Pepe SiIvia said:
Women having a way to leave bad marriages will always be a good thing
I don't recall going before a judge to get approval for my divorce. Do you mean some formality? Like some judge stamps the decree? Nice "gotcha!", I guess.P.H. Dexippus said:Late to the thread, but yes, yes you do. Even in no fault divorce.93MarineHorn said:
Good God!! These people just can't help themselves. F no!! No one needs to go before some judge to get permission to get divorced. Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives. Your "cures" are far worse than the disease.
Seriously, if I had to go before some gov't employees and prove to them why they should grant me a divorce from my wife I'd have gone f'ing postal.
Religion has nothing to do with it, I haven't mentioned religion in any of my posts. You are also making a lot of assumptions and putting words in my mouth.ArcticPenguin said:Yes, of course, let's penalize the suburban wife who has sacrificed her own life for her kids and husband. She is taught this is supposed to be her cross to bear in life and she has no other value. Then once she gets old enough to realize what a pile of crap religion is and that is intended to trap her in a life of perpetual indentured servitude wants out of hell on earth - we should leave her with nothing because of the cultish brain-washing initially took, it just didn't hold. Of course that is the move for forum 16, so on brand.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.
torrid said:
I stand up and salute anyone to takes on the responsibility of raising a child that isn't theirs, regardless of the circumstances.
My point is that the government is deeply involved in marital law now and this is simply a discussion of how they should regulate it. No, I don't think the government should force you to stay married but I do think there are different consequences and liabilities involved based on why a marriage is being dissolved and who is the once who wants to dissolve it if there is no cause.Deputy Travis Junior said:
It's deeply flawed, but you need an arbiter if you're going to divide assets. But this "David Copperfield but dropped on his head" sleight of hand you're trying to pull by moving from that conclusion to "well if they're dividing property then I guess they should get a vote on whether you should stay together" is embarrassingly non-analogous. Your premise does not support your conclusion at all.
Deputy Travis Junior said:
It's deeply flawed, but you need an arbiter if you're going to divide assets. But this "David Copperfield but dropped on his head" sleight of hand you're trying to pull by moving from that conclusion to "well if they're dividing property then I guess they should get a vote on whether you should stay together" is embarrassingly non-analogous. Your premise does not support your conclusion at all.
That only works if you want to separate marriage and civil unions. Thus you get married in the church and sign a paper with the court. Otherwise you can't share property or finances and dealing with children is far more complicated. I'm fine with that btw and that is something that has happened in societies historically. You get your marriage license from the JP, you get married in the church. I'm fine with the first union having the force of law and the second being a religious matter (however someone wishes to define that). The only thing we should be concerned with is the first part though and that is where the real issues are. Division of property and finances as well as child custody rights.eric76 said:Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution and it should be left up to the churches.Tea Party said:
Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.
You being incorrect on a fundamental statement of your argument is not a "gotcha", just because you don't remember seeking court approval. No, it's not a mere formality anymore than being married is a mere formality. It's an adjudication of legal rights with due process for you and your spouse that impacts property, debt, inheritance, insurance, custody*, visitation*, spousal support*, and a hundred other facets of life. The process limits bigamy, fraud, impulsive divorce, ******* and destitute children* and a host of other evils that aren't purely religious in nature.93MarineHorn said:I don't recall going before a judge to get approval for my divorce. Do you mean some formality? Like some judge stamps the decree? Nice "gotcha!", I guess.P.H. Dexippus said:Late to the thread, but yes, yes you do. Even in no fault divorce.93MarineHorn said:
Good God!! These people just can't help themselves. F no!! No one needs to go before some judge to get permission to get divorced. Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives. Your "cures" are far worse than the disease.
Seriously, if I had to go before some gov't employees and prove to them why they should grant me a divorce from my wife I'd have gone f'ing postal.
I raised my step son from the time he was 5. Not going to sugar coat it, he was a hard case. He's now in his early 30's and doing great.No Spin Ag said:torrid said:
I stand up and salute anyone to takes on the responsibility of raising a child that isn't theirs, regardless of the circumstances.
