Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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?"

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

Hence the attack on abortion as well.

And they'll be going after contraception before long.

Question: How does it serve men's interests to go after contraception? Obviously some men consider the risks of sex with a woman on birth control worth it, or they wouldn't continue to go for it. It would serve men's interests more if "she said before sex she wouldn't keep the baby" were a factor in how much child support was owed by him and how much by the state, but in the meantime plenty of men are glad their girlfriends are on the pill.

And if the attack on contraception constitutes an attack on her agency, why doesn't the law's lack of "she said before sex she wouldn't keep the baby" leniency constitute an attack on his? Does the voting public really think they have a leg to stand on in throwing him into dire poverty for taking the same risk everyone else took, when if they pooled their resources, they wouldn't have to?

I wouldn't ask, except that popular opinion seems to often describe men who oppose abortion as "just jealous" of others' sex lives, which is a bit of a red flag since that's the same phrase with which people dismissed my worldview as well. To say nothing of that phrase not as often being used against opponents of "she said before sex she wouldn't keep the baby" leniency, despite being just as plausible in that context.

[Ifreann]

And they'll be going after contraception before long.

Question: How does it serve men's interests to go after contraception?

It doesn't. It's not about serving men's interests.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

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.

Which is still "one person can unilaterally leave the other, and this be treated no differently from a mutually amicable split for who owes who what money or what property."

And then we wonder why people like Elizabeth Bruenig non-ironically recommend having a baby who can't leave you as an alternative to having a husband.

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.

In today's cultural climate, people would consider that tatamount to kidnapping.

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.

That's not the scenario I'm referring to. Nor do I think that's the scenario most people are referring to. Only the most overzealous of religious zealots think "God's" happiness takes priority over the happiness of both participants in the marriage.

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.

Then why is marriage referred to as a subsidy for monogamy in the context of polyamory debates?

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.

I'm well aware of Gavin-McIness-types equating marriage with children.

But for most people, that's only part of marriage. Men have the most to gain from monogamy, partly because many men are incredibly sentimental about the concept, but also because monogamy is their best shot at a woman's attention in a sexual context or other context anyway; 80% of women could easily take turns having sex with the top 20% of men anytime. In some relationships women don't even have sex with their husbands every day; do you really think the top 20% of men would balk at going several times a day to meet demand? Women, however, do have some things to gain from monogamy. They could have unprotected sex with their husbands without getting an STD; provided he isn't any good at cheating on her without getting caught. (Or provided he's better at acquiring protection than at not getting caught.) They could threaten sex strikes to get concessions in other aspects of the relationship, knowing he faces possible financial penalties if he cheats on her in response.

So yes, some people see the possibility of pregnancy as the only reason it's any of our business whether or not they make it work. Others see it as only one of several reasons.

As well, last I checked, the average NSer dismisses the "marriage is about children" criticism of gay marriage as cover for homophobia. (Which I'm skeptical of, partly because of NSers track record in guessing others' motives and partly because "gay" is used as an insult in districts who voted for politicians who support gay marriage. Suggesting there has to be more to it than just homophobia anyway.)

The state doesn't even really care if you have children out of wedlock.

You need to get drug-tested to receive welfare. You don't need to get drug-tested to receive alimony.

And child support in particular often needs to be supplemented by welfare anyway when the father doesn't have enough money to pay what the child needs. Which frankly makes me wish the state would pay the whole cost and only ask for the money back once he's done college. :/

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.

Millions of people "want" (or more likely need) the child tax credit. That doesn't stop it from being opposed.

Millions of people "want" (or more likely need) welfare. That doesn't stop it from being opposed.

For good or for ill, people treat tax dollars like sacred artifacts that must be used in only a specific array of ways and never misused. Even stuff that I would consider a perfectly legitimate use of them is opposed by a great many people. I know channels like TYT speculate that it's primarily lobbyists holding them back, based on polling in favour of child tax credits or the like, but poll respondents cannot prove themselves sincere.

So if in this context, the public doesn't oppose tax breaks for marriage, that leaves the question of what it is about marriage that gets it so much support, but without comparable support for scrutiny as to whether marital vows are being lived up to.

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

Eh, I'm thinking of the FDNY integrity tests I heard of a few years back. Have you heard of those?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Question: How does it serve men's interests to go after contraception?

It doesn't. It's not about serving men's interests.

