Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Divorce should at the very least be harder when the couple has a child to take care of

As a child of a failed marriage, being raised in disfunctional family isn't ideal.

It's kind of a case by case thing what's best for the kids. When a couple in my extended family divorced, two of their kids seemed just as happy not to have their dad around, but the 3rd kid missed his dad.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Yes, we NEED parental licensing

And how are you going to enforce it?

Force abortions on anyone pregnant without a license?

Don't be ridiculous. There is no need whatsoever for resorting to something so drastic as that. There are plenty of would-be adoptive parents willing to adopt newborns. They can take care of the newborns the biological parents have been deemed unqualified to parent.

That said, Americans still haven't boycotted China, so I'm going to take their supposed indignation at forced abortions with a grain of salt.

Lauren Boebert has just filed for divorce so I think we're safe for now..

Lauren Boebert's husband: Free at last, free at last!

All jokes aside, funny how the self-appointed "guardians of virtue" never seem to embody their own morals.

And is the converse any less hypocritical? If you're cool with divorce, shouldn't you be just as cool with Lauren divorcing her husband for any reason or even no reason at all (though I'm sure the details of her reasons will come out in due time) as with anyone else doing so?

For years the left claimed to say no one should ever judge women over their taste in boyfriends. Unless it's Lauren Boebert, then judge away. I don't know what's more hypocritical... that or then giving her grief for divorcing the same guy they gave her grief for marrying in the first place.

And by the way, Boebert's husband has not actually claimed to consider it "liberating." Quite the opposite, really.

Thus serving as a major cost and time barrier.

Okay, now this sounds like the most relevant criticism I've heard thus far.

However, even that leaves a further question... if we're subsidizing marriage to encourage monogamy, why can't we subsidize legal representation in the context of divorce for the same reason? In most other contexts, you can't have a subsidy without scrutiny. You receive welfare, you have to prove you're not on drugs. You work in the fire department, you get integrity tests. Why is marriage treated differently? Why do we subsidize it to encourage monogamy, but have so much less scrutiny as to whether people are living up to the monogamy ideals we subsidize? Why do we subsidize it to encourage monogamy, but treat a spouse who divorced over their partner's infidelity no differently from a partner who divorced because they wanted to vary up their sexual partners in a way that just barely doesn't constitute infidelity any longer?

[Gaybeans]

I can't tell if the spiel above is serious or not. I am really hoping it's not cause oof.

[Stellar Colonies]

I can't tell if the spiel above is serious or not. I am really hoping it's not cause oof.

Well, it depends on if you consider thinking "humans are artificially preventing themselves from living forever orgies as bonobos", "men are sexually obsessed rape monkeys", and "statutory rape isn't so bad if it's woman-on-man" serious opinions.

[The Second Order of Life]

I can't tell if the spiel above is serious or not. I am really hoping it's not cause oof.

Well, it depends on if you consider thinking "humans are artificially preventing themselves from living forever orgies as bonobos" and "men are sexually obsessed rape monkeys" a serious opinion.

Dear lord, it gets worse with every page. This is just genuinely saddening.

[Kernen]

Thus serving as a major cost and time barrier.

Okay, now this sounds like the most relevant criticism I've heard thus far.

However, even that leaves a further question... if we're subsidizing marriage to encourage monogamy, why can't we subsidize legal representation in the context of divorce for the same reason? In most other contexts, you can't have a subsidy without scrutiny. You receive welfare, you have to prove you're not on drugs. You work in the fire department, you get integrity tests. Why is marriage treated differently? Why do we subsidize it to encourage monogamy, but have so much less scrutiny as to whether people are living up to the monogamy ideals we subsidize? Why do we subsidize it to encourage monogamy, but treat a spouse who divorced over their partner's infidelity no differently from a partner who divorced because they wanted to vary up their sexual partners in a way that just barely doesn't constitute infidelity any longer?

This response belies some misunderstandings of the process.

Initially, you confuse no fault divorce as a system replacing at fault, or which is somehow the default. It is not. Most jurisdictions offer them as alternative routes. That is to say that one person can file either option. Much like a waiver of a jury trial, each party must consent to the chosen method, so one person's no fault divorce filing can be converted to an at fault one with a petition by the other.