There is no practical way for children to have rights in this in terms of preventing a divorce. Where they should have rights though is if their parents are divorced their opinion on whom they live with should be taken into account. My wife had to meet with a judge when she was 6 years old and chose for both her and her baby sister to live with her Dad because her Mom was enough of a nutcase that even she understood that at her age.Bob Lee said:Deputy Travis Junior said:
It's deeply flawed, but you need an arbiter if you're going to divide assets. But this "David Copperfield but dropped on his head" sleight of hand you're trying to pull by moving from that conclusion to "well if they're dividing property then I guess they should get a vote on whether you should stay together" is embarrassingly non-analogous. Your premise does not support your conclusion at all.
Do children have any rights in all of this? If it would be better for them if the parents stayed together, should they still be able to split? Let's say for the sake of argument that there's no abuse of any kind. Mom's just kinda bored and wants to move on and pursue other men.
aggie93 said:There is no practical way for children to have rights in this in terms of preventing a divorce. Where they should have rights though is if their parents are divorced their opinion on whom they live with should be taken into account. My wife had to meet with a judge when she was 6 years old and chose for both her and her baby sister to live with her Dad because her Mom was enough of a nutcase that even she understood that at her age.Bob Lee said:Deputy Travis Junior said:
It's deeply flawed, but you need an arbiter if you're going to divide assets. But this "David Copperfield but dropped on his head" sleight of hand you're trying to pull by moving from that conclusion to "well if they're dividing property then I guess they should get a vote on whether you should stay together" is embarrassingly non-analogous. Your premise does not support your conclusion at all.
Do children have any rights in all of this? If it would be better for them if the parents stayed together, should they still be able to split? Let's say for the sake of argument that there's no abuse of any kind. Mom's just kinda bored and wants to move on and pursue other men.
It's absolutely a "gotcha", counselor. This is F16, not some legal forum where every sentence has to pass legal scrutiny. No fault divorce obviously still has to agree on division of assets and child visitation. But you DO NOT have to prove to some judge WHY you're doing it is "ok" or try to prove the other spouse is the bad guy so you can get better terms. Please.P.H. Dexippus said:You being incorrect on a fundamental statement of your argument is not a "gotcha", just because you don't remember seeking court approval. No, it's not a mere formality anymore than being married is a mere formality. It's an adjudication of legal rights with due process for you and your spouse that impacts property, inheritance, insurance, custody*, visitation*, spousal support*, and a hundred other facets of life. The process limits bigamy, fraud, impulsive divorce, ******* and destitute children* and a host of other evils that aren't purely religious in nature.93MarineHorn said:I don't recall going before a judge to get approval for my divorce. Do you mean some formality? Like some judge stamps the decree? Nice "gotcha!", I guess.P.H. Dexippus said:Late to the thread, but yes, yes you do. Even in no fault divorce.93MarineHorn said:
Good God!! These people just can't help themselves. F no!! No one needs to go before some judge to get permission to get divorced. Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives. Your "cures" are far worse than the disease.
Seriously, if I had to go before some gov't employees and prove to them why they should grant me a divorce from my wife I'd have gone f'ing postal.
I suppose in your world, if one spouse woke up not loving the other, they could just wipe out the joint bank account, change the locks and their name before breakfast, and then declare the divorce "official" in a TikTok video after lunch.
*if kids involved
I suppose in your world this passes for a "burn".Quote:
I suppose in your world, if one spouse woke up not loving the other, they could just wipe out the joint bank account, change the locks and their name before breakfast, and then declare the divorce "official" in a TikTok video after lunch.
