:

---

There probably isn't a practical way to do this, but mandatory pre-nuptial agreements would solve some of the problems.

---

There is a practical way to do that.

Make a standard pre-nup statutory. That is basically what we are talking about here.

Statutory pre-nup for no-fault might be something like:

-50% community property if both sides agree
-25% community property for the filing party if the other party objects, and filing party agrees to marriage counseling.
-0% community property if the filing party just walks out the door
-child custody and child support stuff handled in the same way as current process

Infidelity, verbal abuse, physical abuse, felony level illegal activities, abandonment all result in at-fault and assets are divided through the courts, with mediation required.

There. Mandatory pre-nups established. If you want a different pre-nup, any signed pre-nup takes precedence over the statutory pre-nup.

Wait. That is basically the same as getting rid of no-fault divorce, like we have been talking about.

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

That happens all of the time already. Tell me, do you honestly think that the heavy hand of government attempting to force a deadbeat dad into being a not-deadbeat dad is going to work?

I don't. And it isn't the local, state or federal government's place to interject into people's personal lives simply because somebody across the street thinks they should live life the way they think they should.

If one party in a marriage wants a divorce, that marriage is over almost all of the time. It takes 2 people to make a marriage work, not one person forcing the other to stay and using the government as the chains. You want to make things better, change the child custody laws and establish framework that is more equitable to both parties in any divorce.

---

It's very simple. In my view families and society were better off before no fault divorce was permitted.

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day?

---

Neither of those

UTExan said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

I disagree. The basic morality or lack of said morality of the American people destroyed marriage in the United States.

---

Do you think there's an aspect to the law that's educational? Or is the law 100% downstream of culture?

aggie93 said:

---

No fault divorce has had terrible consequences but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you can do though is modify divorce and child custody laws though.

For instance, if either partner wants a divorce but has no cause or "fault" (abuse, infidelity, etc) then they should should be able to divorce but not be treated as an equal in the settlement. That would do wonders with the Suburban wife who "falls out of love" with her husband in her 30s and gets the house and the car and much of the savings to go with a favorable child care arrangement. I know so many men that have been absolutely destroyed by women who they gave everything to and were faithful husbands and good fathers and the wife just decided she "wasn't getting her emotional needs met" or something else. She gets to keep living the life and start dating again while he now has to pay for her life and his and the kids while trying to rebuild everything when he didn't break any marriage vows. Had a friend recently go through this and she waited until right after he sold his business and crushed him. He ended up in an apartment and she got the house and the lions share of everything and was partying it up on his money. Saddest thing was he didn't care about the money, he would have gladly done anything to keep her but she "just didn't think he understood her needs" as she drove her Mercedes convertible and kept the condo in Breckinridge and picked up a new boyfriend in no time. Oh, and the kids had a rough go of it to and had trouble connecting with Dad in his small apartment in the little time he got them. The biggest nail to me was she used the fact he had been working insane hours for the last couple years trying to sell the company so they could spend more time together and have financial security against him, she filed within a few weeks of the deal closing and he had made millions. To be fair she had a "job" even though he brought in 90% of the income. So many stories like this.

If a woman wants to walk on a marriage without cause she shouldn't be able to take the man to the cleaners, she should be able to leave but leave without much and be treated as the one who broke the contract and suffer the penalty for that. If she leaves without cause then the husband should get first right of refusal on just about everything from the house to the cars to the child care arrangement. Do that and a lot more of those women will work a LOT harder at their marriages and realize it is a partnership. Most of marital laws have shifted to favor the wife without any adjustment.

Oh, and no doubt there are men that act like scum as well but typically the men are doing something that is cause (abuse, infidelity, etc.). If that happens they should also be treated harshly in the divorce. Men are certainly capable of being terrible husbands and fathers and generally horrible humans.

You should be able to get your freedom without cause but it should come at a price unless both parties agree it just isn't working. They should of course be able to settle how they wish. It's just you can't have one party incentivized to break a contract and many marriages are set up that way. It should always be strongly discouraged from breaking up a contract or in this case a marriage and the one who breaks it or causes the break has to face consequences for doing so.

