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

[waggy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

who said to NOT do those!?

Divorce is always a last option.

But to try and make it harder for people who have gone through all the counseling and work is just nuts. If they know that divorce is likely why make it harder? It is not going to solve anything. sometimes people fall out of love or are really NOT ready to stay together.

counseling is NOT going to help 2 people who get married in a month of knowing each other. So again why force them to stay together?


I agree that people take divorce and marriage to lightly.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DigDug

They are public and it is our business

Its not that simple. The fact is, is that marriage is unique as both a public and private affair. If it is public, then the government should have the right to dictate every aspect of it, including how many kids are produced from the marriage, what kind of sex is allowed, right? And if private, then there should be no legal recognition of marriage, and along with it, abolition of tax incentives, insurance benefits and the like, right?

No, not right. Land and home ownership is just as public as marriage and divorce, but the government can't tell you what furniture to put in the house, or what color to paint it (don't confuse your HOA with the government please). But they can dictate all the circumstances regarding the beginning and the ending (buying and selling) of that ownership. Make sense?

Selling or buying a house is not like getting married at all, unless you're stuck in the 16th century. Marriage does not occur for economic reasons purely, nor do people "buy" or "sell" their wives (or husbands). We're a free society, in case you failed to notice. :roll: The bottom line is this: the state can regulate the economic and legal aspects of marriages - such as filing jointly, joint custody of children, joint bank accounts, etc. It CANNOT, however, govern the personal aspects of your relationship - who stays at home, who works, who takes care of the kids, how many kids you have, when you have sex, etc. Therefore, it should have no role other than to dismantle the legal and economic connection between the two individuals should they choose to divorce - the reason not need be a 'good' one, nor should they need to have any reason at all! As legal adults, we have the ability to choose what we want, whether or not it is good for us or not. I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

There's a BIG difference between 'encouraging' and 'forcing.' If you write it into law, you are compelling couples to do something, presumably against their will. Encouragement from politicians would be acceptable but legal prescription would not be, nor would it be likely to stand up in court.

Well, wtf am I suggesting? If they need to get a divorce, then they'll still get it. Anybody who really needs one will be able to make a compelling enough case. If anything all my suggestion would do is force people to admit or discover the REAL reason why they want a divorce and they may see that it's reconcilable or that it's not.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

who said to NOT do those!?

Divorce is always a last option.

Why should it be when it's so easy? I hear McDonals's is adding them to their drive thrus.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

who said to NOT do those!?

Divorce is always a last option.

Why should it be when it's so easy? I hear McDonals's is adding them to their drive thrus.

LOL

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

who said to NOT do those!?

Divorce is always a last option.

Why should it be when it's so easy?

To ease the pain that led up to the decision to get a divorce!

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, wtf am I suggesting? If they need to get a divorce, then they'll still get it. Anybody who really needs one will be able to make a compelling enough case. If anything all my suggestion would do is force people to admit or discover the REAL reason why they want a divorce and they may see that it's reconcilable or that it's not.

Why do you have this compelling urge to protect people from themselves? We're all adults when getting married (presumably), and we all have the ability to make our own decisions (with few exceptions). If we choose to drink ourselves into a stupor every day, we have made that decision and the government doesn't protect us from ourselves - we may have friends or family members who step in and make us go into rehab, but that is wholly different from the STATE making the decision for us. The bottom line is that if you prescribe morality in law or act paternalistically, enacting laws which protect people from themselves, you encourage a citizenry which does not think for itself but cultivate a race of automatons.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Bryophyte]

So if somehow your "great" idea comes to pass, what compells people to tell the truth? Or to even give a reason? What if someone wrote "I like pie and she doesn't"? Should a judge look at the "reason" and say, well, that's not a good reason, you can't get a divorce.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Selling or buying a house is not like getting married at all, unless you're stuck in the 16th century. Marriage does not occur for economic reasons purely, nor do people "buy" or "sell" their wives (or husbands).

Whoa!? we can't sell oure wife? crap i better take down the ebay auction i had for her. bummer it was up to $39.


oh and as for buying wives you can. IF you want to get a women who just wants her green card or such!