Same here except it's been 3 years for me.A_Gang_Ag_06 said:
I'm a victim of no fault divorce. 4 years later and I still struggle to move on. Lost 1/2 my retirement as well. All that being said, the government can stay the hell out of my business. This is stupid.
beerad12man said:Nothing better than a wife who feels held hostage and who doesn't want to be with you. Secretly likely cheating on you behind your back all because she feels trapped. If you think people who jump to divorce really quick will just all of the sudden become faithful, loyal partners who give it their all in a marriage because the government says so, you have another thing coming.Turf96 said:
I agree 100% with this. Just because one person wants out doesn't make it a deal that should be broken. As stated above don't like the contract just say sorry what we agreed above is no longer because my feelings changed. Divorce often affects more than just two and when it happens it destroys. The devil rejoices at every no fault divorce. Look at divorce numbers alone in Texas. A large majority are women desperate to upgrade one last time before their Worth declines. Many times it isn't anything to do with the father of the children. Being unhappy with one's self should not be reason enough to destroy a spouse and children. No fault divorce is a joke. If one wants out they need to leave with only the carry on bag they carry out. Then feelings would be much less of a damage to American family.
The wives that want to fight with you don't need the government to tell them divorce should be tough. The wives who want to destroy you and take half your stuff, how could you want to be with them anyways? They would destroy your life one way or another.
Legally and financially for the current time, yes.DarkBrandon01 said:
Legally, marriage is just a financial contract. You combine you assets with another person. If that person leaves, it's a 50/50 split. Don't like it? Sign a different contract. Want no fault divorce? Sign a different contract.
No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:Very true.No Spin Ag said:Ag with kids said:I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...No Spin Ag said: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?
Gotcha. Thanks for that.
And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.
I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.
That is not reality, unfortunately.
It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.
Then don't throw out that bull**** about "Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches."Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:I brought up my adopted kids because you said:Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?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?
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.
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.
1. We're only talking about no fault divorce. Please don't caricature my position. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a way for women or children to be removed from abusive situations
2. I don't know why you brought up your adopted children. I think adoption is great. Adopting 7 children is insanely selfless. What a great thing that is!
3. Your children have still been denied their right to the love and education from their biological parents, through no fault of yours or theirs. It's true that there are of course situations where (like with your children), adoption is the best thing by far.
4. The proof is in the pudding. People's attitudes about marriage are upstream of people's behavior inside of one. And the law is educational regarding what a marriage is. It shapes people's attitudes about marriage.
Edit: mine wasn't a comment of the virtues of shouting matches. It's a comment on how horrific divorce is, and how badly children can be wounded by it.Three of my adopted kids were my second wife's kids - that's right, she was dating a man who was not their children's father. Well, guess what -their damn father was not in the picture because he was an ******* and had treated all of them like crap.Quote:
Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches.
So forgive me if I call bull**** on your statement that it was "more damaging to (the) children than a million shouting matches".
I became their father - which is what they needed. A REAL father figure, not just a bad BIOLOGICAL one.
As to 3), you now know more of the picture - and as usual, you're wrong. Oh, and the other 4 kids were my wife's brother's kids. He and his wife thought that doing meth was much more important than raising their 4 girls. So my wife and I did it for them. I guess we denied the girls' parents the right to destroy their lives more, though...
The moral of the story is:
Kids need good parents to care for them. If those two parents can do a good job while not being married, that's a lot better than doing a bad job while staying married.
And if someone else has to step into the picture and do one of the jobs that's not being done, that is ALSO a good thing.
I don't know your situation, or what treating them all like crap entails. You're taking exception with something that probably doesn't apply to your situation, which from the sound of it is exceptional (quite unique at the very least). The discussion I'm having is on broad public policy relating to no fault divorce. I'm talking about parents who split because they "can't get along" or they argue too much. I specifically said I'm not talking about actual abuse, which I think is what you may be describing.
Eta: I do stand by that mothers dating men who aren't their children's fathers is not good for their children. I can imagine a scenario where it may be the best alternative though. Sorry if that offends you.
Ag with kids said:No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:Very true.No Spin Ag said:Ag with kids said:I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...No Spin Ag said: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?
Gotcha. Thanks for that.
And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.
I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.
That is not reality, unfortunately.
