which is what id write in the line if i had a divorce and "irreconcilable differences" wasnt an option, but enough space for a paragraph was.
which is what id write in the line if i had a divorce and "irreconcilable differences" wasnt an option, but enough space for a paragraph was.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Sorry, but (as I already pointed out) long legal precedence says that the government and the public is a party and does have a say.
Also, quite the assumption that both parties would wish to divorce, don't you think? Divorces have both a petitioner and a respondent, because usually it's only one party that wishes to divorce.
Anyway, I really don't care although I do believe that divorce is abused. But hey, if you take a public oath to be with someone for the rest of your life and then decide to change your mind and break that oath just a couple of years later, go ahead for all I care. But recognize that it is NOT a private matter (which is ALL that I have been arguing, I do not agree with Hero and never have on anything), and that it IS a matter of public record where the public does have a say (if only before the public's government representative, i.e. the court and judge).
I'm outta here. You people got issues trying to justify your dishonesties...
If you assault someone in a drunken stupor, that is called assault, and there are laws against it. If you drive a motor vehicle when intoxicated, that is called DRUNK DRIVING and there are laws against that, too. There are no laws against being in a drunken stupor.
You're not seeing the way that certain laws operate quite correctly. When you prescribe a law such as a law requiring certain procedure (i.e. counseling, 'working out differences', etc.) before a divorce, the state is TELLING its citizens what to do, an action which both a.) violates their ability to make decisions for themsleves (automaton) and think for themselves (exercise free will). THAT is why I oppose it. If people want to make stupid decisions for themselves, that is their own business and not mine or the state's, until they decide to overstep their bounds and their actions require the state to step in and defend other people against those individuals' actions (i.e. drunk driving).
Checking a box and escaping from a marriage may be a split-second decision, but it is a decision made by the INDIVIDUAL, rather than by someone else. If people decide to take the quick and easy paths in life, that is their choice, and the state must respect it, not condemn it. We are not in the business to tell people how to live their lives. We can RECOMMEND certain choices, but compellance of this sort is unacceptable under any circumstances.
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
There are hoops for buying liquor. You have to be a certain age. There are also laws against public intoxication. There are also hoops for buying a gun. Anything that, like I said, can harm someone else.
If you would care to back up your claims with even a single link (the burden of proof lies with you) that might be helpful. It is hard to see how any such strict law or state action prohibiting divorce would be constitutional, nonetheless stand up to extensive legal scrutiny. Most, if not all Supreme Court justices would probably strike it down as too restrictive. You still continue to argue that divorce is a public matter and is not private. While I have acknowledged that it does have public components, your failure to acknowledge any component of divorce which is private appalls and astonishes me.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Your belief in your "right" :roll: to break a public oath with the person you once claimed to love and would be with and care for for the rest of your life is what appalls and astonishes me. In my book, that makes you a Grade "A" piece of lying dog sh!t. Enjoy.
Yes, there are laws against buying liquor for minors because before you are 21, you are not a "full" legal adult. That is also why there are laws against contracts being valid when signed by minors, against minors being married without parental consent, laws against minors purchasing tobacco, and such. These are necessary to protect MINORS. But marriage involves the union of competent adults, and as such the state should respect their decisions - not to do so would be both an insult to their intelligence and capability for fully-competent decisionmaking.
I thought laws against public intoxication might come up - there are laws against public intoxication, and as far as I see it, these are absolutely outrageous and should be struck from the books - but that is an entirely different matter, dealing more along the lines of obscenity, the right to be free from offense, and such - not divorce. The matter at hand is whether or not the state can legitimately compell citizens NOT to be divorced, and the answer is that it cannot because we live in a free society, a society which operates on principles of political liberalism.
...and your belief in whimsically restricting personal liberty by laws, failing to recognize that people are human and make mistakes, and the failure to believe that we can each pursue our own happiness appalls me - but you have a right to your belief, and I thank you for your erm...lively vocabulary.
Edit: At least I'm grade 'A' and not grade 'F'.
