Has no fault divorce outlived its initial purpose?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

For starters, it would give non-pregnant women who suspect their husbands are considering leaving an alternative to getting pregnant off them on purpose as far as punishing them goes, and give other guys incentive to make sure they intend to stay before they get married. How would that not at the very least cut down on the issue?

I can’t see how any of that makes any sense to you. Assuming you have a point which you don’t, what is stopping this fictional crazy lady from still getting knocked up to “punish him”?

A. As I've already stated in other threads that I believe the amount of child support owed, how much is owed by him and how much by the state, and how much provided by the state he pays back once he's back on his feet, should depend on whether she told him before sex she'd keep the baby if pregnant. If she admitted she'd keep the baby; if she claimed she expected him to help with the upbringing; etc... he should've found someone who wouldn't. If she pretended she wouldn't keep the baby; or that if she did she wouldn't go after him for child support or anything like that; to get him to have sex with her so she could trap him with a baby, she certainly shouldn't be entitled to drag him into poverty and make him drop out of school.

B. However, it would probably also help to give her alternative means to punish him for making his vows to her and going back on his word. One less reason to keep the baby she claimed she wouldn't keep is one more step in the right direction.

C. When the people who say this sort of thing doesn't happen are the same people who were wrong about everything from my motives to my personal life, it no longer counts as "fictional". It is proven true by the idiocy and/or dishonesty of those calling it false.

[Juansonia]

First of all, most promises aren't backed by the state. I promise that my next sentence will contain the word yes, but does that mean that the state will back that promise? Of course not.

Oh and by the way, there is nothing about a marriage which bars against extramarital affairs - after all, "open marriages" exist. People who are married simply choose to not engage in extramarital affairs - this in itself may be backed by a binding contract. However, marriage in itself does not impose such obligations.

Question: Is there any way to get a pre-nup for an open relationship with no penalty for adultery but a penalty for leaving?

"A penalty for leaving" where did you pull that from? I simply stated that, legally, marriage does not, in itself, restrict sexual relations to the confines of marriage. The point of a no-fault divorce (which I'm in favor of allowing) is that the marriage can be dissolved without any penalties.

Kentucky, along with 16 other states, is a no-fault state, meaning even if your marriage did end because of adultery, a judge will typically not consider this in determining things like child custody or division of assets. This can often come as a shock to those who have been cheated on.

you have a point. Perhaps the solution would be to, if not to entirely remove government recognition of marriage, allow for no-fault divorce and to allow for someone-is-at-fault divorces on certain grounds, with fault's relevance determined by the grounds on which the divorce is sought (no-grounds divorce should be no-fault automatically).

[Juansonia]

C. When the people who say this sort of thing doesn't happen are the same people who were wrong about everything from my motives to my personal life, it no longer counts as "fictional". It is proven true by the idiocy and/or dishonesty of those calling it false.

- The example is fictional because it's a hypothetical (or at least assumed to be one). If this was referring to a specific incident, give more context, such as it happening to yourself, someone you knew, or a celebrity or someone.

- "it is proven true by the dishonesty of those who claim it is false" If you're saying that a claim of falsehood proves the statement true, that's circular reasoning. If you're saying that their other acts of dishonesty/idiocy proves you right, not only have you failed to establish that they acted in such a manner, it would not prove you right - it's an ad hominem.

[Saiwania]

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up..

Worrying about infidelity too much, is usually no way to do things. Mostly because if you're too paranoid, you'll probably drive the other person to leave you- if they sense that you don't trust them on anything. So they'll conclude they probably shouldn't trust you either, or won't have your back if you don't have theirs. Its getting the outcome you feared about in the first place, over not behaving as yourself or maintaining the lifestyle/circumstances for why the two people got along so well- as to get married in the first place?

Most people you meet, will have already had sex with someone else before having even met you, if they're too old- or as more time passes. But its also true that open marriages are just consensual cheating, I don't see it working very often or being practical. Sexual infidelity puts you at medical risk for catching venereal diseases or making that outcome more likely, but that is really the only real main threat it poses to you. All else is secondary in terms of it truly hurting you.