The dichotomy is because we have a dichotomy of divorces. No fault divorce is essentially uncontested and an administrative approval. It is ideal for when parties are amicable and there is not much property in dispute. It is cheaper because the court rubber stamps these when all formalities are met. It's no different than a will being administered in probate without challenge.

At fault is litigation. It's an adversarial proceeding requiring the court to actively take part as a finder off fact and law. It's essentially a bench trial.

No fault doesn't replace at fault, it gives parties the opportunity to seek a less litigious solution where the conditions are appropriate.

Next, you suggest we subsidize marriage and so should subsidize divorce. This is partially correct insofar as we offer tax credits for married couples. I'll leave that aside to address the remaining implication and come back.

The state doesn't subsidize the process of marriage. It costs money to get married: usually around a hundred dollars. That's a processing fee for the license and potential blood test required I some places, but we, as petitioners to marry, subsidize the state cost.

Divorce is similar. You pay court fees. Usually about ten times as much as to marry, but that's because divorce, even no fault, costs the state much more. It requires a judge, if nothing else. The other costs are for legal counsel, which are technically optional and with a private party. You could hire an attorney to handle your marriage license. It would be dumb but you could. We have long adopted the American Rule that says all parties bear their own costs at trial, so this is very much in line.

As for the tax credit, I'm given to understand that policy is one to incentivize reproduction based on a fairly outdated assumption that marriage = children. Whether it serves that benefit or not, I don't know, but I'd argue that it isn't state subsidization of monogamy: absent a petition to the contrary, the state doesn't care if you're a cheater. The state doesn't even really care if you have children out of wedlock. It's irrelevant. The state operates a system that was previously driven by an assumption and state interest in that assumed result, and now continues because the majority of adults expect to marry or are married and don't support losing that tax break. In sum, it exists and people want it regardless of why it exists. Perverse, but true.

Fwiw, I was a firefighter for seven years and never once faced an integrity test. Ymmv.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I can't tell if the spiel above is serious or not. I am really hoping it's not cause oof.

Well, it depends on if you consider thinking "humans are artificially preventing themselves from living forever orgies as bonobos", "men are sexually obsessed rape monkeys", and "statutory rape isn't so bad if it's woman-on-man" serious opinions.

Firstly, if there's a difference between "horny enough to risk ruining their whole lives, and going into dire poverty and all one's ambitions being ruined, by having sex before he can afford kids" and "horny enough to not always have the willpower to turn down a homewrecker," then there's a difference between either of those things and any supposed instinct to force oneself on the unwilling. Bonobos have said orgies but still respect consent.

Secondly, the first of these doubles as a reason why a guy is more likely to enjoy, and less likely to be traumatized by, that sort of age gap thing. Again, as long as she doesn't resort to literal coercion.

Thirdly, as much as people pretend the sexes are equally picky about partners, or are of comparable sex drive, I question their sincerity in this belief, by their choice in insults in other contexts. Their reactions to any males who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders is "having difficulties getting laid, eh", not "having difficulties finding a woman who'll stay with you afterwards eh?" I rarely see anything similar said to women whose opinions one doesn't like (indeed, in this very thread, they give Lauren Boebert grief for divorcing her husband, not questioning her ability to find casual partners). Their reaction to any males who express any concern in the slightest about girls dating "bad boys" causing other boys to imitate said "bad boys" is "you're just jealous." Something you don't as often hear said about women, and even when it is said, it doesn't land quite as well.

Tell you what. When the average person can prove the sincerity of their belief that the sexes are equally horny and equally picky, maybe then I'll take their condemnation of my worldview seriously. XD

[Incelastan]

And how are you going to enforce it?

Force abortions on anyone pregnant without a license?

Don't be ridiculous. There is no need whatsoever for resorting to something so drastic as that. There are plenty of would-be adoptive parents willing to adopt newborns. They can take care of the newborns the biological parents have been deemed unqualified to parent.

That said, Americans still haven't boycotted China, so I'm going to take their supposed indignation at forced abortions with a grain of salt.

Lauren Boebert's husband: Free at last, free at last!

All jokes aside, funny how the self-appointed "guardians of virtue" never seem to embody their own morals.