Or we just keep doing the things the way we are and fewer and fewer people will get married and have kids. I've been married 29 years and the only way we have made it is both my wife and I have never considered divorce an option. We have had our hard times for sure as all couples do, it's not all a fairy tale. If you make divorce an easy and acceptable option though people will use that option far more often and that is the environment we have encouraged.

---

Your first paragraph regarding the suburban housewife that decided she wasn't having her emotional needs met was exactly what happened to me. I didn't fight anything because I wanted my kids 50% of the time. That was a non-negotiable. I ended up withdrawing against my 401k to pay off all the credit cards I had no idea she had. Then had to give her half my retirement even though she didn't work for most of the time I contributed to it. She ended up remarrying about five minutes after the divorce was final. To a person she worked with no less. I'm not stupid. I can put that one together. Moved into a gated community with a security guard gate and I moved into the ghetto until I could figure out my finances. Paying for private school and college for my kids. Took me two years to figure out my finances but I finally moved into a better house with a neighborhood pool for my littlest one. Needless to say, trying to date has been a struggle. I go running for the hills after about two dates because I feel the walls closing in on me. I've been told I'm emotionally closed off and they're probably right. My dream is to move northwest, possibly even Alaska and never see that ***** again. And dating feels like an anchor that will kill that dream. lol

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

---

You want to unpack that? Freaky?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

You're making that up. No one said that. Were there more or fewer children being raised in broken homes?

---

You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?

Gee...what a great metric to use.

There were fewer because they were not ALLOWED to be divorced. So, many children grew up in a different kind of broken family. The one where everyone yelled all the time and no one was happy. But, at least they were together.

---

Exactly how people rationalize their behavior. They tell themselves it'll be better for the children if they leave them. But it's a lie. Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches. As soon as we stop enjoying our marriage, it's "eff them kids". And we diminish the harm we're doing to them. We even pretend it's the best thing for them. Total lies. It's all balogna.

---

I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.

Everything you said is bull*****

There is plenty of mental abuse that occurs that damages kids in those bad marriages. That would not be allowed to be terminated if you had your way. The kids would just have to accept it so that you could feel good that your religion was forced on them.

---

100% agree

2 happy parents that aren't married are far, far, far better for the kids than parents that are miserable, fighting and hate one another. It isn't even close on that front either.

Even a case of parents being divorced, still hate each other, and don't work at co-parenting is better than staying in a crap marriage for the kids and being surrounded by anger and misery. At least with the divorced parents there is a good chance that the kids will see one or both of the parents happy at least some of the time.

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

---

You want to unpack that? Freaky?

---

Cultish? Is that better?

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

---

You want to unpack that? Freaky?

---

Cultish? Is that better?

---

I guess if you think about marriage as a competitive hierarchy, I can see why you would think that. That's not it.

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

---

You want to unpack that? Freaky?

---

Cultish? Is that better?

---

I guess if you think about marriage as a competitive hierarchy, I can see why you would think that. That's not it.

---

Nah...Just wouldnt want to be married to a submissive

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

The institution of marriage was hit hard by a couple two or three things -

1. The feminist movement that started back in the 60's/70's. I am woman, hear me roar/we don't need men! and all that jazz. Like most things, there were very good intentions and strides made, but there were also significant detrimental unplanned/unforseen impacts as a result of it.

2. Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion

3. The feds incentivizing having children outside of marriage through the various welfare acts

Marriage was never indissoluble, even in the Catholic church. Maybe a very difficult thing to do formally, but divorce has been a component of marriage back to the Roman era and probably before that.

beerad12man said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

yes, there are studies that show having a father and mother in your life is statistically the best.

Is there a study I'm missing that says a child who has two parents that are not together are any worse off than a child of a loveless marriage that just continues to live with each other out of requirement? Because coming from my perspective, I was much better off with my parents splitting up but both still remaining in my life than had they stayed together. I would never wish that on either of them and would not have been better off.