It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.
All you'll do is ensure that the marriage rate plummets if you force this. They'll still have kids though.
Ag with kids said:Then don't throw out that bull**** about "Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches."Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:I brought up my adopted kids because you said:Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?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?
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.
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.
1. We're only talking about no fault divorce. Please don't caricature my position. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a way for women or children to be removed from abusive situations
2. I don't know why you brought up your adopted children. I think adoption is great. Adopting 7 children is insanely selfless. What a great thing that is!
3. Your children have still been denied their right to the love and education from their biological parents, through no fault of yours or theirs. It's true that there are of course situations where (like with your children), adoption is the best thing by far.
4. The proof is in the pudding. People's attitudes about marriage are upstream of people's behavior inside of one. And the law is educational regarding what a marriage is. It shapes people's attitudes about marriage.
Edit: mine wasn't a comment of the virtues of shouting matches. It's a comment on how horrific divorce is, and how badly children can be wounded by it.Three of my adopted kids were my second wife's kids - that's right, she was dating a man who was not their children's father. Well, guess what -their damn father was not in the picture because he was an ******* and had treated all of them like crap.Quote:
Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches.
So forgive me if I call bull**** on your statement that it was "more damaging to (the) children than a million shouting matches".
I became their father - which is what they needed. A REAL father figure, not just a bad BIOLOGICAL one.
As to 3), you now know more of the picture - and as usual, you're wrong. Oh, and the other 4 kids were my wife's brother's kids. He and his wife thought that doing meth was much more important than raising their 4 girls. So my wife and I did it for them. I guess we denied the girls' parents the right to destroy their lives more, though...
The moral of the story is:
Kids need good parents to care for them. If those two parents can do a good job while not being married, that's a lot better than doing a bad job while staying married.
And if someone else has to step into the picture and do one of the jobs that's not being done, that is ALSO a good thing.
I don't know your situation, or what treating them all like crap entails. You're taking exception with something that probably doesn't apply to your situation, which from the sound of it is exceptional (quite unique at the very least). The discussion I'm having is on broad public policy relating to no fault divorce. I'm talking about parents who split because they "can't get along" or they argue too much. I specifically said I'm not talking about actual abuse, which I think is what you may be describing.
Eta: I do stand by that mothers dating men who aren't their children's fathers is not good for their children. I can imagine a scenario where it may be the best alternative though. Sorry if that offends you.
That is a load of horse *****
However, I don't disagree that parents should work a lot harder to stay together. Just bolting at the first bit of trouble shouldn't be what is done.
But, when it gets toxic, ESPECIALLY for the kids, being able to end it IS the best solution. Forcing the parents to stay together just causes them to resent the situation even more and then they can't be the best parents they SHOULD be. If you want the kids taken care of, and I do, then having them raise them together, while being separate, is MANY TIMES the better solution.
According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:Very true.No Spin Ag said:Ag with kids said:I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...No Spin Ag said: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?
Gotcha. Thanks for that.
And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.
I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.
That is not reality, unfortunately.
It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.
All you'll do is ensure that the marriage rate plummets if you force this. They'll still have kids though.
What's happened to marriage rates since no fault divorce was implemented? I think it would be hard to gather the research, but the sense I get is that more people have soured on marriage and children AFTER no fault divorce was implemented.
The people staying in bad marriages is just a trope. Do you see how silly it is to say in your 10th year of marriage that you're in a bad marriage? What about the 11th year, or the 25th or the 50th? People should stay in their marriages, and do their best to make them good. We aren't owed satisfaction. Our children are owed a good upbringing. This is what you always hear from people who exit their marriages. That they DESERVE to be happy or they deserve this or that, and they aren't getting it. I don't see things that way.
Ag with kids said:According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.Bob Lee said:Ag with kids said:Very true.No Spin Ag said:Ag with kids said:I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...No Spin Ag said: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?
Gotcha. Thanks for that.
And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.
I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.
That is not reality, unfortunately.
It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.