And is the converse any less hypocritical? If you're cool with divorce, shouldn't you be just as cool with Lauren divorcing her husband for any reason or even no reason at all (though I'm sure the details of her reasons will come out in due time) as with anyone else doing so?

For years the left claimed to say no one should ever judge women over their taste in boyfriends. Unless it's Lauren Boebert, then judge away. I don't know what's more hypocritical... that or then giving her grief for divorcing the same guy they gave her grief for marrying in the first place.

And by the way, Boebert's husband has not actually claimed to consider it "liberating." Quite the opposite, really.


1. It’s not hypocrisy to call out hypocrisy. It is just a fair rebuke. You pose as some moral paragon according to your insane death cult morality, you deserve to get called out when you fall short of it.
2. I assumed that he would it liberating as my initial reaction because I can’t imagine being in love with a woman like Lauren Boebert. Beyond her vague resemblance to Lacey Chabert, what does she have to offer a man? Certainly not a winsome personality or any kind of grace, charm, or elegance or intellect. She is an extremely unpleasant individual in every context in which I see her. Maybe sentimentality? Maybe he doesn’t want to have to lose custody or pay her when she’s already got a Congressional salary probably larger than his own income. I can’t begin to fathom wanting to keep her because of genuine, unrequited affection.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

1. It’s not hypocrisy to call out hypocrisy. It is just a fair rebuke. You pose as some moral paragon according to your insane death cult morality, you deserve to get called out when you fall short of it.
2. I assumed that he would it liberating as my initial reaction because I can’t imagine being in love with a woman like Lauren Boebert. Beyond her vague resemblance to Lacey Chabert, what does she have to offer a man? Certainly not a winsome personality or any kind of grace, charm, or elegance or intellect. She is an extremely unpleasant individual in every context in which I see her. Maybe sentimentality? Maybe he doesn’t want to have to lose custody or pay her when she’s already got a Congressional salary probably larger than his own income. I can’t begin to fathom wanting to keep her because of genuine, unrequited affection.

Firstly, I would hope you can fix your quote tags so as not to inadvertently look like you're repeating what I'm saying.

Secondly, what you consider lovable may differ from what others consider lovable.

Thirdly, what you consider proper morality may differ from what others consider proper morality.

Fourthly, affection isn't the only reason to get your vows of monogamy on the record. One can still see it as in their mutual interest to have unprotected sex only with each other and no one else. If you're wondering why, perhaps the best answer would be to ask why the average person non-ironically suggests a classmate date the girl who's bullying him.

[Ethel mermania]

As a child of a failed marriage, being raised in disfunctional family isn't ideal.

It's kind of a case by case thing what's best for the kids. When a couple in my extended family divorced, two of their kids seemed just as happy not to have their dad around, but the 3rd kid missed his dad.

I would say the same in my family. The 2 older kids were fine with the divorce ( my uncle was a shit). The youngest one was hurt.

[Incelastan]

1. It’s not hypocrisy to call out hypocrisy. It is just a fair rebuke. You pose as some moral paragon according to your insane death cult morality, you deserve to get called out when you fall short of it.
2. I assumed that he would it liberating as my initial reaction because I can’t imagine being in love with a woman like Lauren Boebert. Beyond her vague resemblance to Lacey Chabert, what does she have to offer a man? Certainly not a winsome personality or any kind of grace, charm, or elegance or intellect. She is an extremely unpleasant individual in every context in which I see her. Maybe sentimentality? Maybe he doesn’t want to have to lose custody or pay her when she’s already got a Congressional salary probably larger than his own income. I can’t begin to fathom wanting to keep her because of genuine, unrequited affection.

Firstly, I would hope you can fix your quote tags so as not to inadvertently look like you're repeating what I'm saying.

Secondly, what you consider lovable may differ from what others consider lovable.

Thirdly, what you consider proper morality may differ from what others consider proper morality.

Fourthly, affection isn't the only reason to get your vows of monogamy on the record. One can still see it as in their mutual interest to have unprotected sex only with each other and no one else. If you're wondering why, perhaps the best answer would be to ask why the average person non-ironically suggests a classmate date the girl who's bullying him.

