Bob Lee said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes there is. You could just prevent them from getting divorced.

---

They've been doing that in the Philippiness for years. but even they are on the verge of legalizing divorce.

I'm all for no fault divorce, but the biggest issue imo that hasn't been touched on enough is child abuse. Your likelihood of being sexually abused in childhood goes up 20 times when one of your parents is living with another spouse.
https://cachouston.org/prevention/child-sexual-abuse-facts/#:~:text=Children%20who%20live%20with%20two,live%20with%20both%20biological%20parents.

I really don't know how to reconcile that. I think kids should be protected over their parents, even if their parents are toxic to each other.

eric76 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Yes there is. You could just prevent them from getting divorced.

---

They've been doing that in the Philippiness for years. but even they are on the verge of legalizing divorce.

---

That's a mistake.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I'm all for no fault divorce, but the biggest issue imo that hasn't been touched on enough is child abuse. Your likelihood of being sexually abused in childhood goes up 20 times when one of your parents is living with another spouse.
https://cachouston.org/prevention/child-sexual-abuse-facts/#:~:text=Children%20who%20live%20with%20two,live%20with%20both%20biological%20parents.

I really don't know how to reconcile that. I think kids should be protected over their parents, even if their parents are toxic to each other.

---

That's not what the article says.

Quote:

---

Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents

---

Quote:

---

Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents

---

It merely says that the risk of abuse "increases" when children live with step parents or single parents. Given that they provide numbers for live-in partners and foster kids, I'm betting the "increase" isn't significant.

This can all be fixed if the division of assets in a divorce is calculated based on the percentage each spouse contributed in income to the marital estate absent substantiated proof of physical abuse or infidelity. This issue of 70-80% female initiated divorces would be dry up real quick

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

---

I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.

For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

Bob Lee said:

---

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Nobody gets a divorce for no reason, even if it's a reason you don't personally agree with. If someone is voluntarily going through the destruction of a divorce, that would suggest that it's inherently for a good reason - at least to that person.

I don't see myself ever getting divorced, but I sure as heck wouldn't want the government or anyone else dictating what's a "good reason" if I ever found myself in that situation.

"Sorry sir. Emotional abuse isn't our list of approved reasons to divorce."

"Can you try again in a year? It says here that changing your mind about not wanting kids isn't on the list, but it might be coming soon."

Half of the marriages in this country end in divorce.

The other half end in death.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

---

I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.

For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Umm...

What you're doing is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - after this, therefore because of this.

However, the marriage rate had dropped quite a bit from 1950 to 1958...that OBVIOUSLY had no correlation to NFD. And then it rose dramatically from 1958 to 1972...I'm going with muscle cars - they got the chicks hot.

BTW...dude...I'm glad you have a wife that you love and trust. SERIOUSLY.

But you're saying that if she was out banging dudes left and right and then came home and called you a **** and started hitting you that you'd be cool with it? Or even if she started to beat the **** out of the kids? AND you'd stay in the relationship?

OOOF

BTW, prior to NFD you had to have PROOF that there was some kind of reason. So, if your spouse was banging Five Guys but you had no proof you were SOL. Or if your spouse psychologically abused you but with no proof, again, SOL.

That's what NFD fixed.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

---

I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.

For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Umm...

What you're doing is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - after this, therefore because of this.

However, the marriage rate had dropped quite a bit from 1950 to 1958...that OBVIOUSLY had no correlation to NFD. And then it rose dramatically from 1958 to 1972...I'm going with muscle cars - they got the chicks hot.

BTW...dude...I'm glad you have a wife that you love and trust. SERIOUSLY.

But you're saying that if she was out banging dudes left and right and then came home and called you a **** and started hitting you that you'd be cool with it? Or even if she started to beat the **** out of the kids? AND you'd stay in the relationship?

OOOF

BTW, prior to NFD you had to have PROOF that there was some kind of reason. So, if your spouse was banging Five Guys but you had no proof you were SOL. Or if your spouse psychologically abused you but with no proof, again, SOL.

That's what NFD fixed.

---

No that's not what I'm doing. I guessed that people have soured on marriage and having children after NFD was implemented and I was right with shocking accuracy. The statistic say exactly what you'd expect them to if NFD shapes people's attitudes about marriage.

I didn't say I'd be fine with it. She wouldn't be living with me or our children, and it would signal to me that she was mentally ill or something if a devout Catholic woman with 6 children who goes to daily mass and adoration all of a sudden was banging 5 dudes and calling her husband a ****. but I wouldn't pursue divorce as an option. So the relationship wouldn't resemble the kind of relationship we have now, but we'd be married. I do know of women with husbands who have civilly divorced them and remarried, and they live chaste lives as married women rather than pursue an annulment. So this happens.

