Has no fault divorce outlived its initial purpose?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Yeah, no.

If the average person so looks down on the "few" who they (falsely) claim aren't desirable enough to get laid, then once another "few" are the ones women would rather take turns copulating with than marrying any of the rest of them, the "average person" should accept that, by their own standards of reasoning, they are losers, rather than acting out over it.

And if that turns out to be the most wealthy guys instead of the most attractive guys, that doubles as a discrediting of those who condemn prostitution for "making relationships transactional" as if they weren't already.

[Ifreann]

That it takes a village to raise a child means that children are the responsibility of all of society, not only of their parents. It means that we are all contributing to the raising of the next generation, and thus we must all see that we do so well. It does not mean that society gets to dictate the terms of anyone's romantic relationships, to force anyone by any means to stay in a relationship they would otherwise leave because we imagine that to be best for their children.

And yet, one of the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions is...

I'm going to stop you there. This is obviously something that you are fixated on, and I'm sure you've pestered several people on the internet about it, but there simply is not any popular argument in favour of this extremely specific thing. Nor against it. People don't argue about this.

[Saiwania]

Yeah, no.

If the average person so looks down on the "few" who they claim aren't desirable enough to get laid, then once another "few" are the ones women would rather take turns copulating with than marrying any of the rest of them the "average person" should accept that, by their own standards of reasoning, they are losers, rather than acting out over it.

And if that turns out to be the most wealthy guys instead of the most attractive guys, that doubles as a discrediting of those who condemn prostitution for "making relationships transactional" as if they weren't already.

They haven't truly lost, if the only or primary reason for why they're remaining single and unmarried is because they can't directly compete with another man having more resources and power. If they far outnumber those in power or those who benefit, they by no means have to abide by an undesirable status quo they don't benefit from. The whole point of revolutions in general is to replace a previous system with a new one, if it isn't to right injustice.

Certain people may not condemn polygamy, but it is enough to know that history is on my side. If there are more cons than pros to it, it will inevitably be abolished or fall out of favor. Like how republic won out over monarchy and abolition won out over slavery.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

And yet, one of the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions is...

I'm going to stop you there. This is obviously something that you are fixated on, and I'm sure you've pestered several people on the internet about it, but there simply is not any popular argument in favour of this extremely specific thing. Nor against it. People don't argue about this.

To be neutral is to side with the status quo. Therefore, they are siding with the right to resort to the baby trap, by not providing exceptions for those subjected to it.

[Ifreann]

I'm going to stop you there. This is obviously something that you are fixated on, and I'm sure you've pestered several people on the internet about it, but there simply is not any popular argument in favour of this extremely specific thing. Nor against it. People don't argue about this.

To be neutral is to side with the status quo. Therefore, they are siding with the right to resort to the baby trap, by not providing exceptions for those subjected to it.

I didn't say that people are neutral, I said they don't argue about it.

Like, pay attention to what's going on in the world for five minutes, see if you hear anything about your bullshit in among the talk about inflation and war and climate change.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

To be neutral is to side with the status quo. Therefore, they are siding with the right to resort to the baby trap, by not providing exceptions for those subjected to it.

I didn't say that people are neutral, I said they don't argue about it.

Like, pay attention to what's going on in the world for five minutes, see if you hear anything about your bullshit in among the talk about inflation and war and climate change.

Condemnation of absentee fathers was a staple of Herschel Walker's campaign (at least until he turned out to be a hypocrite about it anyway) yet we saw little talk of how whether the law should respond should depend on what she said before sex that she'd do.

EDIT: Besides, what's your point? Are you implying that because most people ignore this, it isn't happening? Vast majorities of people have turned out to be wrong and/or lying before...

[Thomasi]

Yes it shouldn't be easy to get divorced unless its a case of domestic abuse in which case the victim should be able to file with the court or police and get an immanent divorce.

I believe that the person who asks for a divorce should have to move out. That would drop divorces massively already.

[Heloin]

Yes it shouldn't be easy to get divorced unless its a case of domestic abuse in which case the victim should be able to file with the court or police and get an immanent divorce.

I believe that the person who asks for a divorce should have to move out. That would drop divorces massively already.

Why?

[Thomasi]

Yes it shouldn't be easy to get divorced unless its a case of domestic abuse in which case the victim should be able to file with the court or police and get an immanent divorce.

