Anybody else think "Irreconcilable differences" should not be an option when filing for divorce?

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy
as stated divorce is not as easy as marriage. if you want this to work solve the real problem and not the one that you dislike because of religion reasons.

Davesimmons has it right. make marriage and having kids a little harder. Have people that are going to get married to take a counseling season. If they are going to have kids make them take a parenting class (we did. i also took a class called boot camp for daddies).

right now 2 people can meet in a bar and be married the next day before the sober up.

Many if not most pastors won't marry a couple unless they've had a series of counseling sessions. So you're wrong that that will solve anything.

you don't need a pastor to get married.

 

[StageLeft]

The problem is not the divorcing, which I wholeheartedly endorse in the cases of two people who shouldn't be together, if for no other reason than for the brats they had when they thought they loved each other. The problem is that idiots continue to get married.

 

[azazyel]

That is a very slippery slope to go down. Personally, I don't understand why marriage is a legal institution. All that marriage does is lower your insurance and give cheaper health insurance to a partner. And as far as kids go, I hate to break it to you but you don't have to be married to have sex and have a baby. Also, divorces are not cheap by any means and marriages should not be harder. Hell I am thankful that it is the way it is. To think I was able to perform the marriage of two of my friends.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy
as stated divorce is not as easy as marriage. if you want this to work solve the real problem and not the one that you dislike because of religion reasons.

Davesimmons has it right. make marriage and having kids a little harder. Have people that are going to get married to take a counseling season. If they are going to have kids make them take a parenting class (we did. i also took a class called boot camp for daddies).

right now 2 people can meet in a bar and be married the next day before the sober up.

Many if not most pastors won't marry a couple unless they've had a series of counseling sessions. So you're wrong that that will solve anything.

you don't need a pastor to get married.

yeap a buddy of mine went to the justice of the peace. cost of his wedding? $50.

 

[StageLeft]

right now 2 people can meet in a bar and be married the next day before the sober up.

You know I think that since marriage offers legal benefits, there's no reason the law can't also ask things of it. A good start would be to make somebody file for marriage 90 days perhaps before the actual marriage occurs. This would elminate drunken idiocy, and considering that a lot of people who get married can't even stay together for 3 months without a major fight, it might give them pause and more time to reflect upon the terrible decision they are about to make.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy
as stated divorce is not as easy as marriage. if you want this to work solve the real problem and not the one that you dislike because of religion reasons.

Davesimmons has it right. make marriage and having kids a little harder. Have people that are going to get married to take a counseling season. If they are going to have kids make them take a parenting class (we did. i also took a class called boot camp for daddies).

right now 2 people can meet in a bar and be married the next day before the sober up.

Many if not most pastors won't marry a couple unless they've had a series of counseling sessions. So you're wrong that that will solve anything.

you don't need a pastor to get married.

yeap a buddy of mine went to the justice of the peace. cost of his wedding? $50.

I just got my licence online. I am a Rev of the Universal Life Church.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

Yeah, that sounds much better than making people explain why they want a divorce.





:roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

Yeah, that sounds much better than making people explain why they want a divorce.





:roll:

What difference would an explanation o? Do you propose not allowing a couple to divorce if their explanation doesn't satisfy you/the law/ a Judge?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

Yeah, that sounds much better than making people explain why they want a divorce.
:roll:

Why not stop a bad union before it happens instead of trying to paper over the cracks when it fails?

Government can exercise more control over a purely secular civil union than it can over the religious/secular hybrid we call marriage.

Even the Bible supports divorce in certain circumstances

This implies you're a Christian. Separating marriage from civil unions would allow you to keep marriage as pure and biblical as you want it in your church, without being forced to recognize the "sinful" or "ungodly" unions of other faiths as "marriage." You could even go Irish and refuse to allow ending marriages even after the civil union is legally dissolved.

 

[Doggiedog]

You can't file for divorce under irreconcilable differences in NJ.

 

[Bryophyte]

It's none of your business why people get divorced. They shouldn't have to jump through your hoops just because you don't like it that you don't get a vote on how they live their own lives.

 

[Electric Amish]

Why is everyone so bent on forcing people to stay together if they get married? Mind your own damn business.

I'm sure it's much better for two people to be forced to stay together and be miserable than it is for them to cut their losses and both move on.

:thumbsup: Bryophyte

 

[Eli]

Uh, well.. you can't really "make" people stay together if they don't want to be together anymore, so whats the point?

Any reason should be good enough. How about we add "She wasn't good enough in the sack.", "Cheater", etc?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's none of your business why people get divorced. They shouldn't have to jump through your hoops just because you don't like it that you don't get a vote on how they live their own lives.

Well put!

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: Eli
Uh, well.. you can't really "make" people stay together if they don't want to be together anymore, so whats the point?

Any reason should be good enough. How about we add "She wasn't good enough in the sack.", "Cheater", etc?

"Wouldn't Swallow"

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

Yeah, that sounds much better than making people explain why they want a divorce.





:roll:

What difference would an explanation o? Do you propose not allowing a couple to divorce if their explanation doesn't satisfy you/the law/ a Judge?