Yes. You had to prove that the other person was at fault for something. Abandonment, cruelty, infidelity or whatever. I think society was better for it.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

---

I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.

For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Umm...

What you're doing is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - after this, therefore because of this.

However, the marriage rate had dropped quite a bit from 1950 to 1958...that OBVIOUSLY had no correlation to NFD. And then it rose dramatically from 1958 to 1972...I'm going with muscle cars - they got the chicks hot.

BTW...dude...I'm glad you have a wife that you love and trust. SERIOUSLY.

But you're saying that if she was out banging dudes left and right and then came home and called you a **** and started hitting you that you'd be cool with it? Or even if she started to beat the **** out of the kids? AND you'd stay in the relationship?

OOOF

BTW, prior to NFD you had to have PROOF that there was some kind of reason. So, if your spouse was banging Five Guys but you had no proof you were SOL. Or if your spouse psychologically abused you but with no proof, again, SOL.

That's what NFD fixed.

---

No that's not what I'm doing. I guessed that people have soured on marriage and having children after NFD was implemented and I was right with shocking accuracy. The statistic say exactly what you'd expect them to if NFD shapes people's attitudes about marriage.

I didn't say I'd be fine with it. She wouldn't be living with me or our children, and it would signal to me that she was mentally ill or something if a devout Catholic woman with 6 children who goes to daily mass and adoration all of a sudden was banging 5 dudes and calling her husband a ****. but I wouldn't pursue divorce as an option. So the relationship wouldn't resemble the kind of relationship we have now, but we'd be married. I do know of women with husbands who have civilly divorced them and remarried, and they live chaste lives as married women rather than pursue an annulment. So this happens.

Yes. You had to prove that the other person was at fault for something. Abandonment, cruelty, infidelity or whatever. I think society was better for it.

---

Again...you're applying post hoc ergo propter hoc logic.

So, my logic that muscle cars starting in 1958 through 1972 must be true for the increase in the marriage rate!!!

And sucks that if your wife went off the rails that you would not let here raise the children with you. Because you've said that the children must have their father AND mother...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

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?

---

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)...

---

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.

---

Very true.

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.

---

No...bad marriages just stayed together because they were forced to.

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.

---

According to this, it didn't start declining steadily until the mid/late 1980s...

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.

---

"The long decline started in the 1970s. Since 1972, marriage rates in the US have fallen by almost 50%, and are currently at the lowest point in recorded history."

How does this not align with what I suspected?

My point is exactly that things in life aren't static. This is why we acknowledge when we get married that there will be good times and bad. But the point of no fault divorce is that everything can't possibly justify it. You think it's fair to leave for literally no good reason? How can you defend the right of people to do that to someone?

---

Well, that long decline started in 1972.

However, it was preceded by a long INCLINE from 1958. In fact, from 1950 to 1972, the marriage rate was LOWER.

Why was the marriage rate lower PRIOR to no fault divorce for 20+ years?

And, when did I say for "no good reason"? Bad marriages happen. Don't force them to stay together just because no one cheated or beat the crap out of their spouse (those appear to be your "good reasons").

---

I don't understand how you're reading the data. For 50 yrs prior to no fault divorce the marriage rate fluctuated up and down. I don't know what would explain those fluctuations. But in the 50 years since, there has been a steady decline in the rate of marriage. Is it that there were points in time prior to no fault divorce when the marriage rate was lower than it was for a point in time after NFD was codified? This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Idk.

For me personally like I mentioned earlier divorce is not a sacramental reality. There's literally nothing my wife could do that could get me to pursue a divorce. Not infidelity. Not abuse. So 0 good reasons. That's not to say there aren't circumstances where I would remove myself or children from the situation if something unthinkable happened like my wife randomly began to abuse our children. Even then I wouldn't pursue divorce and I would never remarry.

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Umm...

What you're doing is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc argument - after this, therefore because of this.

However, the marriage rate had dropped quite a bit from 1950 to 1958...that OBVIOUSLY had no correlation to NFD. And then it rose dramatically from 1958 to 1972...I'm going with muscle cars - they got the chicks hot.

BTW...dude...I'm glad you have a wife that you love and trust. SERIOUSLY.

But you're saying that if she was out banging dudes left and right and then came home and called you a **** and started hitting you that you'd be cool with it? Or even if she started to beat the **** out of the kids? AND you'd stay in the relationship?

OOOF

BTW, prior to NFD you had to have PROOF that there was some kind of reason. So, if your spouse was banging Five Guys but you had no proof you were SOL. Or if your spouse psychologically abused you but with no proof, again, SOL.