 

[Bryophyte]

What gives you the idea that divorce is a fast and painless and easy process to go through, anyway?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

And you are a retard if you think forcing someone to stay married is going to help and not cause more problems.

Oh really? You think encouraging people to get counseling or work out their problems instead of fleeing from them is worst than divorce?

who said to NOT do those!?

Divorce is always a last option.

Why should it be when it's so easy? I hear McDonals's is adding them to their drive thrus.

Yeah the McDivorce. trouble is you can't get it super sized

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

That's epically reckless of you. Parents are usually surprised to find out their kids blame themselves for the divorce. There are rules against behavior that hurts other people...such as drunk driving. If drunk drivers only killed themselves in crashes, then there wouldn't be rules against it.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Selling or buying a house is not like getting married at all, unless you're stuck in the 16th century. Marriage does not occur for economic reasons purely, nor do people "buy" or "sell" their wives (or husbands).

Whoa!? we can't sell oure wife? crap i better take down the ebay auction i had for her. bummer it was up to $39.


oh and as for buying wives you can. IF you want to get a women who just wants her green card or such!

Hahaha...we're not in Africa or some parts of the world though, where a few good camels will buy you a young girl. Marriage has ceased to be an economic transaction in the West. People are not currency - we learned this (a bit late, albeit) over 150 years ago.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, wtf am I suggesting? If they need to get a divorce, then they'll still get it. Anybody who really needs one will be able to make a compelling enough case. If anything all my suggestion would do is force people to admit or discover the REAL reason why they want a divorce and they may see that it's reconcilable or that it's not.

Sounds like you are calling for some particular requirements for dissolving a union. Whose? Would the government use consultants from every religion from Catholics to Satanists, Wiccans to Scientologists, to decide whether a particular couple has "good enough" reasons?

Or would you be happy to have a Buddhist judge decide by himself on the dissolution of your Baptist marriage?

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

That's epically reckless of you. Parents are usually surprised to find out their kids blame themselves for the divorce. There are rules against behavior that hurts other people...such as drunk driving. If drunk drivers only killed themselves in crashes, then there wouldn't be rules against it.

It's actually fairly common for the courts to require counseling for children of divorce. The overriding concern of the courts is the welfare of the children.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

That's epically reckless of you. Parents are usually surprised to find out their kids blame themselves for the divorce. There are rules against behavior that hurts other people...such as drunk driving. If drunk drivers only killed themselves in crashes, then there wouldn't be rules against it.

You know, if both parents are in their right minds, a divorce while somewhat horrifying to a child, doesn't have to be this thing that drives them to being dead beat depressed adult felons. There's a thing called spending time between the parents equally, counseling, and making sure the kids know that it wasn't them, and they they are still just as loved and nothing will change because of that. I don't wish divorce on any child, but sometimes if has to happen, and if taken care of properly, will not destroy that child.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

That's epically reckless of you. Parents are usually surprised to find out their kids blame themselves for the divorce. There are rules against behavior that hurts other people...such as drunk driving. If drunk drivers only killed themselves in crashes, then there wouldn't be rules against it.

Thank you, but you just reinforced my point. If you get wasted, get behind the wheel, and drive down the road drunk, you are endangering other people. Drunk driving laws are enacted not to protect the drunk drivers but protect the OTHER PEOPLE walking down the street. When you get behind that wheel, you have moved from taking actions that affect only yourself to taking action which potentially affects other people. THAT is why we have a law against drunk driving. We do NOT, however, have laws against alcoholism because that is an action which has ramifications for only ourselves and the government does not see it fit to step in and regulate alcohol consumption (too much of an effect on liberty). If we choose to become boozehounds, that is a decision which is nobody's fault but your own.

With respect to divorce, while it is true that the divorce may affect children, you must weigh the costs of sacrificing personal liberty with the potential (read: POTENTIAL) effect on children. Compound this with the fact that not all divorces a.) involve children or b.) occur violently and with much legal wrangling, and you have quite a reduction in utility by sacrificing personal liberty vs. the potential utility gained by forcing couples to work out their differences for the sake of children. Writing it into law is even more of an outrage, not only for the aforementioned reasons but because it would force ALL couples to 'work out differences,' no matter if they got married like Britney or whether they are ending a 30-year relationship.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

That's epically reckless of you. Parents are usually surprised to find out their kids blame themselves for the divorce. There are rules against behavior that hurts other people...such as drunk driving. If drunk drivers only killed themselves in crashes, then there wouldn't be rules against it.