All you'll do is ensure that the marriage rate plummets if you force this. They'll still have kids though.
What's happened to marriage rates since no fault divorce was implemented? I think it would be hard to gather the research, but the sense I get is that more people have soured on marriage and children AFTER no fault divorce was implemented.
The people staying in bad marriages is just a trope. Do you see how silly it is to say in your 10th year of marriage that you're in a bad marriage? What about the 11th year, or the 25th or the 50th? People should stay in their marriages, and do their best to make them good. We aren't owed satisfaction. Our children are owed a good upbringing. This is what you always hear from people who exit their marriages. That they DESERVE to be happy or they deserve this or that, and they aren't getting it. I don't see things that way.
However, it was lower than the late 1960s-1980s peak from the 1920s through the 1930s and for the 1950s through the late 1960s...
Marriage Rates
As to your second point...I assume every single thing in your life has been 100% static since you've married. No changes whatsoever.
Because, WTF does 10, 11, 25, 50 years mean? It isn't the TIME, it's the situation. What is happening in the marriage. Maybe the wife tells you to **** off - no sex ever for the rest of the marriage. Then what? MAKE her? BTW, in the older days, that's what they did...now, it's kind of looked at as rape...
Things happen that can **** up a marriage. I'm not saying bail at the beginning of hard times...but those hard times can get much worse.
BTW...I wrote out a long thing about the horribad way my first marriage ended, but thought it better to not post it. I will say that I got custody of my two kids, though.
It would be interesting if the couple created and signed a legal agreement which would specify how assets should be divided in case of a divorce.aggie93 said:That only works if you want to separate marriage and civil unions. Thus you get married in the church and sign a paper with the court. Otherwise you can't share property or finances and dealing with children is far more complicated. I'm fine with that btw and that is something that has happened in societies historically. You get your marriage license from the JP, you get married in the church. I'm fine with the first union having the force of law and the second being a religious matter (however someone wishes to define that). The only thing we should be concerned with is the first part though and that is where the real issues are. Division of property and finances as well as child custody rights.eric76 said:Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution and it should be left up to the churches.Tea Party said:
Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.
I remember seeing that movie at the theater with a number of other math grad students.aggiehawg said:
I am old enough to remember how this movie made such an impact. Meryly Streep plays a housewife who flips out, leaves her kid very suddenly, moves to CA, gets a job and a shrink and then wants her son back. As in bi-coastal parenting. Few people can make that work well, at all. My view.
He's a lawyer and that's what he brings to the table.C@LAg said:sorry our party is not designed all around keeping blacks on the welfare plantation. stoking racial and sexual anger for power, or buying votes by forgiving student loans at the cost to other tax payers.GeorgiAg said:
Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?
What's next? Women are property?
but you do you.
No. No. No.DarkBrandon01 said:
Legally, marriage is just a financial contract. You combine you assets with another person. If that person leaves, it's a 50/50 split. Don't like it? Sign a different contract. Want no fault divorce? Sign a different contract.
That's not practical.Bob Lee said:aggie93 said:There is no practical way for children to have rights in this in terms of preventing a divorce. Where they should have rights though is if their parents are divorced their opinion on whom they live with should be taken into account. My wife had to meet with a judge when she was 6 years old and chose for both her and her baby sister to live with her Dad because her Mom was enough of a nutcase that even she understood that at her age.Bob Lee said:Deputy Travis Junior said:
It's deeply flawed, but you need an arbiter if you're going to divide assets. But this "David Copperfield but dropped on his head" sleight of hand you're trying to pull by moving from that conclusion to "well if they're dividing property then I guess they should get a vote on whether you should stay together" is embarrassingly non-analogous. Your premise does not support your conclusion at all.
Do children have any rights in all of this? If it would be better for them if the parents stayed together, should they still be able to split? Let's say for the sake of argument that there's no abuse of any kind. Mom's just kinda bored and wants to move on and pursue other men.
Yes there is. You could just prevent them from getting divorced.