Perhaps it is just the case that people disagree on sex like they do over money over time, and at that moment the person(s) unhappy with the current arrangement or situation has to decide- do they cave into what the other person wants out of the marriage to keep it going? Get some compromise worked out? Or do they decide it is time for it to end? Differences are just irreconciliable sometimes, because people change.

If you catch infidelity as it pertains to you, by all means leave them or don't forgive if that is what you want to do. But you should take care to hold yourself to the same standards. What people shouldn't do is be a hypocrite or only be about themselves if they're attached too much to another person like being in a marriage.

[USS Monitor]

"a way for couples who want to split on good terms to not have to pretend one of them was at fault"

This is why no fault divorce should continue to exist as an option.

There will always be some people who make mistakes and marry the wrong person. We should not be setting up systems that will escalate the conflict in failed marriages.

[Galway-Dublin]

i love threads like these because somebody will ask a question with a really easy answer, well adjusted people will give the really easy answer of "no, what the hell are you talking about" and people who would fit in well in 15th century bohemia will flock to give three paragraph responses as to why we should universally regress as a society with vaguely pseudointellectual claims that make a lot more sound than they have meaning

[USS Monitor]

Imagine being cheated on, the other partner wanting max benefits when getting out and then when you want to bring it up..

Worrying about infidelity too much, is usually no way to do things. Mostly because if you're too paranoid, you'll probably drive the other person to leave you- if they sense that you don't trust them on anything.

Sai, this is the best relationship advice you have ever written. It's incredible!

So they'll conclude they probably shouldn't trust you either, or won't have your back if you don't have theirs. Its getting the outcome you feared about in the first place, over not behaving as yourself or maintaining the lifestyle/circumstances for why the two people got along so well- as to get married in the first place?

Most people you meet, will have already had sex with someone else before having even met you, if they're too old- or as more time passes. But its also true that open marriages are just consensual cheating, I don't see it working very often or being practical. Sexual infidelity puts you at medical risk for catching venereal diseases or making that outcome more likely, but that is really the only real main threat it poses to you. All else is secondary in terms of it truly hurting you.

Perhaps it is just the case that people disagree on sex like they do over money over time, and at that moment the person(s) unhappy with the current arrangement or situation has to decide- do they cave into what the other person wants out of the marriage to keep it going? Get some compromise worked out? Or do they decide it is time for it to end? Differences are just irreconciliable sometimes, because people change.

If you catch infidelity as it pertains to you, by all means leave them or don't forgive if that is what you want to do. But you should take care to hold yourself to the same standards. What people shouldn't do is be a hypocrite or only be about themselves if they're attached too much to another person like being in a marriage.

The rest of the post is OK too, but that first bit is, like... I can't believe you actually have that insight.

I've had so many bad experiences with guys where I wasn't cheating at all or even considering it, but they just kept asking and asking and asking -- "Is there another man? Is there another man? Is there another man?"

It's a huge problem. And in the end, those relationships don't work.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

C. When the people who say this sort of thing doesn't happen are the same people who were wrong about everything from my motives to my personal life, it no longer counts as "fictional". It is proven true by the idiocy and/or dishonesty of those calling it false.

- The example is fictional because it's a hypothetical (or at least assumed to be one). If this was referring to a specific incident, give more context, such as it happening to yourself, someone you knew, or a celebrity or someone.

- "it is proven true by the dishonesty of those who claim it is false" If you're saying that a claim of falsehood proves the statement true, that's circular reasoning. If you're saying that their other acts of dishonesty/idiocy proves you right, not only have you failed to establish that they acted in such a manner, it would not prove you right - it's an ad hominem.

Of course it's an ad hominem. But ad hominem is at least better than nothing. And the case you present right now for dismissing this as not happening consists essentially of nothing. (Unless you're putting the burden of proof lopsidedly onto me, in which case, nah. If anything it should be on the side of gov't intervention; as it is with prosecution for crimes; and child support law is a gov't intervention. Which would be fair enough if it had a little leniency for guys whose lives would be ruined for a decision she made at odds with the one she said she'd make. But frankly, I still think even the ad hominem, though it's not quite the ideal of reasoning in most circumstances, makes a pretty good case here. Best you could hope for on a topic so murky as speculating about what's going on in other people's relationships.)