You were replying to someone who was making it out to be men wanting a "domestic servant." Which half of the public are you suggesting voted for Trump? If it includes women, why would they consider making other women "domestic servants" worth being made into one herself?

Frankly, I don't think men want "domestic servants" in the first place, let alone badly enough to oppose contraception over it.

Mind you, I'm no fan of Trump, as my arguments with Shofercia on immigration should have made clear, but only the most legitimate criticisms of his supporters will do.

[Ifreann]

It doesn't. It's not about serving men's interests.

You were replying to someone who was making it out to be men wanting a "domestic servant."

I was the one who said that, and I didn't say that it was something men in general want or that would be in their interests.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

You were replying to someone who was making it out to be men wanting a "domestic servant."

I was the one who said that, and I didn't say that it was something men in general want or that would be in their interests.

Then whose interests are you alleging this is serving, and how did they get almost half the voting public to vote for politicians who would serve this agenda?

Even on abortion itself, you still get some voters voting against abortion rights, if not a majority, and you get other voters who didn't even bother to show up to protect abortion rights. Even the people who felt strongly enough about this that they actually bothered to show up and vote didn't feel strongly enough to be fully embittered against the entire ideology of conservatism forever.

Similarly, there are people who haven't been fully embittered against Catholicism over its opposition to abortion and its opposition to contraception combined. By comparison, I had an intense grudge against the Catholic church over its opposition to embryonic stem cell research since long before I had even heard of their opposition to abortion and to contraception.

So if this is about some!men wanting "domestic servants," how specifically are you alleging they got other!men and even some!women to support something that serves their agenda, and how specifically are you alleging that it serves their agenda?

[Heavenly Assault]

Why TF is government and society even involved with marriage, SMFH.

[Galloism]

Why TF is government and society even involved with marriage, SMFH.

There’s significant income, property, custody, and tax implications to the arrangement.

[Heavenly Assault]

Why TF is government and society even involved with marriage, SMFH.

There’s significant income, property, custody, and tax implications to the arrangement.

Exactly, it's about money and control, which it shouldn't be.

[Galloism]

There’s significant income, property, custody, and tax implications to the arrangement.

Exactly, it's about money and control, which it shouldn't be.

Largely it has to do with combining into a single economic unit.

This has implications. There’s a reason marriages exist, just like corporations. There’s a pooling of resources focused toward a common goal.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

There’s significant income, property, custody, and tax implications to the arrangement.

Exactly, it's about money and control, which it shouldn't be.

If someone vows to be with someone forever, and goes back on their word for no reason, shouldn't there be at least some consequences for going back on their word? Financial penalties are a nice middle ground between "over-reacting" and "no consequences at all."

[Arval Va]

Exactly, it's about money and control, which it shouldn't be.

If someone vows to be with someone forever, and goes back on their word for no reason, shouldn't there be at least some consequences for going back on their word? Financial penalties are a nice middle ground between "over-reacting" and "no consequences at all."

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

[Heavenly Assault]

Exactly, it's about money and control, which it shouldn't be.

Largely it has to do with combining into a single economic unit.

This has implications. There’s a reason marriages exist, just like corporations. There’s a pooling of resources focused toward a common goal.

I get it and I'm not trying to oversimplify the issue, but my position is that it's utterly malignant that society gets to dictate how and if people can separate and who gets what and how much if they do. It's petty tyranny and a cheapening of human relationships.

[Galloism]

Largely it has to do with combining into a single economic unit.

This has implications. There’s a reason marriages exist, just like corporations. There’s a pooling of resources focused toward a common goal.

I get it and I'm not trying to oversimplify the issue, but my position is that it's utterly malignant that society gets to dictate how and if people can separate and who gets what and how much if they do. It's petty tyranny and a cheapening of human relationships.

I mean, this happens when you try to unwind a corporation as well. If there’s a dispute, someone has to decide on the division of assets.

I do disagree with eliminating no fault divorce if that means requiring people to stay in relationships that have failed. I am open to other structures and new ideas though.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If someone vows to be with someone forever, and goes back on their word for no reason, shouldn't there be at least some consequences for going back on their word? Financial penalties are a nice middle ground between "over-reacting" and "no consequences at all."

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

The fines should be reasonably affordable. They should be inconvenient, not a threat to life and limb.