Sure. Make them prove to a judge/clerk that the differences truly are irreconcilable as they claim and, if not, then throw'm back in the cage together.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: Eli
Uh, well.. you can't really "make" people stay together if they don't want to be together anymore, so whats the point?

Any reason should be good enough. How about we add "She wasn't good enough in the sack.", "Cheater", etc?

"Wouldn't Swallow"

ROFL

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
It's none of your business why people get divorced. They shouldn't have to jump through your hoops just because you don't like it that you don't get a vote on how they live their own lives.

Ah, but it is under our current system. They take an oath in public before a government-appointed official (minister or whatever, they are all approved by the states governments to officiate weddings) of "Til Death Do Us Part". The breaking of that publicly recorded oath is a matter of public concern, sorry to tell you. Remember that no one forces any couple to get married. After you choose to undergo the public oath, then you need to realize that you chose to undergo the public consequences of seeking to break your oath.

I think that, while divorce cannot be reasonably prevented, it should be made a bit more difficult and costly to obtain. Just like vehicle recalls, when the cost of the divorce is cheaper than the cost of reconciling, many people just take the easy way out and divorce even when reconciliation is possible.

OTOH, I firmly believe in at-fault divorces for infidelity and abuse and believe that the at-fault party in such a divorce should be treated quite harshly.

Moral of the story: If you choose to break your vows, don't expect public sympathy. IMO, you're only as good as your word, no more.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Another change might be to take separation of church and state seriously -- make it a "civil union" that matters for legal and tax purposes. Require a waiting period and counselling before getting a "civil union" and require both a "civil union" and parenting classes before getting a breeding license.

Let churches continue to perform marriages, but have them be a purely spiritual union with no legal standing.

This solves the whole "scaredness of biblical marriage" issue while no longer discriminating against gays who want a legal, secular union.

Yeah, that sounds much better than making people explain why they want a divorce.





:roll:

What difference would an explanation o? Do you propose not allowing a couple to divorce if their explanation doesn't satisfy you/the law/ a Judge?

Sure. Make them prove to a judge/clerk that the differences truly are irreconcilable as they claim and, if not, then throw'm back in the cage together.

Well that's stupid. Then all one of the spouses would have to do is just split and not even try to support the family then Abandonment would become a valid reason for a divorce and the whole family would suffer!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Why is everyone so bent on forcing people to stay together if they get married? [/b]

You're stupid if you think nothing anybody else does eventually affects you or someone you care about in some way.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Even the Bible supports divorce in certain circumstances, but they way it is now is out of control and I'm wondering if this vaguery is partly to blame.

I think people should have to write down exactly what the problem is. Obviously infidelity and abuse are cut and dry, but that can't account for a very large percentage of divorces. I'd like to see somebody spell it all out...look at it...and then submit it as a genuine reason for divorce. How many times would it be something like "Doesn't pay enough attention" or "Doesn't help out enough with this or that" or "Doesn't do it enough"...things that are solved with communication?

Am I way off here? I just think puting the reasons down on paper would change them from a "feeling" to actual problems which could then be faced if possible?

Sorta.

The New Testament gives 2 reasons: 1) Infidelity; 2) Unevenly yoked(1 spouse converts to another religion causing a conflict)

In the Old Testament, the Husband merely had to write a Declaration of Divorce. Essentially a permission slip the former Wife could show saying she was free to remarry. The Husband could Divorce for whatever reason he saw fit: Infedelity, Hotter neighbour woman, can't cook/clean, barren womb, anything.

Forcing people to stay Married is ridiculous. If they want out, let them go.

 

[DigDug]

I'd rather have a 50% divorce rate and happier people than a 5% divorce rate accompanied by constantly-bickering couples and emotionally-distant children

If people were truly content, they wouldn't rush into senseless marriages. A 50% divorce rate doesn't represent "happier" people, but yet another manifestation of the devolving hyper-capitalist society, where happiness is sought an expected to be found like buying a new pair of shoes.

EDIT: who cares what the Bible says. It isn't the law of the land, and marriage shouldn't be based on it, but rather the consensual norms of society. And that AIN'T the Bible, kids.

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
Why is everyone so bent on forcing people to stay together if they get married? [/b]

You're stupid if you think nothing anybody else does eventually affects you or someone you care about in some way.

Just because something affects you, that doesn't give you the right to take control of their choices. If someone farts in the grocery store, it affects me, but it doesn't give me the right to dictate their diet.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Ah, but it is under our current system. They take an oath in public before a government-appointed official (minister or whatever, they are all approved by the states governments to officiate weddings) of "Til Death Do Us Part". The breaking of that publicly recorded oath is a matter of public concern, sorry to tell you. Remember that no one forces any couple to get married. After you choose to undergo the public oath, then you need to realize that you chose to undergo the public consequences of seeking to break your oath.

For a Christian wedding vow, sure. That's the problem with mixing spiritual and secular unions together under a single term of "marriage," especially when people like HeroOfPellinor then want to impose Christian morality on all married couples not just Christians.