It's actually fairly common for the courts to require counseling for children of divorce. The overriding concern of the courts is the welfare of the children.

This is another way to mitigate the effects of a divorce which does not sacrifice personal liberty or freedom to pursue our own conception of the 'good.'

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Marriage and divorce IS a private matter. It is 'public' only in the sense that marriage is endowed with certain legal protections, economic benefits, and others which should require legal process to establish and/or break. What I am arguing against, however, is the concept that one should require some sort of 'reason' to be married or divorced - that the state should deny you that right is unbelievable, because the state's role stops at the doorstep. Beyond the legal and economic aspects of the marriage it has no business in governing the actual processes of the relationship itself.

THEREFORE, public recording of marriage or divorce is meaningless with respect to the desires of the individuals in the relationship themselves. For the government to step in and tell us that marriage on a whim is 'immoral' or divorce is 'immoral' is not the place nor the responsibility of the state.

You're confused.

First, government interference (and even prevention) in divorce has a long legal precedence.

Second, you are not being denied any "right" of any kind. When divorcing, you are seeking permission from the government to break a legal contract that you had previous recorded with the government.

Get it straight.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, wtf am I suggesting? If they need to get a divorce, then they'll still get it. Anybody who really needs one will be able to make a compelling enough case. If anything all my suggestion would do is force people to admit or discover the REAL reason why they want a divorce and they may see that it's reconcilable or that it's not.

Why do you have this compelling urge to protect people from themselves? We're all adults when getting married (presumably), and we all have the ability to make our own decisions (with few exceptions). If we choose to drink ourselves into a stupor every day, we have made that decision and the government doesn't protect us from ourselves - we may have friends or family members who step in and make us go into rehab, but that is wholly different from the STATE making the decision for us.

Because in your drunken stupor you may hurt somebody else. Believe me, I don't care about people. I should, but I don't. I just don't want innocent people to suffer for your stupid decisions. OMG, I'm Holden Freaking Caufield...sh!t...people told me this would happen.

The bottom line is that if you prescribe morality in law or act paternalistically, enacting laws which protect people from themselves, you encourage a citizenry which does not think for itself but cultivate a race of automatons.

Doesn't think for itself? What do you call checking a box and escaping from a marriage? If anything I'm demanding that they DO think for themselves and not just wander through life taking the quick and easy paths.......like an automoton would do.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Selling or buying a house is not like getting married at all, unless you're stuck in the 16th century. Marriage does not occur for economic reasons purely, nor do people "buy" or "sell" their wives (or husbands). We're a free society, in case you failed to notice. :roll: The bottom line is this: the state can regulate the economic and legal aspects of marriages - such as filing jointly, joint custody of children, joint bank accounts, etc. It CANNOT, however, govern the personal aspects of your relationship - who stays at home, who works, who takes care of the kids, how many kids you have, when you have sex, etc. Therefore, it should have no role other than to dismantle the legal and economic connection between the two individuals should they choose to divorce - the reason not need be a 'good' one, nor should they need to have any reason at all! As legal adults, we have the ability to choose what we want, whether or not it is good for us or not. I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

Defensive aren't we? :roll:

I didn't say that marriage was like buying and selling a house. I said that the laws were similar insofar as that they are both matters of public record. And I did say that the government can't control personal aspects of the marriage relationship, so there was no need for you to go at length about that as if I had said otherwise. Pull your fscking head out of your ass.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Well, wtf am I suggesting? If they need to get a divorce, then they'll still get it. Anybody who really needs one will be able to make a compelling enough case. If anything all my suggestion would do is force people to admit or discover the REAL reason why they want a divorce and they may see that it's reconcilable or that it's not.

Why do you have this compelling urge to protect people from themselves? We're all adults when getting married (presumably), and we all have the ability to make our own decisions (with few exceptions). If we choose to drink ourselves into a stupor every day, we have made that decision and the government doesn't protect us from ourselves - we may have friends or family members who step in and make us go into rehab, but that is wholly different from the STATE making the decision for us.