1. The point isn’t my moral code vs. hers. It’s her apparent hypocrisy in failing her own standards.
2. Again, that may well be true of him and his tastes in women. My point is that I can’t begin to understand his apparent tastes in women and my intuitive reaction was to imagine a sense of relief.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Firstly, I would hope you can fix your quote tags so as not to inadvertently look like you're repeating what I'm saying.

Secondly, what you consider lovable may differ from what others consider lovable.

Thirdly, what you consider proper morality may differ from what others consider proper morality.

Fourthly, affection isn't the only reason to get your vows of monogamy on the record. One can still see it as in their mutual interest to have unprotected sex only with each other and no one else. If you're wondering why, perhaps the best answer would be to ask why the average person non-ironically suggests a classmate date the girl who's bullying him.

1. The point isn’t my moral code vs. hers. It’s her apparent hypocrisy in failing her own standards.
2. Again, that may well be true of him and his tastes in women. My point is that I can’t begin to understand his apparent tastes in women and my intuitive reaction was to imagine a sense of relief.

1. What specifically about her "own standards" are you claiming she failed, and how is it relevant?

2. It's important to remember the difference between oneself and everybody else, especially on something as emotionally charged as sexual psychology. In junior high I found my crushes more alluring in their jackets than I found my other classmates in their swimsuits. Didn't stop me from eventually assuming by default exposed skin is what awakens the primal instincts in others. I myself perceived other girls as flirting with me, and was still more interested in a lower chance with my crush than an apparent near certainty with those girls. Didn't stop me from calling males the less-picky sex. I say these things not in spite of being an exception to them, but partly because of it; when the people challenging those generalizations make me out to be an example of them, I know such people are wrong, and therefore, that the generalizations are likely right.

[Katganistan]

FFS why should people be forced to stay in a marriage they are miserable in? I mean what kind of dystopian bullshit is that? "Unless your spouse is abusing you or unfaithful, fuck you, suffer?"

Divorce MUST be harder to accomplish unless in cases of extreme harm

Why? What possible good is there in assuring someone is trapped in a miserable relationship? Increase of suicide? Increase of murder?

Maybe to them 'sanctity of marriage' means 'no consequences for me' to them.

Just so. The marriage they want is not a partnership between equals, but the purchase of a domestic and sexual servant.

Hence the attack on abortion as well.

[Ors Might]

How would you even prosecute that?

Constant monitoring of security footage. People would be able to see who has licenses and monitor who has kids they shouldn't have

My brother in Christ, you understand that you're advocating for LEOs to watch and police people having intimate relations with each other?

[Katganistan]

Divorce should at the very least be harder when the couple has a child to take care of

In what fantasyland is it better to have a child witnessing their parents at each others' throats than separated and coparenting as amicably as possible?

Yes, we NEED parental licensing

And how are you going to enforce it?

Force abortions on anyone pregnant without a license?

Can't do than when we're busy banning abortions.

1. What if they don't qualify?
2. You are going to take a newborn from their parents and give it to whom?
3. What if mom is 16?

1. If a person does not have the resources, the government will help them out and give them the funds needed.

2. Care facilities that are heavily overseered by the government to make the sure the children are being taken care of properly.

3. the same process will be done for something over 18 without a license.

Says someone who clearly has never researched what happens to kids in the states' care.

Sure, I wouldn't be against criminalising unprotected sex without a license.

And I would be for an armed revolution against any government trying to enforce it

You have my bow.

Sure, I wouldn't be against criminalising unprotected sex without a license.

If that law was on the books, I'd be in favor of the police not actively wasting resources investigating rule violations on that, but taking people to jail/prison if other people snitch on them or sent in proof that they had sex outside of marriage. If the burden of proof was on defendant to prove innocence, that'd cost legal system even less.

I'd want to be a smart despot like Palpatine where you can let the people have just enough liberties to distract them from being too dissatisfied with your rule to want to overthrow- but enforce the stuff that does actually matter for keeping the regime in control and power.

So the fantasy Nazis.
What a shock.

Well, it depends on if you consider thinking "humans are artificially preventing themselves from living forever orgies as bonobos", "men are sexually obsessed rape monkeys", and "statutory rape isn't so bad if it's woman-on-man" serious opinions.