Meanwhile, the same voting public that gave us no-fault divorce seems perfectly fine with having guys whose girlfriends kept the baby even though she said she wouldn't having to drop out of school, lose all their dreams and ambitions, and be dragged into poverty with her, if she keeps the baby and goes after him for child support. Shouldn't a boy who turned down sex with girls who would've kept the baby, and held out for a girl who would not, so they could mutually pleasure each other without ruining each others' lives, have something to show for it? Shouldn't a girl who was honest with her boyfriend about whether or not she intended to keep the baby have something to show for it? Shouldn't a person of either sex who keeps their promises about whether or not they'd stay with their spouse forever have something to show for it, in comparison to someone who does not?

Also, I wasn't aware earlier in the thread that people have to pay to get married. They shouldn't have to. Any justification for the state to be this involved in their relationships doubles as a justification to outright subsidize them, so long as the marital vows that justify the subsidy are held to scrutiny on whether or not they're being followed.

[Arval Va]

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

The fines should be reasonably affordable. They should be inconvenient, not a threat to life and limb.

Meanwhile, the same voting public that gave us no-fault divorce seems perfectly fine with having guys whose girlfriends kept the baby even though she said she wouldn't having to drop out of school, lose all their dreams and ambitions, and be dragged into poverty with her, if she keeps the baby and goes after him for child support. Shouldn't a boy who turned down sex with girls who would've kept the baby, and held out for a girl who would not, so they could mutually pleasure each other without ruining each others' lives, have something to show for it? Shouldn't a girl who was honest with her boyfriend about whether or not she intended to keep the baby have something to show for it? Shouldn't a person of either sex who keeps their promises about whether or not they'd stay with their spouse forever have something to show for it, in comparison to someone who does not?

No matter your intent, this will only serve to punish victims of abuse and trap people in failing reationships.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

The fines should be reasonably affordable. They should be inconvenient, not a threat to life and limb.

Meanwhile, the same voting public that gave us no-fault divorce seems perfectly fine with having guys whose girlfriends kept the baby even though she said she wouldn't having to drop out of school, lose all their dreams and ambitions, and be dragged into poverty with her, if she keeps the baby and goes after him for child support. Shouldn't a boy who turned down sex with girls who would've kept the baby, and held out for a girl who would not, so they could mutually pleasure each other without ruining each others' lives, have something to show for it? Shouldn't a girl who was honest with her boyfriend about whether or not she intended to keep the baby have something to show for it? Shouldn't a person of either sex who keeps their promises about whether or not they'd stay with their spouse forever have something to show for it, in comparison to someone who does not?

No matter your intent, this will only serve to punish victims of abuse and trap people in failing reationships.

Don't civil cases operate on the preponderance of evidence standard? If one is really being abused and a judge cannot tell the individual is even 51% likely to be abused, that district urgently needs a new judge ASAP.

[Equai]

That would just further incentivize trapping one's partner with a baby.

What we really need are parenting licenses. I'm so tired of society waiting until the neglect has been committed to do something about it. And then they bleat about "the harm that comes from breaking the bond between parent and child" to hesitate anyway. Gee, if only you could prevent neglect in a way that doesn't require letting a parent-child bond be formed before you have to break it...

Yes, we NEED parental licensing

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

[Arval Va]

No matter your intent, this will only serve to punish victims of abuse and trap people in failing reationships.

Don't civil cases operate on the preponderance of evidence standard? If one is really being abused and a judge cannot tell the individual is even 51% likely to be abused, that district urgently needs a new judge ASAP.

Even with allowances for abuse, people fall out of love or get in marital disputes all the time. Punishing them for that is pointless and infantilising.

[Ifreann]

I was the one who said that, and I didn't say that it was something men in general want or that would be in their interests.

Then whose interests are you alleging this is serving,

No one's. This isn't a rational position based on a cost/benefit analysis, or a political position designed to attract public support, it's a moral conviction arising from religious beliefs. To these people, God created women to be mothers and wives, and so mothers and wives they must be. To seek to thwart this divine mandate by avoiding or terminating pregnancies, or by filing for divorce is abhorrent, it is a perversion of the natural order. It doesn't matter if this makes people happy or not, if this improves society or not, it is good and right because it is what God wants.

[Equai]

Yes, we NEED parental licensing

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

to continue my reply, I believe that divorce should be as simpler and as easier as possible. Its disgusting and controlling wanting to make divorce harder.

[The Provincial Union of the Pacific]

Ignoring who the article is about for second.