That's what NFD fixed.

---

No that's not what I'm doing. I guessed that people have soured on marriage and having children after NFD was implemented and I was right with shocking accuracy. The statistic say exactly what you'd expect them to if NFD shapes people's attitudes about marriage.

I didn't say I'd be fine with it. She wouldn't be living with me or our children, and it would signal to me that she was mentally ill or something if a devout Catholic woman with 6 children who goes to daily mass and adoration all of a sudden was banging 5 dudes and calling her husband a ****. but I wouldn't pursue divorce as an option. So the relationship wouldn't resemble the kind of relationship we have now, but we'd be married. I do know of women with husbands who have civilly divorced them and remarried, and they live chaste lives as married women rather than pursue an annulment. So this happens.

Yes. You had to prove that the other person was at fault for something. Abandonment, cruelty, infidelity or whatever. I think society was better for it.

---

Again...you're applying post hoc ergo propter hoc logic.

So, my logic that muscle cars starting in 1958 through 1972 must be true for the increase in the marriage rate!!!

And sucks that if your wife went off the rails that you would not let here raise the children with you. Because you've said that the children must have their father AND mother...

---

Oy vey. You either don't know what that means or you're not reading what I wrote well. What I said is not a logical fallacy. Edit: as a refresher, you postulated that the marriage rate would plummet if no fault divorce was repealed. Actually, the marriage rate has plummeted since it was enacted.

What I actually said is that children have a right to both biological parents, and yes being deprived of that is an injustice. So it would be an injustice. That seems totally obvious. There's nothing inconsistent about what I'm saying.

I haven't gone back to the beginning of the thread but the whole idea of making it harder for anyone to get a divorce is not my definition of freedom.
It kind of used to be that folks didn't think government had any business injecting itself into your life like that.

Don Powell said:

---

I haven't gone back to the beginning of the thread but the whole idea of making it harder for anyone to get a divorce is not my definition of freedom.
It kind of used to be that folks didn't think government had any business injecting itself into your life like that.

---

Do you have a working definition of freedom that you use? For most of our history you couldn't blow up your family without being able to demonstrate some kind of fault.

Ag with kids said:

---

post hoc ergo propter hoc

---

Are we just going to gloss right over AwK spewing this Mexican? We need to build a wall around you!!!1

No fault divorces were a terrible idea that has ruined the institute of marriage. Getting rid of them will be a huge boost to our country.

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

Including the county's issuance of marriage licenses. Issue a document called something else that serves the same purpose. Marriage is an institution rooted in the church. Let it remain completely there.

BigRobSA said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Tree Hugger said:

---

Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't work, government needs to stay out of it.

---

That's not what no-fault divorce is. If you want to divorce me and take half my belongings and estrange my kids, you need to prove I did something wrong.

What other contract in the world can be dissolved by saying "I don't like our relationship anymore so I'm going to stop fulfilling my end"?

---

Never made the mistake of getting married, but this is Texas' GOP platform. Texas doesn't have alimony, does it?

---

But it does include "maintenance" for a couple that is married for at least ten years.

Other than the justice system now being very biased against males overall, as a legal issue, my view is the less government involved, the better. Marriage is a contract. As far as the state goes, it should be subject to terms specific to the contract itself. I suppose the state could standardize that contract to include exit terms and penalties as the state sees fit.

Marriage as an institution is valuable and important and should be encouraged but not to the extent it is done frivolously or recklessly. The state does have an interest in the stability it provides. It degrades its value if it is cheapened, however.

It's the man's fault Opinion of 99 out of 100 women.,,

How about making each party sign a prenup as part of obtaining a marriage license. Then the consequences of divorce are set up front. What and how much each party gets, what happens due to adultry, etc.. That should be a fix.

OK, seriously. I've not seen this being pushed by the Republican party, but if it is, it's being pushed in order for the uni-party to distract the base onto something that's just dumb.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

That's not what I'm advocating for either. I'm advocating for a return to what every state in the u.s. was doing before 1970. No good reason is what no fault divorce permits. You can leave your spouse for any reason or no reason at all. That's what you're saying.

---

Nobody gets a divorce for no reason, even if it's a reason you don't personally agree with. If someone is voluntarily going through the destruction of a divorce, that would suggest that it's inherently for a good reason - at least to that person.

I don't see myself ever getting divorced, but I sure as heck wouldn't want the government or anyone else dictating what's a "good reason" if I ever found myself in that situation.

"Sorry sir. Emotional abuse isn't our list of approved reasons to divorce."