Firstly, if there's a difference between "horny enough to risk ruining their whole lives, and going into dire poverty and all one's ambitions being ruined, by having sex before he can afford kids" and "horny enough to not always have the willpower to turn down a homewrecker," then there's a difference between either of those things and any supposed instinct to force oneself on the unwilling. Bonobos have said orgies but still respect consent.

Secondly, the first of these doubles as a reason why a guy is more likely to enjoy, and less likely to be traumatized by, that sort of age gap thing. Again, as long as she doesn't resort to literal coercion.

Thirdly, as much as people pretend the sexes are equally picky about partners, or are of comparable sex drive, I question their sincerity in this belief, by their choice in insults in other contexts. Their reactions to any males who express negative stereotypes about cheerleaders is "having difficulties getting laid, eh", not "having difficulties finding a woman who'll stay with you afterwards eh?" I rarely see anything similar said to women whose opinions one doesn't like (indeed, in this very thread, they give Lauren Boebert grief for divorcing her husband, not questioning her ability to find casual partners). Their reaction to any males who express any concern in the slightest about girls dating "bad boys" causing other boys to imitate said "bad boys" is "you're just jealous." Something you don't as often hear said about women, and even when it is said, it doesn't land quite as well.

Tell you what. When the average person can prove the sincerity of their belief that the sexes are equally horny and equally picky, maybe then I'll take their condemnation of my worldview seriously. XD

You'll forgive the rest of us for not taking your worldview seriously.

[Ifreann]

FFS why should people be forced to stay in a marriage they are miserable in? I mean what kind of dystopian bullshit is that? "Unless your spouse is abusing you or unfaithful, fuck you, suffer?"

Divorce MUST be harder to accomplish unless in cases of extreme harm

Why? What possible good is there in assuring someone is trapped in a miserable relationship? Increase of suicide? Increase of murder?

Just so. The marriage they want is not a partnership between equals, but the purchase of a domestic and sexual servant.

Hence the attack on abortion as well.

And they'll be going after contraception before long.

[Bradfordville]

If you do something without a license in this country you get public sanctions including jail time

Sure, I wouldn't be against criminalising unprotected sex without a license.

I feel like our society has more pressing issues than whether someone believes in wrapping it up like Christmas. This is one of those things where you can be against something without wanting to bring the full force of the state in to stop it.

[Luziyca]

In my opinion, divorce should be no-fault: if both parties agree to end a relationship, and don't want to be married anymore, then they should be able to end their marriage without much hassle.

[Eahland]

In my opinion, divorce should be no-fault: if both parties agree to end a relationship, and don't want to be married anymore, then they should be able to end their marriage without much hassle.

So what about when only one party no longer consents to being in a relationship?

[Kernen]

This thread is full of people so confidently wrong about how divorce works that it's physically painful. On both sides.

[Ethel mermania]

This thread is full of people so confidently wrong about how divorce works that it's physically painful. On both sides.

Tbf, most threads on this site are like that.

[Bombadil]

This thread is full of people so confidently wrong about how divorce works that it's physically painful. On both sides.

Tbf, most threads on this site are like that.

A long time ago there was a thread on whether a plane can take off on a treadmill - a remarkable amount of pilots didn't know how a plane works.

[Ifreann]

Tbf, most threads on this site are like that.

A long time ago there was a thread on whether a plane can take off on a treadmill - a remarkable amount of pilots didn't know how a plane works.

Don't need to know how it works to make it go.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

A long time ago there was a thread on whether a plane can take off on a treadmill - a remarkable amount of pilots didn't know how a plane works.

Having dedicated multiple years of my life to learning the basics of how computers work, I can confidently say that I have no idea how the [expletive] computers work.

Knowledge is hard, yo!

[Eahland]

Tbf, most threads on this site are like that.

A long time ago there was a thread on whether a plane can take off on a treadmill - a remarkable amount of pilots didn't know how a plane works.

The way that scenario is usually described, the treadmill will spin backwards as fast as the wheels spin forwards. But because the wheels aren't actually what propels the plane, this means that, as soon as the plane starts to move, it causes a positive feedback loop that makes the treadmill instantly spin up to infinite speed and either fly apart in a cataclysmic explosion or sand the plane away from the tires up.

The correct answer is, "This scenario is impossible. Next question?"