[Adamede]

No.

[Risottia]

What? Where do married couples get their vows in writing?

Marriage vows? That's so, like, 2000 years ago. We have articles of the Civil Code detailing duties and rights.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

[Ifreann]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Perhaps consider that other people's romantic relationships, whether beginning, continuing, or ending, are generally no business of yours, nor of anyone not a party to them.

[Kerwa]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Perhaps consider that other people's romantic relationships, whether beginning, continuing, or ending, are generally no business of yours, nor of anyone not a party to them.

We don’t live on libertarian world. So, yes, people’s romantic relationships are society’s business. Tak8ng a village works both ways.

[Ifreann]

Perhaps consider that other people's romantic relationships, whether beginning, continuing, or ending, are generally no business of yours, nor of anyone not a party to them.

We don’t live on libertarian world. So, yes, people’s romantic relationships are society’s business. Tak8ng a village works both ways.

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

[Infected Mushroom]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Yes, it does seem unacceptable. We need to fix this.

[Ethel mermania]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Perhaps consider that other people's romantic relationships, whether beginning, continuing, or ending, are generally no business of yours, nor of anyone not a party to them.

The state does have an interest in preventing domestic abuse in a relationship, or marriage by close family members.

But I still can't figure out the point of stripping no fault, out of all the divorces. in the states the plurality is caused by the couples simply growing apart. Who's fault is that?

Edit: Just going to leave this here to lend some rudimentary statistics on the topic of divorce

https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-stat ... and-facts/

[Heloin]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Good.

[Heloin]

Also, I just wish to make clear that I'm perfectly okay with a couple that mutually wants to split mutually doing so on good terms. No bystander should get to punish both of them for wanting to do so.

What bothers me a bit more is that one partner gets to walk away for any reason, even no reason at all, even after committing to a relationship in as official a context as marriage, and doesn't owe the slightest bit more alimony than they would have otherwise for going back on their word through no fault of the other participant whatsoever.

Yes, it does seem unacceptable. We need to fix this.

No we don’t.

[Kerwa]

We don’t live on libertarian world. So, yes, people’s romantic relationships are society’s business. Tak8ng a village works both ways.

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

It’s family formation. It brings a whole set of things that the state is involved in. So obviously there is a general state interest.

[Ifreann]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

It’s family formation.

That famous saying, "it takes a village to be a family".

It brings a whole set of things that the state is involved in. So obviously there is a general state interest.

The state is not a village.

[Simonreca]

Easy answer: No. Forcing people to stay in relationships they don’t want to be in is pretty bad.

[Kerwa]

It’s family formation.

That famous saying, "it takes a village to be a family".

It brings a whole set of things that the state is involved in. So obviously there is a general state interest.

The state is not a village.

This is an extremely self absorbed and selfish perspective.

[Ifreann]

That famous saying, "it takes a village to be a family".

The state is not a village.

This is an extremely self absorbed and selfish perspective.

My perspective is that if a person wants to walk away from their romantic relationship then that is nothing to do with me, nor you, nor GTAA, nor the state. I'm not sure what's self-absorbed or selfish about believing that people should generally be left to manage their own interpersonal relationships without the unasked for and likely unwelcome involvement of strangers or the state.

[Adamede]

Perhaps consider that other people's romantic relationships, whether beginning, continuing, or ending, are generally no business of yours, nor of anyone not a party to them.

We don’t live on libertarian world. So, yes, people’s romantic relationships are society’s business. Tak8ng a village works both ways.

No. What consenting adults do is frankly only their buisness.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

We don’t live on libertarian world. So, yes, people’s romantic relationships are society’s business. Tak8ng a village works both ways.

That famous saying, "it takes a village to get married".

So if it takes a village to raise a child, but not to get married, does that not come back to the point raised earlier in this thread about incentivizing intentional pregnancies that would make it "society's business" whether or not he leaves?