I believe that the person who asks for a divorce should have to move out. That would drop divorces massively already.

Why?

Because custody battles happen when divorce happens. If they made it law that custody was 50/50 unless abuse was proven I wouldn't care as much but the fact that people can fight over custody is why I think divorce should be hard. Or at least agreeing to 50/50 custody should be a prerequisite.

[Great Heathen Air Force]

Why?

Because custody battles happen when divorce happens. If they made it law that custody was 50/50 unless abuse was proven I wouldn't care as much but the fact that people can fight over custody is why I think divorce should be hard. Or at least agreeing to 50/50 custody should be a prerequisite.

That's really intrusive and impractical.

My parents got a divorce. It was a good thing, they weren't happy together, and I was tired of listening to them argue. I was happy when they got divorced. They both agreed that 50/50 custody wasn't practical, since my father wanted to pursue employment in a neighboring city, and the logistics just wouldn't work.

So I'm very glad that your laws were not in place, and that neither of my parents had to accuse the other of a crime in order for us to be happy.

[Heloin]

Why?

Because custody battles happen when divorce happens. If they made it law that custody was 50/50 unless abuse was proven I wouldn't care as much but the fact that people can fight over custody is why I think divorce should be hard. Or at least agreeing to 50/50 custody should be a prerequisite.

You didn't bring up custody when you said divorce should be harder. I gave you a lot of openness with my question and could have answered any single point I could have been questioning and instead decided to talk past me because I guess you don't have any real reasons why.

[Ifreann]

I didn't say that people are neutral, I said they don't argue about it.

Like, pay attention to what's going on in the world for five minutes, see if you hear anything about your bullshit in among the talk about inflation and war and climate change.

Condemnation of absentee fathers was a staple of Herschel Walker's campaign (at least until he turned out to be a hypocrite about it anyway) yet we saw little talk of how whether the law should respond should depend on what she said before sex that she'd do.

EDIT: Besides, what's your point? Are you implying that because most people ignore this, it isn't happening? Vast majorities of people have turned out to be wrong and/or lying before...

My point is that your appeals to "the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions" is a fundamentally meaningless appeal, because this is not something that features prominently in the national conversation in America.

And you know, even if there were popular arguments about this highly specific thing that you're obsessed with, so what? What does that have to do with me? I tell you what I think and why, and your response is that some other people say something else...okay? Go talk to them, then. Whoever they are.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Condemnation of absentee fathers was a staple of Herschel Walker's campaign (at least until he turned out to be a hypocrite about it anyway) yet we saw little talk of how whether the law should respond should depend on what she said before sex that she'd do.

EDIT: Besides, what's your point? Are you implying that because most people ignore this, it isn't happening? Vast majorities of people have turned out to be wrong and/or lying before...

My point is that your appeals to "the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions" is a fundamentally meaningless appeal, because this is not something that features prominently in the national conversation in America.

And you know, even if there were popular arguments about this highly specific thing that you're obsessed with, so what? What does that have to do with me? I tell you what I think and why, and your response is that some other people say something else...okay? Go talk to them, then. Whoever they are.

Because if you give someone whose boyfriend is about to leave a socially acceptable method to punish him for leaving, that only applies if she's pregnant, you incentivize having kids for the wrong reasons at best.

The people who say otherwise have been wrong about everything else.

[Page]

But if one merely leaves an abuser instead of pressing charges or getting a restraining order, what incentive has said abuser to refrain from abusing someone else? Is there really any scenario in which the system cannot at least get a preponderance of evidence either way to determine most likely direction of blame for divorce?

That is not an abuse victim's problem. One does not have affirmative responsibilities forced upon them for being the victim of a crime.

I'm so sick of hearing that people who have bad things done to them have an obligation to seek the system's justice.

[Tahar Joblis]

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?

Divorces not being easy to get never stopped men from abandoning their families before.

In general, the current no-fault divorce regime present in the United States is one in which women generally are the ones who desire divorce more, initiate divorce more, and file for divorce more. Even if "deadbeat dads" have been a popular punching bag, the more complex truth is that in the present environment, single mother households can be more directly traced to women's decisions than men's decisions.

Divorces being easy to get has been true in other times and places before the invention of modern no-fault divorce law. For a certain brief period near the end of the 19th century, it was so easy for men in some US states and territories to file for divorce that there were divorce vending machines. (First wave feminists were outraged and shut down the practice.) Another example of divorce being easy to obtain for men is found in classical Islamic law, where a man can unilaterally divorce his wife with cause by repudiating her, but is not required to prove or even explain the cause of his repudiation.