---

By every metric kids are better off with a father in the home.

Excluding abuse and drug use.

---

That really isn't necessarily true. Of course a happy marriage between a man and a woman is statistically the best situation for a child, but that's not what we are talking about here.

There has actually been quite a bit that also shows an unhealthy, loveless marriage is worse off for many children than simply divorcing, so long as both parents stay in their lives. That is the key. I'm all for trying harder and doing everything you can before you get divorced. How easily some give up on it devastates me. But that needs to come from within, and not the government, imho.

I am much better off that my parents divorced than stayed in a loveless marriage. It isn't even really up for debate, and I would NEVER wish that upon my parents, nor think the government has any say in them having to stay together. In the long run, children are smarter than many give credit for and eventually figure it out. I know I would have. It became really, really obvious to me about junior year of high school what their relationship was like when I was in elementary and middle school and how I was just oblivious to it. If they were still together, I'd have sensed it around JR year when I really started to understand these things and look back, and cannot think how it would have benefited me to realize that's why they were together.

I'm sure if I took more time, I could link actual studies, but here's a couple articles that touch on it.

https://www.heysigmund.com/unhappy-marriage-and-kids/#:~:text=Research%20has%20found%20that%20when,adolescence%2C%20including%20depression%20and%20anxiety.

https://cadivorce.com/california-divorce-guide/parenting-through-divorce/should-you-stay-together-for-the-sake-of-the-children/#:~:text=Studies%20reveal%20that%20children%20who,stressful%20and%20conflicted%20marriage%20are

---

I don't disagree here.

AS LONG AS BOTH PARENTS STAY IN THEIR LIVES.

However,
Statistically women push the fathers out of the children's lives once the divorce happens. And the numbers are overwhelming.

There are dozens of studies that show within 2 years of divorce that the father has been pushed out.

Women often do this to either punish the father, make the father look bad to the children, make themselves look less worse because she initiated the divorce, or make room so she can get a new husband.

Being a junior in high school is different than a young child.

Also, I am not saying people should not divorce.

I am saying that the way the family courts are set up women are actually incentivized to divorce instead of working through the marriage.

Getting rid of no fault divorce disincentivizes that tendency of women because unless they have a good reason they are going to have to make some sacrifices to leave.

Which will make them weigh the pros and cons more heavily before ripping a family in two.

And that is the way it should be.

I think you can add social media to the list of things that has significantly harmed the institution.

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

The institution of marriage was hit hard by a couple two or three things -

1. The feminist movement that started back in the 60's/70's. I am woman, hear me roar/we don't need men! and all that jazz. Like most things, there were very good intentions and strides made, but there were also significant detrimental unplanned/unforseen impacts as a result of it.

2. Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion

3. The feds incentivizing having children outside of marriage through the various welfare acts

Marriage was never indissoluble, even in the Catholic church. Maybe a very difficult thing to do formally, but divorce has been a component of marriage back to the Roman era and probably before that.

---

Divorce is not a sacramental reality in the Catholic Church. Marriage is indissoluble strictly speaking.

Should the government…..NOPE

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Women who are emotionally, psychologically, and mentally abused will have an extremely hard time proving things.

---

A. if they're abused, that's not the situation we're discussing. No one is suggesting abused women be trapped in a marriage.

B. I dont think that's hard to prove.

---

If the abuse isn't physical, I can't see how it would be easy to prove.

TxAg82 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

---

Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?

Bob Lee said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

The institution of marriage was hit hard by a couple two or three things -

1. The feminist movement that started back in the 60's/70's. I am woman, hear me roar/we don't need men! and all that jazz. Like most things, there were very good intentions and strides made, but there were also significant detrimental unplanned/unforseen impacts as a result of it.

2. Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion

3. The feds incentivizing having children outside of marriage through the various welfare acts

Marriage was never indissoluble, even in the Catholic church. Maybe a very difficult thing to do formally, but divorce has been a component of marriage back to the Roman era and probably before that.

---

Divorce is not a sacramental reality in the Catholic Church. Marriage is indissoluble strictly speaking.