"Can you try again in a year? It says here that changing your mind about not wanting kids isn't on the list, but it might be coming soon."

---

It seems you still don't understand the issue. You can get a divorce for any reason you want, but asset division, alimony, and child custody decisions might be affected.

For example, if a female is screwing around on her husband - I don't care what she sees as a good reason for doing it - alimony and division of assets and child custody should be impacted!

I am jacks total lack of surprise that conservatives and government wants more government to moderate life

BudFox7 said:

---

I am jacks total lack of surprise that conservatives and government wants more government to moderate life

---

I think its laws that moderate it. And the U.S. has always had laws that regulate morality. If you don''t have guard rails, then it becomes an 'anything goes' society. Conservatives may disagree the extent to which we want that moderated...but the people still are involved in that decision.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I'm all for no fault divorce, but the biggest issue imo that hasn't been touched on enough is child abuse. Your likelihood of being sexually abused in childhood goes up 20 times when one of your parents is living with another spouse.
https://cachouston.org/prevention/child-sexual-abuse-facts/#:~:text=Children%20who%20live%20with%20two,live%20with%20both%20biological%20parents.

I really don't know how to reconcile that. I think kids should be protected over their parents, even if their parents are toxic to each other.

---

That's not what the article says.

Quote:

---

Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents

---

Quote:

---

Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents

---

It merely says that the risk of abuse "increases" when children live with step parents or single parents. Given that they provide numbers for live-in partners and foster kids, I'm betting the "increase" isn't significant.

---

Sorry, I'm not understanding I guess. It says you are 20 times more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse if a parent is living with a non-biological spouse, what am I misinterpreting?

The Fife said:

---

I was saved by a no fault divorce. It just wasn't working. She was on the internet all the time while I raised the kids, cooked, cleaned, and worked. I'm only halfway joking when I say I was already a single parent at the time, but two kids and a fully grown adult.

We settled our crap on our own, the kids and I have a better life (only with whatever large percentage of what I worked for gone) and I have my freedom back. Couldn't have done it if there had to be some kind of traditional cause and it would have turned really ugly really fast if I had to come up with something to accuse her of.

---

Neglect of children by her. This would have been your stance, and you would have kept more for your support of the kids.

HDeathstar said:

---

The Fife said:

---

I was saved by a no fault divorce. It just wasn't working. She was on the internet all the time while I raised the kids, cooked, cleaned, and worked. I'm only halfway joking when I say I was already a single parent at the time, but two kids and a fully grown adult.

We settled our crap on our own, the kids and I have a better life (only with whatever large percentage of what I worked for gone) and I have my freedom back. Couldn't have done it if there had to be some kind of traditional cause and it would have turned really ugly really fast if I had to come up with something to accuse her of.

---

Neglect of children by her. This would have been your stance, and you would have kept more for your support of the kids.

---

Maybe attacking mom in court wasn't in his family's best interests.

93MarineHorn said:

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

I know we don't agree on some things politically, but man, do I have mad respect for you as a father. To go into that type of family environment and make it work says a lot about you and the type of person you are.


We need more parents like you that go into single-parent homes.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

I'm all for no fault divorce, but the biggest issue imo that hasn't been touched on enough is child abuse. Your likelihood of being sexually abused in childhood goes up 20 times when one of your parents is living with another spouse.
https://cachouston.org/prevention/child-sexual-abuse-facts/#:~:text=Children%20who%20live%20with%20two,live%20with%20both%20biological%20parents.

I really don't know how to reconcile that. I think kids should be protected over their parents, even if their parents are toxic to each other.

---

That's not what the article says.

Quote:

---

Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents

---

Quote:

---

Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents

---

It merely says that the risk of abuse "increases" when children live with step parents or single parents. Given that they provide numbers for live-in partners and foster kids, I'm betting the "increase" isn't significant.

---

Sorry, I'm not understanding I guess. It says you are 20 times more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse if a parent is living with a non-biological spouse, what am I misinterpreting?

---

Well first, it's a poorly written article, but if you go to the the study they reference you find the following:

Quote:

---

Family structure reflects the number of parents in the household and their relationship to the child; living arrangement reflects their marital or cohabitation status. Considering both factors, the NIS4 classified children into six categories: living with two married biological parents, living with other married parents (e.g., step-parent, adoptive parent), living with two unmarried parents, living with one parent who had an unmarried partner in the household, living with one parent who had no partner in the household, and living with no parent. The groups differed in rates of every maltreatment category and across both definitional standards. Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.

---

You stated that the "likelihood of being sexually abused in childhood goes up 20 times when one of your parents is living with another spouse".

