by The Republic of Fore » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:33 am
by Neu Leonstein » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:40 am
by The Republic of Fore » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:49 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:Yes, it should.
Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.
Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.
by Neu Leonstein » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:54 am
The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex.
But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.
by Ostroeuropa » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:02 am
by The Republic of Fore » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:03 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex.
Ah, I stand corrected. While often thrown in with child support, as I did there, you're right. They're not the same thing.
In which case the argument for it is a different one. It depends on the circumstances, I'd say. As, presumably, courts do. But you don't want to be in a situation where one partner is economically dependent on the other, and due to that is unable to, say escape an abusive relationship.
Whether something like that is the case needs to be determined on a case by case basis. I'd be hesitant to agree with a blanket ban.But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.
I don't think they necessarily can. But that's a different discussion. With child support, the key is that the kids have a right to support from their parents, if you ask me. And they didn't sign that right away, no matter what happened to the parents' relationship.
by Dumb Ideologies » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:02 am
by WayNeacTia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:06 am
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Saiwania » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:22 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.
by Salandriagado » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:40 am
What can I say? Americans want to support actual working poor or disabled people, and not a bunch of people who could be seen as lazy bums or those who're unskilled when they could become more skilled, if they really applied themself.
I do often wonder why European nations are too generous with their welfare, if all it ever gets them is unwanted immigration from poorer countries?
by Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:11 am
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:21 am
by Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:38 am
The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.The Free Joy State wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...
I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.
But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:38 am
The Republic of Fore wrote:Neu Leonstein wrote:Yes, it should.
Two parents = two people with a responsibility for the kid's wellbeing.
Ideally that's economic and non-economic. But if the relationship between the parents makes some forms of shared care impossible, that doesn't mean it makes all forms of shared care impossible. You don't have to like someone to send a cheque. So that responsibility remains.
Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex. But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:41 am
Sundiata wrote:The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.The Free Joy State wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...
I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.
But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.
Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though m
by Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:42 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The Republic of Fore wrote:Alimony has nothing to do with paying for the child. It's money specifically for your ex. But even if we're specifically talking about child support, that's not really a responsibility either. Rights can be signed away.
Depends on the jurisdiction.
Actually, I think a guy who engaged in casual sex with a woman who said she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant shouldn't be thrown into poverty with her if she changes her mind. I think a guy like that has more cause for "paper abortions" than a divorced man who wants to leave the woman and child in poverty just to spite the woman.
Honestly, this sort of stuff, in the context of marriage, should be handled in pre-nuptial agreements. If you don't think marrying them is worth the risk, don't marry them.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:44 am
Sundiata wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Depends on the jurisdiction.
Actually, I think a guy who engaged in casual sex with a woman who said she wouldn't keep the baby even if she got pregnant shouldn't be thrown into poverty with her if she changes her mind. I think a guy like that has more cause for "paper abortions" than a divorced man who wants to leave the woman and child in poverty just to spite the woman.
Honestly, this sort of stuff, in the context of marriage, should be handled in pre-nuptial agreements. If you don't think marrying them is worth the risk, don't marry them.
If you don't think sex is worth the risk of pregnancy, then don't have sex.
Come on.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:44 am
The Free Joy State wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...
I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.
But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:48 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world (a world where marriages fail -- despite both parties' best efforts, or where marriages are abusive and divorce is the only option for one partner's safety)...
I hesitate to say alimony should not exist. If both parties worked and/or otherwise have access to sufficient funds and the ability to support themselves after a separation, then I don't think alimony is needed.
But, as others have said, if one party is controlling/abusive and controls the sole/a significant portion of the means of gaining and accessing funds, meaning the other party will be unable to support themselves properly after a separation, I do think the controlling party (whether male or female) should pay alimony to support the controlled party for a reasonable period of time.
Better idea:
Accused of abuse: You are given a restraining order until the matter is settled. The government provides for her and/or the kids if need be until you are on trial.
Exonerated: The marriage is declared null and void to prevent further false accusations. Damages are awarded to the exonerated. The kids, if any, are put into foster care so false accusers can never influence them again.
Convicted: The accused goes straight to jail, does not pass go, does not collect $200. In fact, the accused is expected to provide more than that amount of money to the accuser through hard labour on the chain gang.
Twilight Imperium wrote:This went off the rails pretty quick.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:52 am
The Free Joy State wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Better idea:
Accused of abuse: You are given a restraining order until the matter is settled. The government provides for her and/or the kids if need be until you are on trial.
Exonerated: The marriage is declared null and void to prevent further false accusations. Damages are awarded to the exonerated. The kids, if any, are put into foster care so false accusers can never influence them again.
Convicted: The accused goes straight to jail, does not pass go, does not collect $200. In fact, the accused is expected to provide more than that amount of money to the accuser through hard labour on the chain gang.
1. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses are female
2. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses have children
3. I assume you have recent statistics from a recognised source (governmental, a journal, or equivalent -- no mommy blog equivalents) about the number of false abuse allegations to make this rigmarole pressing?
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:53 am
You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.The Free Joy State wrote:Sundiata wrote:The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.
Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though m
Not to derail the thread but why should an abused partner have to stay married while his/her abusive partner learns "not to abuse"? Would they not "heal" better away from the bastard who perpetrated the abuse on them.
Let's remember, after all, that two women (in the UK alone) are murdered every week by a current or former partner (I don't have the stats on men to hand -- apologies).
Anyway, this thread is accepting the reality that divorce exists. Not talking about some airy-fairy fantasyland where it is banned due to the preferences of a tiny minority.
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:54 am
by The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:58 am
Sundiata wrote:You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.The Free Joy State wrote:Not to derail the thread but why should an abused partner have to stay married while his/her abusive partner learns "not to abuse"? Would they not "heal" better away from the bastard who perpetrated the abuse on them.
Let's remember, after all, that two women (in the UK alone) are murdered every week by a current or former partner (I don't have the stats on men to hand -- apologies).
Anyway, this thread is accepting the reality that divorce exists. Not talking about some airy-fairy fantasyland where it is banned due to the preferences of a tiny minority.
However, abused people shouldn't be confined to their abusive environment and have the right to economic freedom.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Benevolent 1, Corporate Collective Salvation, Daphomir, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, Heldervin, Ifreann, Jerzylvania, Kenmoria, Ors Might, Senkaku, Tarsonis, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan, Uvolla, Valrifall
Advertisement