Also, I fail to see where I was 'lying.'
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You are still confused. I have never had a belief in whimsically restricting anyone's personal liberty by any law. I'm such a radical Libertarian that even most Libertarians think I want too much personal freedom. But there is no freedom without responsibility and a government cannot maintain civic order by allowing injustice.Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
...and your belief in whimsically restricting personal liberty by laws, failing to recognize that people are human and make mistakes, and the failure to believe that we can each pursue our own happiness appalls me - but you have a right to your belief, and I thank you for your erm...lively vocabulary.
Edit: At least I'm grade 'A' and not grade 'F'.
Try this again. Your personal liberty is not being restricted. When you get married, you do so voluntarily and you take a public oath and sign a contract. It is then no more a restriction of personal liberty for the government to insist that you keep that oath any more that it is for them to insist that you pay back your creditors, and to side with your creditors when you fail to do so. You have voluntarily agreed to a civil contract and are obliged to make good on it or offer compensation.
That the government permits the breaking of these personal contracts known as marriage is a compromise designed to prevent abandonments, keep the peace, and to make sure that both parties adhere to their duties as parents (if applicable). It is not a "right" nor a "freedom" nor a "liberty" nor anything of that type.
Get. A. Clue.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
I think the vast majority of people who divorce have probably already undergone enough pain and misery without the rest of us inflicting more on them via the legal system.
Vic you keep insisting marriage is a lifetime contract, but that is not a requirement of the state, only of some religions and even they have "escape clauses" such as a failure to produce offspring.
I'll accept that the state has some participation in the secular union of property and the care of any offspring, but not that the state is required to enforce the religious beliefs of the couple (which could even change over time). That should be between them and their Lord Lucifer or Great Thetan Hubbard.
I'll accept that the state has some participation in the secular union of property and the care of any offspring, but not that the state is required to enforce the religious beliefs of the couple (which could even change over time). That should be between them and their Lord Lucifer or Great Thetan Hubbard.
Originally posted by: Vic
You are still confused. I have never had a belief in whimsically restricting anyone's personal liberty by any law. I'm such a radical Libertarian that even most Libertarians think I want too much personal freedom. But there is no freedom without responsibility and a government cannot maintain civic order by allowing injustice.Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
...and your belief in whimsically restricting personal liberty by laws, failing to recognize that people are human and make mistakes, and the failure to believe that we can each pursue our own happiness appalls me - but you have a right to your belief, and I thank you for your erm...lively vocabulary.
Edit: At least I'm grade 'A' and not grade 'F'.
Try this again. Your personal liberty is not being restricted. When you get married, you do so voluntarily and you take a public oath and sign a contract. It is then no more a restriction of personal liberty for the government to insist that you keep that oath any more that it is for them to insist that you pay back your creditors, and to side with your creditors when you fail to do so. You have voluntarily agreed to a civil contract and are obliged to make good on it or offer compensation.
That the government permits the breaking of these personal contracts known as marriage is a compromise designed to prevent abandonments, keep the peace, and to make sure that both parties adhere to their duties as parents (if applicable). It is not a "right" nor a "freedom" nor a "liberty" nor anything of that type.
Get. A. Clue.
You'll have to forgive me if I think your logic is a bit twisted. While it is true the government must maintain order, I first fail to see how divorce is 'injustice' and secondly, how divorce causes disorder. Even if you assume that both parties enter into the marriage voluntarily and the oath is public, etc. it is still a right of the parties involved to break that contract. With the example of the creditors involved, the government is still involved because one of the parties to the contract refuses to break it (i.e. forgive the loan) and therefore, even if one party wishes to break the contract the contract remains in force. Marriage when ending in divorce is mostly (if not always) a mutual decision. As such, there is no compelling state interest to become involved - it has no role, nor any responsibility because no parties are being wronged (in purely contractual logic here).