"Spouse" implies that the biological parent is married to the non-biological parent, which is a step-parent.

All the article stated about step-parents is that the risk of abuse "increases".

The article claims the risk of abuse increases 20 times when a biological parent lives with someone they are not married to (a live-in partner), and given the source material quoted above they appear to have inflated that number as well.

The study further notes that the percentage of children living in these most dangerous family structures (bio parent with live-in partner) was 3.5% for whites and 4.4% for blacks, so a very small percentage and the abuse numbers would be a fraction of that.

Also, the source study noted the following regarding child sexual abuse:

Quote:

---

The incidence of children with Endangerment Standard sexual abuse decreased from 300,200 in 1993 to 180,500 in 20052006 (reflecting a 40% decrease in number and a 47% decline in the rate)

---

Quote:

---

The incidence of sexual abuse of White children decreased the most (57%), followed by the decrease in the sexual abuse rate for Hispanic children (39%), while the smallest decrease in the sexual abuse rate occurred for Black children (25%)

---

This is from the prior NIS-3 report published in 1996.

I can find nothing in the report that supports the "20 times" claim about child sexual abuse.

Quote:

---

Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives.

---

This thread is so similar to every thread espousing statism, doesn't mater if it's "left" statism or "right" statism.

Honestly doesn't matter what the details are, it's none of the state's business.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives.

---

This thread is so similar to every thread espousing statism, doesn't mater if it's "left" statism or "right" statism.

Honestly doesn't matter what the details are, it's none of the state's business.

---

Libertarians are such drama queens. Conservatives who want to use self government as a means to conserve traditional norms like the definition of marriage for all of human history until a few years ago are fascists, theocrats, and statists. And y'all are like "yeah that's bad and gross, but if you want to do in front of my kid's face, I can't stop you because that's statism *shoulder shrug*".

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives.

---

This thread is so similar to every thread espousing statism, doesn't mater if it's "left" statism or "right" statism.

Honestly doesn't matter what the details are, it's none of the state's business.

---

Libertarians are such drama queens. Conservatives who want to use self government as a means to conserve traditional norms like the definition of marriage for all of human history until a few years ago are fascists, theocrats, and statists. And y'all are like "yeah that's bad and gross, but if you want to do in front of my kid's face, I can't stop you because that's statism *shoulder shrug*".

---

You couldn't be more wrong. I can absolutely stop behaviors, I just don't rely on the federal or state governments to do it. If you're going to ascribe those qualities to me, then I could just as easily respond that you are too lazy/selfish to benefit society on your own time and money and want to use the government and other peoples money to do your job.

If there's any drama queens at all, it's the woke and the social conservatives whose attitudes about how to handle other people have way more in common than either would like to think.

96AgGrad said:

---

HDeathstar said:

---

The Fife said:

---

I was saved by a no fault divorce. It just wasn't working. She was on the internet all the time while I raised the kids, cooked, cleaned, and worked. I'm only halfway joking when I say I was already a single parent at the time, but two kids and a fully grown adult.

We settled our crap on our own, the kids and I have a better life (only with whatever large percentage of what I worked for gone) and I have my freedom back. Couldn't have done it if there had to be some kind of traditional cause and it would have turned really ugly really fast if I had to come up with something to accuse her of.

---

Neglect of children by her. This would have been your stance, and you would have kept more for your support of the kids.

---

Maybe attacking mom in court wasn't in his family's best interests.

---

Exactly, we were able to sort things out amicably on our own. No attorneys. We don't hate each other and there's not that animosity that permeates life at home with the kids because mutual assured destruction never took place.

cecil77 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives.

---

This thread is so similar to every thread espousing statism, doesn't mater if it's "left" statism or "right" statism.

Honestly doesn't matter what the details are, it's none of the state's business.

---

Libertarians are such drama queens. Conservatives who want to use self government as a means to conserve traditional norms like the definition of marriage for all of human history until a few years ago are fascists, theocrats, and statists. And y'all are like "yeah that's bad and gross, but if you want to do in front of my kid's face, I can't stop you because that's statism *shoulder shrug*".

---

You couldn't be more wrong. I can absolutely stop behaviors, I just don't rely on the federal or state governments to do it. If you're going to ascribe those qualities to me, then I could just as easily respond that you are too lazy/selfish to benefit society on your own time and money and want to use the government and other peoples money to do your job.

If there's any drama queens at all, it's the woke and the social conservatives whose attitudes about how to handle other people have way more in common than either would like to think.

---

You can control your own behaviors, but how do you affect other people's behavior if it violates your rights without raw coercion? That would be a neat trick. Or are you just advocating for vigilantism?