NATION

PASSWORD

Should alimony exist?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Diplomat
 
Posts: 710
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Should alimony exist?

Postby The Republic of Fore » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:33 am

Personally, I don't believe it should. It's a relic of a bygone era where it was rare that women worked, and if they did they made basically nothing. That's not the case in this day and age. Plus I think It's a little absurd to promote the idea that sharing someone's last name for a couple years suddenly entitles you to live off of them. What say you NSG?

User avatar
Neu Leonstein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5767
Founded: Oct 23, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Neu Leonstein » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:40 am

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.
Last edited by Neu Leonstein on Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”
~ Thomas Paine

Link
Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Time zone: GMT+10 (Melbourne), working full time.

User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Diplomat
 
Posts: 710
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by The Republic of Fore on Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Neu Leonstein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5767
Founded: Oct 23, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by Neu Leonstein on Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”
~ Thomas Paine

Link
Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Time zone: GMT+10 (Melbourne), working full time.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52794
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:02 am

No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Diplomat
 
Posts: 710
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby 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.

Courts usually don't look at circumstances no, they just tend to rule in favor of women. A gentleman from Oklahoma served life in prison for not paying his ex wife alimony. And if the person is truly that financially dependent, but needs to escape then there's shelters for that. As far as signing rights away though, you actually can. You sign a legal document saying you give up all rights to see or contact the child. In return, you can't be held liable for child support.

User avatar
Dumb Ideologies
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41323
Founded: Sep 30, 2007
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Dumb Ideologies » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:02 am

Child support yes, alimony no.
Tʜᴇ Sᴛʀᴀssᴇʀɪsᴛ Sᴜɴᴅᴀᴇ Cʟᴜʙ ᴏғ Dᴜᴍʙ Iᴅᴇᴏʟᴏɢɪᴇs
¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸ One People, One Nation, Many Puddings ¸„¤*˜*¤„¸„¤*˜*¤„¸
The thirty-something tsundere trans cryptofascist nobody warned you about
♆ P ᴀ x D I ᴀ ʙ ᴏ ʟ ɪ ᴄ ᴀ ♆

User avatar
Wayneactia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 576
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:06 am

Nope it shouldn't, unless the partner is separating from a particularly abusive relationship in which they were significantly withheld from acquiring any savings, assets, or potential to support themselves after the separation).

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16386
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby 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.


For the US anyways, the welfare state is weak to nonexistent. 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?
Last edited by Saiwania on Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19706
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:40 am

Saiwania wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:No, it shouldn't. Economic dependence is not a valid argument in a society with a welfare state.


For the US anyways, the welfare state is weak to nonexistent.


So fix that shit, rather than adding extra problems.

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.


Except that's not true in the slightest.

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?


Because that is also a straight-up lie. What it gets us is a massively positive return on investment.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Sundiata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 366
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:11 am

No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist. When marriage and divorce are simple to attain, we set them up for failure.
Last edited by Sundiata on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic
Politics: Centrist
Economic Views: Rerum novarum
Alignment: Lawful Good

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:21 am

Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

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.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Sundiata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 366
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:38 am

The Free Joy State wrote:
Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

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.
The problem is ultimately abuse, not marriage itself.

Abused people need channels to heal, while abusers need not abuse. Easier said than done, though.

But at the end of the day, alimony and divorce don't foster economic freedom.
Last edited by Sundiata on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic
Politics: Centrist
Economic Views: Rerum novarum
Alignment: Lawful Good

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2921
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.
Kowani wrote:You don’t get to call it Chinese industry when American corporations are the ones outsourcing their labor.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:41 am

Sundiata 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.
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.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Laurel
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Oct 31, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Laurel » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:42 am

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Child support yes, alimony no.

I'm going to second this

User avatar
Sundiata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 366
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby 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.

If you don't think sex is worth the risk of pregnancy, then don't have sex.

Come on.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic
Politics: Centrist
Economic Views: Rerum novarum
Alignment: Lawful Good

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby 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.

We have an abortion thread for the endless consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy discussion.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2921
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:44 am

The Free Joy State wrote:
Sundiata wrote:No.

Because divorce shouldn't exist.

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.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.
Kowani wrote:You don’t get to call it Chinese industry when American corporations are the ones outsourcing their labor.

User avatar
Twilight Imperium
Minister
 
Posts: 2457
Founded: May 19, 2013
Father Knows Best State

Postby Twilight Imperium » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:46 am

This went off the rails pretty quick. :p

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby 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.

1. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses are female
2. You seem to be assuming all abused spouses have children
Twilight Imperium wrote:This went off the rails pretty quick. :p

Yes. Fair point.

My original post was my answer to how I would treat alimony -- for abused/controlled spouses with no ability to amass funds for self-support.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
Minister
 
Posts: 2921
Founded: Apr 05, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby 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?

1. Force of habit. I was picturing the typical narrative of it when typing; I'm normally one of the foremost critics of this narrative.

2. That's why I said "and/or" the kids.

3. There's no such thing as a "reliable" source on a matter as murky as this. Even the official sources are tainted by who knows what kind of incentives; cops not wanting to admit they screwed up in allegations they believed? Allegations they didn't believe? No one truly knows all that goes on behind closed doors.
Iridencia wrote:Inept people always decry pragmatic choices as "cowardly" because they know they're not smart enough to play on that level.
Kowani wrote:You don’t get to call it Chinese industry when American corporations are the ones outsourcing their labor.

User avatar
Sundiata
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 366
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Sundiata » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:53 am

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.
You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.

However, abused people shouldn't be confined to their abusive environment and have the right to economic freedom.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic
Politics: Centrist
Economic Views: Rerum novarum
Alignment: Lawful Good

User avatar
The Greater Ohio Valley
Senator
 
Posts: 4339
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:54 am

No, alimony should not exist.
27 year old pansexual H. sapien male who enjoys heavy metal and the classic PS1 Resident Evil games.
Hey, it's up to us to take out Umbrella.

Liriena wrote:anyone to the left of Pinochet: *exists*

right-wingers: wat about vuvuzelaaa lmao gottem

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:58 am

Sundiata wrote:
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.
You misunderstand, divorce doesn't stop abuse.

However, abused people shouldn't be confined to their abusive environment and have the right to economic freedom.

I question how you make out that permanently divorcing an abusive partner -- never to speak directly to them again (only contacting them via lawyers, if necessary) and having a restraining order (if necessary), and police alarms -- will not have at least a better chance of stopping abuse than leaving someone legally and permanently tied to an abusive partner.

But, as this is straying from the topic of the thread, I'll have to keep wondering.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aeritai, Kasa Tkoth Sphere, Kowani, Napkizemlja, Pannerstone, Radiatia, Telconi, The Alma Mater, Thyrgga, Tonakistan, True Refuge, Uiiop, Vetalia, Wr0ngistan

Advertisement

Remove ads