Because in your drunken stupor you may hurt somebody else. Believe me, I don't care about people. I should, but I don't. I just don't want innocent people to suffer for your stupid decisions. OMG, I'm Holden Freaking Caufield...sh!t...people told me this would happen.

The bottom line is that if you prescribe morality in law or act paternalistically, enacting laws which protect people from themselves, you encourage a citizenry which does not think for itself but cultivate a race of automatons.

Doesn't think for itself? What do you call checking a box and escaping from a marriage? If anything I'm demanding that they DO think for themselves and not just wander through life taking the quick and easy paths.......like an automoton would do.

What you fail to understand is that when it comes to divorce it is not just a quick and easy solution, it is the end of a long and hard process where couples usually have tried to make things work and have reached the conclusion that it is not possible. The reasonable solution is disolvement of the Union through divorce and the when the only reason they are divorcing is that they do not get along "Irreconcilable differences" is the valid reason!

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Vic

First, government interference (and even prevention) in divorce has a long legal precedence.

Second, you are not being denied any "right" of any kind. When divorcing, you are seeking permission from the government to break a legal contract that you had previous recorded with the government.

Get it straight.

Well, this is new. The government may legally prevent me from dissolving a union which the participants no longer wish to participate in. Assuming this is even true, it must be one of the most egregious suspensions of civil liberties in this country.

You continue to fail to understand the point that if any mandatory pre-procedure or 'sufficient reason,' as determined by the state for divorce is required BY LAW in order for a marriage to be annulled the participants are being denied the liberty of choosing how to direct their relationship. As I have said AD NAUSEUM the state's only responsibility is precisely as you said in the legal aspects of the relationship - establishing and/or breaking the connections which tie the two individuals LEGALLY. The two individuals party to the contract are willing to end it, so what say does the government have? NONE. Your post seems to make it like the contract was established with the government as a party to it - the state has no participatory role in the marriage itself, is not party to the relationship, and therefore has NO SAY.

This might not be the case, however, if you had a religious marriage which was sworn before, say, God. Then, presumably, God would be party to the 'contract' or 'oath' and would need to be consulted before the marriage was anulled (as we see in European history). But in our secular state, the government is not God.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Selling or buying a house is not like getting married at all, unless you're stuck in the 16th century. Marriage does not occur for economic reasons purely, nor do people "buy" or "sell" their wives (or husbands). We're a free society, in case you failed to notice. :roll: The bottom line is this: the state can regulate the economic and legal aspects of marriages - such as filing jointly, joint custody of children, joint bank accounts, etc. It CANNOT, however, govern the personal aspects of your relationship - who stays at home, who works, who takes care of the kids, how many kids you have, when you have sex, etc. Therefore, it should have no role other than to dismantle the legal and economic connection between the two individuals should they choose to divorce - the reason not need be a 'good' one, nor should they need to have any reason at all! As legal adults, we have the ability to choose what we want, whether or not it is good for us or not. I don't need the government telling me what is morally correct, appropriate, or to protect me from myself. If I screw it up, IT IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE.

Defensive aren't we? :roll:

I didn't say that marriage was like buying and selling a house. I said that the laws were similar insofar as that they are both matters of public record. And I did say that the government can't control personal aspects of the marriage relationship, so there was no need for you to go at length about that as if I had said otherwise. Pull your fscking head out of your ass.

While you are right that it is a legal contract (so it is public record) I don't think makeing it harder for people to divorce is really going to work.

A better idea is to make getting married harder. Not every has to have counseling to get married (we did! 6 visits with the minister). Right now you can get married for $50 and little as a week or so. I think this needs to change.

I also wish they would make child care classes manditory for people who are expecting kids. but hey thats just me.

 

[raanemaan]

You shouldn't be forced to stay together. It is too easy to get married and people have misguided expectations. It is not my wife's duty to continually make me happy. I have to be happy as a person and then be able to share my life with another before marriage. People want that lusting stage feeling and look for somebody else to give it to them. Plus it helps if they swallow. LOL