---

Incorrect, but not worth getting on a tangent on this thread.

You can be passionate about something without always having to pass a law.

93MarineHorn said:

---

This seems ok from a theoretical perspective, but has been shown to be a nightmare in practice. It's why society has moved to no fault divorces. Baring your personal lives to gov't bureaucrats so you can get your "fair share" is a disaster. It involves spying on your spouse and documenting their trespasses. It's a gold mine for attorneys and private investigators, I suppose. For everyone else, it's awful.

---

No-fault divorce came about during a time where it was difficult if not impossible for women to own property, obtain credit, obtain checking accounts, etc. At that time men could and did run roughshod over women. Those days have passed and the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Spouses spy on each other now and document the trespasses.

And it continues to be gold mines for attorneys and pi's.

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

2040huck said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

---

Not at all! My wife speaks for me, and I speak for her. The idea of women voting differently than their husbands is crazy to me. I don't even understand how that works. Women who value male leadership from their husbands make the best wives. And they tend to marry more capable men who are good faith leaders.

---

Good faith leaders? What the heck is that?

---

It's the person in your household people primarily look to for spiritual and moral guidance. The head of your domestic church. At a minimum, it's the guy who leads his family in prayer, and makes sure everyone gets their butts in gear on Sunday mornings.

---

Are you Mormon? Maybe 7th day? The whole "women who value male leadership thing?" It is freaky

---

You want to unpack that? Freaky?

---

Cultish? Is that better?

---

Funny how people valuing religious their religious culture is considered cultish.

But the same people who call those people cultish love them some drag queen story hour.

Which of those two seems more cultish?

A family attending church together or a dude dressed up as a woman, grinding on a pole in front of children?

Not to derail but if you want to call something cultish there are alot of other things you need to look at before you say that it is cultish for a woman to want to marry a man who is a provider, protector, and leader .

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Women who are emotionally, psychologically, and mentally abused will have an extremely hard time proving things.

---

A. if they're abused, that's not the situation we're discussing. No one is suggesting abused women be trapped in a marriage.

B. I dont think that's hard to prove.

---

If the abuse isn't physical, I can't see how it would be easy to prove.

---

Fair enough.

Noone is saying that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to divorce.

They are saying that no fault divorce where there is a perfect 50/50 split regardless of the circumstances should not be an option.

Oh.....and if u don't think women's latitude on what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse can be waaaay off kilter, I suggest you actually talk to some women.

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

No fault divorce practically destroyed marriage in the U.S.
Marriage used to be thought about as
1. Indissoluble
2. For the procreation, benefit, and education of children.

Once we got rid of the first thing, it was a matter of time before gay "marriage" followed. Now it can't even be defined, and men and women can abandon their families with impunity. I can't thing of a single thing that's happened since that's worse for society except Roe.

---

The institution of marriage was hit hard by a couple two or three things -

1. The feminist movement that started back in the 60's/70's. I am woman, hear me roar/we don't need men! and all that jazz. Like most things, there were very good intentions and strides made, but there were also significant detrimental unplanned/unforseen impacts as a result of it.

2. Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion

3. The feds incentivizing having children outside of marriage through the various welfare acts

Marriage was never indissoluble, even in the Catholic church. Maybe a very difficult thing to do formally, but divorce has been a component of marriage back to the Roman era and probably before that.

---

Divorce is not a sacramental reality in the Catholic Church. Marriage is indissoluble strictly speaking.

---

Incorrect, but not worth getting on a tangent on this thread.

---

Yeah I'm not going to quote the Catechism to you. But for those following along, you're 100% wrong. What you're probably thinking about is called a declaration of nullity. To get one means that you never entered into a sacramental marriage in the first place, and you would have to be able to demonstrate there was some requisite not met prior to marriage. Like that the other person never intended to be faithful (not even just that they weren't faithful as it turned out). Or that she knowingly lied about her ability to procreate. Or it lacked form. A sacramental marriage is indissoluble. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Whatever else you've heard or have been taught was in error.