If it is true that she is just leaving him because she got "bored" or just didn't want to be married anymore then I cannot understand/support that. Marriage is a promise between two people that they genuinely believe each other to be the perfect person for them, if you think you're going to get bored then don't get married. But this is my personal justification, read into what I say in the later paragraphs if you're looking to understand my more neutral viewpoint.

If it's true that he was neglectful/abusive then that means he is at fault and that can be her justification. I don't think the initiator should have to prove the fault of their spouse through thorough investigation (unless they intend to demand compensation in some way that would strain or otherwise hurt the other person), but they should put up a reason more than just "I was bored". Primarily, this can apply in the case of those millionaires/billionaires that just divorce to upgrade their spouse to someone younger and better looking, they shouldn't be able to just say "I just don't want to be married to them anymore" and then, within weeks, find themselves new lovers while they leave their ex in the dust.

It's not about making women the "property of men" but instead about making sure that if a man initiates a divorce against his wife because he only saw her as a trophy; she should have some form of protection or get some kind of compensation because he doesn't have a valid reason. Additionally, because then the millionaire/billionaire who knows his intentions will be more hesitant to marry her and it'll be enough of a red flag for her to get out of the dangerous situation. To add to this, I do not believe attorneys should be involved in these settlements (that I described) because the billionaire will just get a good lawyer and let their spouse be unable to provide sufficient legal defence.

A lot of women who married young are left out to dry because of their husbands getting bored and wanting a "younger model".

Men aren't the only victims, and they might not even be the majority victims.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

No one's. This isn't a rational position based on a cost/benefit analysis, or a political position designed to attract public support

They're politicians. They wouldn't support this if it wasn't advantageous to their re-election in their particular district, unless there were specific lobbyists to whom they were even more beholden than they were to their constituents. If that's the case, who? And what would have given these lobbyists this much disproportionate power over their representatives, and/or willingness to wield it?

it's a moral conviction arising from religious beliefs

And yet, some of the most vocal advocates of abortion access are religious. (Dr. Rashad Richey, anyone?) Doesn't reflect well on religion if people can interpret the same holy book in such drastically different ways.

To these people, God created women to be mothers and wives, and so mothers and wives they must be. To seek to thwart this divine mandate by avoiding or terminating pregnancies, or by filing for divorce is abhorrent, it is a perversion of the natural order.

And yet, the same voting public either won't (or if you subscribe to the TYT-esque "blame lobbyists" narrative, can't) get child tax credits. When you consider that some girls want kids badly enough that they keep the baby they can't afford even though they told their boyfriend they wouldn't, I think it's safe to say you'd see a lot more women willing to be mothers if they could afford kids. A less-punishment-based, more-reward-based, incentive, would serve their agenda a hell of a lot better.

As well, filing for divorce can end in her becoming a wife again if she marries a different man. Maybe they interpret the Bible as saying she needs to stay with her first husband forever or whatever (which is funny, because it's not like Lot's daughters were married to him; or to the mob outside their home, for that matter), but if that's the case, wouldn't they fine the hell out of wealthy people who divorce their spouses, who can easily afford it, to subsidize the first marriages of poor and middle class people a hell of a lot more? Just imagine even a fraction of Trump's wealth distributed to poor couples who were faithful to each other.

Catholicism condemns contraception, let alone abortion. Are people who are willing to be Catholic in spite of this not accomplices in said allegedly "divine-will-over-humanity's-will agenda?

It doesn't matter if this makes people happy or not, if this improves society or not, it is good and right because it is what God wants.

And again, how exactly are you suggesting these supposed "true believers" became a disproportionately-powerful group in comparison to the rest of the public? And what do you think that says about the people who didn't even bother to show up and vote when offered a chance to stop them by way of a referendum?

And if your intent was not to blame the voters themselves, why didn't you clarify that the first time? A reasonable person could have interpret your earlier accusation, at least before you clarified it, as referring to the voters themselves.

What I'm used to; and maybe I've misinterpreted it; is the Carlin-esque narrative of abortion rights opponents as people you "wouldn't wanna **** in the first place"; to which I can think of several counterexamples I'll not name here. It seems to be insinuating they're just jealous, and "you're just jealous" is a phrase with a rather dismal track record...

[Floofybit]

Yes, we NEED parental licensing

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

It's authoritarian, yes, I know

[Rary]

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

to continue my reply, I believe that divorce should be as simpler and as easier as possible. Its disgusting and controlling wanting to make divorce harder.

How easy do believe it should be?