[Des-Bal]

The sole purpose of marriage is to force a relationship to continue when at least one of the participants wants it to end. I don't think no fault divorce and marriage of love where you choose your own spouse are really compatible ideas. The system makes a lot more sense when marriage is an unbreakable union tied to property rights and the disposition of children that nobody actually has to like.

These are criticisms of marriage not divorce.

[Ethel mermania]

The sole purpose of marriage is to force a relationship to continue when at least one of the participants wants it to end. I don't think no fault divorce and marriage of love where you choose your own spouse are really compatible ideas. The system makes a lot more sense when marriage is an unbreakable union tied to property rights and the disposition of children that nobody actually has to like.

These are criticisms of marriage not divorce.

No it isn't.

The purpose of marriage is for the state to sanction the couple and give legal protections to the family. A divorce process is one of those protections, but not the only or main one

[Bear Stearns]

threads like these make me realize how far removed my social life is from some of you people.

[Des-Bal]

No it isn't.

The purpose of marriage is for the state to sanction the couple and give legal protections to the family. A divorce process is one of those protections, but not the only or main one

The state allows anything it doesn't forbid. People form all sorts of relationships, when the state "sanctifies" them its just imposing conditions which must be met to alter that relationship.

[Ethel mermania]

No it isn't.

The purpose of marriage is for the state to sanction the couple and give legal protections to the family. A divorce process is one of those protections, but not the only or main one

The state allows anything it doesn't forbid. People form all sorts of relationships, when the state "sanctifies" them its just imposing conditions which must be met to alter that relationship.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the only point is to force a relationship that only one party still wants. Which was my objection to your statement

[Des-Bal]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the only point is to force a relationship that only one party still wants. Which was my objection to your statement

My statement was that it enforced a relationship that at least one party doesn't want its a significant difference because absent divorce it doesn't matter if you both hate it. My point was also self defeating because I immediately explained that it was useful for protecting the disposition of property and children which has been somewhat undermined by the existence of divorce but is also part of what you're calling legal protection. I won't deny we've thrown some utility on the pile but when we talk about marriage as an institution we're talking about what is historically a promise you make to your parents and god that you're going to stick it out. It makes sense when you're talking about something that should persist despite the displeasure of the parties involved and it does not when this is am arrangement that one party absolutely should be able to unilaterally end without special cause.

[Ifreann]

My point is that your appeals to "the most popular argument for child support law having no "gov't pays instead if she said before sex she wouldn't even keep the baby but changed her mind after the condom broke" exceptions" is a fundamentally meaningless appeal, because this is not something that features prominently in the national conversation in America.

And you know, even if there were popular arguments about this highly specific thing that you're obsessed with, so what? What does that have to do with me? I tell you what I think and why, and your response is that some other people say something else...okay? Go talk to them, then. Whoever they are.

Because if you give someone whose boyfriend is about to leave a socially acceptable method to punish him for leaving, that only applies if she's pregnant, you incentivize having kids for the wrong reasons at best.

The people who say otherwise have been wrong about everything else.

No part of this post is a response to mine.

[Culway]

What about having vows more easily adjusted case-by-case? Could an open-relationship contract stipulate penalties for leaving without it being a package deal with penalties for infidelity, so as to allow those who mind the former more than the latter to at least deter the former? Sure, it won't make them love each other, but it could make them hesitate to get their vows in writing in the first place unless they're sure they're willing to stay, making way for those who are more sure of it.

Vows are not religious in the western world (AKA The New World depending where you are) but in the United States, vows are there to legally bind you and your spouse to matrimony, where call holy (married under a deity worshiping religion), or what is sometimes called ‘unholy’ (married under Atheism), but vows do not have any religious meaning, vows only bind each other legally, so in technical terms, cheating is illegal.

[USS Monitor]

Divorces not being easy to get never stopped men from abandoning their families before.

In general, the current no-fault divorce regime present in the United States is one in which women generally are the ones who desire divorce more, initiate divorce more, and file for divorce more. Even if "deadbeat dads" have been a popular punching bag, the more complex truth is that in the present environment, single mother households can be more directly traced to women's decisions than men's decisions.

Have you accounted for the cases where the parents were never married in the first place?