With respect as to whether or not divorce is a 'right,' perhaps it is not, but a freedom instead - but it becomes a 'right' in that if the majority wishes to prevent a certain couple from divorcing, the couple can exercise the right of divorce and trump that majority's wishes. I argue that it is because divorce is mostly merely the legal extension of individuals trying to pursue their conception of the good and be happy, it is perfectly permissible to preserve the status quo - the state, which presumably wants its citizens happy and wants to try and encourage them to pursue whatever they think is good (with limits, naturally to "preserve the order" - a conception of the good based on mass murder would be unallowable) should have no place in governing the levels at which a divorce is "unacceptable" or "acceptable." While it may take precautions to make sure that children are not affected in an excessive way, prohibiting parents from taking this action would be an acceptable sacrifice.
Edit: By the way, if it isn't a right, a freedom, a liberty, or anything of the sort, what is it? A privilege? I hope you don't take it there.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm confused by your insistence that divorce is mostly (or always) mutual. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all too frequently not mutual. In my parent's divorce, for example, it was FAR from mutual.
In those cases when both parties mutual agree to divorce and to be amicable about it, then I have absolutely no issues with it. But I think you should realize that is the exception not the rule, and that you are misinformed. The usual is that one side finally gives up, files, and sues for divorce. All too frequently there was infidelity on the part of the petitioner prior to filing. Sure, both sides may have seen it coming, but that doesn't mean that both sides wanted it.
And Dave, for a time limited contract, then a termination date would need to be in the original contract. Last I checked, such was not the case with marriages, not even those done solely by the state with no religious involvement whatsoever. If people wish to put such termination clauses in their marriage contracts, then I would support such an idea.
Think of my position like this. I don't like taxes, but I pay them without fail. I don't like that we have government-controlled marriages, but we do, and so I think people should abide by them if they choose to get married.
Okay, you've got me there. Not all divorces may be mutual. But return to the original point as the OP brought up: is it necessary to have government compellance to prevent divorce or make it "more difficult?" I don't think so. I also don't see how government controls marriage to any major extent beyond the economic and legal aspects as I've outlined prior. Marriage as far as I see it is based in love, law, money, and perhaps for some, spirituality. Government only comes into play under two of those circumstances, and in the rest it has no business.
Edit: I think we've beat this thing to death - it's almost 9:00 where I am and I'm beat. Thanks for the debate, though - it was fun and worthwhile.
Actually, I hate seeing vague explanations like "Irreconcilable differences" too. For those of us who have little or no experience with relationships, seeing vague terms like "irreconcilable difference" just makes relationships seem all the more mysterious.
I think requiring more explicit explanations would be helpful for society.
For example, I now know that if I get marry, I probably shouldn't take my wife to sex clubs and ask her to perform sex on me in public.
If they are too embarrassing, then perhaps having anonymous explanations would be helpful. Then researchers can study and tabulate the results to help people know what the warning signs are for a marriage in trouble.
For example, I would get a big shot of self confidence if the following were true:
65% of all marriages fail because the wife felt the husband was "too big down there" and made sex physically uncomfortable.
Only 0.001% of all marriages fail because the wife felt the husband was "too small down there".
I would be on Cloud 9!!!!
I think requiring more explicit explanations would be helpful for society.
For example, I now know that if I get marry, I probably shouldn't take my wife to sex clubs and ask her to perform sex on me in public.
If they are too embarrassing, then perhaps having anonymous explanations would be helpful. Then researchers can study and tabulate the results to help people know what the warning signs are for a marriage in trouble.
For example, I would get a big shot of self confidence if the following were true:
65% of all marriages fail because the wife felt the husband was "too big down there" and made sex physically uncomfortable.
Only 0.001% of all marriages fail because the wife felt the husband was "too small down there".
I would be on Cloud 9!!!!
Exactly. My ex-wife and I used irreconcilable differences on our divorce. Of course it's easy for everyone else here to say that we should have put more effort into it or it shouldn't be so easy to get out.
All I have to say is you marry her. I tried and it didn't work. I am happier now than I have ever been and I don't regret getting rid of her for a second.
You have no idea what it is like to be in a bad marriage. Making it harder will only lead to violence and misery.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter