quote: If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad.
I think that this would probably lead to an increase in spousal murders. More to the point - this wouldn’t actually lead to less marriage break-ups. You don’t have to get a divorce to leave a partner and family in order to go and live with someone else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if removing the possibility of relatively easy divorce lowered the marriage rate hugely anyway. After all, one of the reasons that some couples live together for many years before marriage is that they don’t want to make a mistake which then leads them to a potentially expensive divorce. Making divorce nearly impossible would almost certainly encourage more people to take this route instead of the traditional one espoused (sorry) by most Christians.
quote: If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
So - aside to the problems with this already pointed out - instead of worrying about the welfare of the child, the couple (both terrified of prison) fight over the custody of the baby in order to escape a criminal record. How many women would reasonably rather go to jail than raise her kid? Especially considering that not only would she lose her freedom, but would also perminantly damage her employment and educational prospects? So it would, in most cases, be the dad in jail.
As for fining the mother while jailing the father - what has the father done in making this baby that is worse than her part? As my mother likes to say, it takes two to tango.
Have you considered the impact this would have on the child - knowing that by their very existence, they had blighted the life of at least one of their parents, and that the other one might only be raising them so that they don't get banged up?
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the matter of demonstrable harm, I don't know if the government should be based on "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
No not really. The first statement covers a wide, wide range of possible situations. Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
In fact, I think those two stances complement each other in this way: Some people probably shouldn't get married, but that's all the more reason to allow them to divorce afterwards and not force them to stay together. I think the opposing argument is that people just won't get married if they know they'll be stuck together, but I absolutely don't trust to that threat. People make such mistakes all the time regardless of the threat, and I think actually going through with the threat often does more harm than good.
quote:Originally posted by Resh: Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
Do you have any data to back up the multitude of assertions you just made?
I don't have any on hand, but to bring back a point you didn't address earlier, how are you solving anything if you're jailing cheating husbands and wives left and right and yet claim that their financial contributions are going to solve the problem? You're taking two families and reducing their income by half. Plus the taxpayers are on the line for the cost of incarceration, which is a massive cost. Explain to me how the math adds up there as a net gain for these children. Now they don't get ANY child support and they have a parent in jail!
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Car insurance is an interesting analogy, but I think you tagged the wrong end of it. I'm not particularly worried about my driving, I'm worried about everyone else. The connection there being, maybe you know yourself, but you don't really know the person you're marrying (which is sort of where the analogy falls apart I think, but it's still not a bad one).
But that's really neither here nor there. While I freely admit that my knowledge of prenups is not far reaching, Resh didn't really nail down my argument correctly. My problem with prenups is really an extension of my problem with how divorces tend to settle assets in a marriage, and thus my problem with prenups I guess is more a problem with a specific category, rather than the practice as a whole. Besides, he was for a wholesale ban on them, I just wanted to take a look at them for a possible fix. Before I'd suggest any specific change, I'd want to get into facts and figures and how it actually works. Perhaps I overstated myself earlier.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
Also, people who think car insurance is only about the other guy are generally guilty of overconfidence.
All this leaves aside the fact that I can see no legal justification for the government to stick their fingers in what types of prenups are allowed (except for the restrictions that exist on any contract).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Get the people of the world to agree on one fundamental of a "good society" and you might be able to answer that question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
I don't know where you got that from. Did you not read this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
posted
Not a blanket ban, no, I'm not. Now that I've thought about it more, my concern has far less to do with prenups than it does with how assets are allocated in a divorce, which is also something I don't know enough about to suggest policy changes, I'd have to get more into it.
But even if I was, what's your point?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
My ex and I certainly didn't use attorneys. She downloaded a sample agreement off a website, we both signed it, and that was that. We're still friends, 7 years later.
Seriously, I don't understand marrying someone, then going ape and trying to take every penny, the house, the car, etc., or trying to withhold everything from them. I don't know.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
What is the percentage of married people that get a prenup before they get married? Do you think that everyone should get one? Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
quote:As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Yeah, that's part of why I don't want to tangle with it, as it varies so much, and because the rules seem to matter a lot less than how a judge is feeling that day and how much money you have to spend on whatever level of lawyer you can afford. But again, I have mostly anecdotal experience with the whole thing, and much of my experience by way of others has been very, very bad. I'm sure I'll learn all about it if I ever get to law school, but until then, I'm not exactly writing my congressman about it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you think that everyone should get one?
Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
quote:Originally posted by steven: My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
Yup. If you'd picked someone who absolutely refuses to get a divorce, no matter what, you wouldn't be getting a divorce.
Not all divorces with lawyers are non-amicable. There are in fact lawyers that specifically have philosophies and practices that promote working with the other party, rather than oppositionally. Using a moderation service often means three lawyers (yours, mine, and ours), but is often useful. There's quite a long way between so-buddy-buddy-everyone-wonders-why-the-divorce and cannot-be-in-the-same-room-without-clawing-each-other's-eyes-out.
In many states, a child or children mean that divorce-from-a-kit is not an option (unless one parent is completely willing to yield all parental rights, and often not even then). And in any case involving real estate or other significant financial assets, getting a divorce without an attorney's advice is just plain stupid.
A large part of the reason I am on good terms with my ex is because of my lawyer and the moderators we used.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
I was kidding about divorce insurance. You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company.
quote:Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
Actually, I agree with that, wholeheartedly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I believe the heart of the problem lies directly in the defition of marriage. I would wager a majority of those against same-sex marriage are against it because of their personal beliefs of what marriage means. This is further complicated by the issue that most religions have their own rules regarding marriage, and the government is trying to define it in purely secular terms.
Until there is a unifying definition of marriage, this topic will always have people on all sides of the issue.
I think one of the 'best' solutions would be along the lines of a civil union. Each religion could define marriage within their own terms, but for legal issues (inheritance, medical decisions, etc), you would be required to join a civil union as defined by the government. A civil union would be stricty an agreement between you, your partner, and the community. Keep in mind that this is a free country, and some may disagree with your decisions, but you have the right to them.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, I think that's most of what the religious opponents to marriage are looking for. They use the word marriage in a specific way that means specific things, and they want to be able to use their language to pass their beliefs and culture on to their children. A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
If the word "marriage" were reserved for individual subcultures to use and define as they wished, and if the government used a separate, sterile term for the rules and contracts that it makes available to all, then I think everyone would have most of what they want, and the debate would move on from "what should the law allow?" to "what are our religious and philisophical disagreements about what each of us is calling 'marriage'?" which will still be a hotly-contested topic, but no one will be "the injured party" anymore, some urgent emotions might calm down a bit, and we might be able to make some fruitful progress in the discussion.
On the polygamy thing, while I can't directly support gay marriage OR polygamy because of my religious convictions, I really do have trouble seeing the difference, legally, between the two. Why one deserves tolerance, and is fought for so vehemently, while the other is held in contempt by the same people.
The whole "counting penises versus counting heads" argument is annoying, first of all, because you could just as easily say "counting Y chromosomes", but "counting penises" artificially makes your opponent's position sound ludicrous by tapping into readers' fourth-grade "giggle factor" about the word "penis". Come on.
But seriously, though. I know my reasons for disagreeing with both gay marriage and polygamy, but I don't understand how most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage don't also apply to polygamy. Historically, polygamy has been tolerated by human societies much more often than homosexual marriage. If the genders of the participants in a marriage ought to now be treated as arbitrary and irrelevant, then why are numbers still so terribly important?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
You'll have to forgive me, but I find the idea of there being any doubt as to the "survival of their culture" utterly laughable.
I get your argument, but come on, Christianity, to say nothing of religion itself, has been around for 2,000 years. It's not going to anywhere because gays can get married and actually call it married. A semantic achievement isn't going to undo the fabric of Christian life in this country.
I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe. But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it. "Indoctrinating" children with culture is one of the most important processes in mankind's survival strategy. Human society survives and evolves as those cultures with the strongest survival value succeed in passing on their cultural values to their children. Making the decision to hinder one culture's ability to pass on their values should not be taken lightly.
Already, cultural beliefs or practices that exclude gay marriage are difficult to articulate in many places without getting shouted out of the room. Within a couple of generations, I suspect that the only cultures that survive in America will be those that either accept gay marriage, or have other mechanisms that allow them to thrive in the midst of vehement opposition. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a destructive thing for those cultures affected, and you can't fault them for resisting it. You certainly can't fault them for wanting the government not to forcibly perpetrate it.
And it isn't Christianity, specifically, that I'm talking about. "Christianity", as a name, will probably survive for millenia more. But it will mean different things in different centuries, and not every change will be for the better.
quote:I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe.
Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
In any case, the problem with artificially hindering a culture's ability to promulgate itself is similar to the problem with altering an ecosystem. You can't be certain, always, if the thing you're changing had some important survival value that, with your limited knowledge, you were unable to predict and compensate for.
I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that and the fact that we're only roughly 58 years out from polygamy and the depictions of the practice from that time are hardly appealing, to say the least. Plus, the people that do get caught in the practice today do not tend to be very sympathetic.
I suppose that its possible that this could be a result of unfair sampling and so I'm willing to sit on the fence on this one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it.
I don't accept that as an absolute. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality for all under the eyes of the law; all of those things make it harder to parents to imprint their children with a specifically desired set of ideas and beliefs. Those things are a hinderance, but they're also protected more than anything else in our society, and we fight wars to protect them here and abroad. I believe that government shouldn't actively hinder parents' efforts, but sometimes it can happen anyway as a consequence of their main role, which is guarantor of our freedoms.
What do you do when the very basis of your government enables the evolution of your culture into something you might not like? The answer seems to be a peaceful albeit aggressive political push back. And I don't have a problem with that. Maybe some of the rhetoric is a little strong, and some people might have a problem with the tactics, but they're going about it constitutionally, and when they lose, they don't riot, they don't call for revolution, they just lament what they lost and work harder. There's something admirable in that.
quote:Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
Well, you're certainly free to, I just didn't hear you make that argument specifically.
quote:I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
That's a complicated idea. It might sound simple, but given America's history and the way our government is set up and our culture was founded. And for that matter, I don't think either side is willing to die a slow death based on the argument that they just weren't good enough to survive.
And for that matter, the paragraph quoted above can mean two things to two different people. I think you'd intend for it to be a laissez-faire government approach to culture, but the other side might easily see those tools as their avenue to further their cultural ideas. Both sides are using those tools, and thus the government, to try and protect and promulgate their cultures where they meet resistance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Puppy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Actually, it's very close to my own beliefs... well, except for the fact that I don't have any particular moral problems with gay marriage or polygamy.
Still, we're supposed to live in a country with a separation of church and state. This is JUST as important to the preservation of church as it is to the preservation of state. (History shows us that quite often when this division was not in place, politics took a very active role in religion!)
Marriage, in a legal sense, is nothing more than a contract that can often be terminated with less hassle than it takes to chance cell phone companies. This is not what ANY religion I know of has ever intended for the word marriage! In fact some churches (including the church I grew up in) refuse to acknowledge civil divorces, and will not allow divorced spouses to remarry (other people) within the church.
So why not make it simple and take the world "marriage" out of the civil code altogether, just like you suggested. Then everyone could go on to their happy little homes and define marriage however they want. If your beliefs and culture allow you to marry men or women, so be it. If you're allowed to have ten wives (or ten husbands) then so be it.
I was absolutely shocked when I discovered that Polygamy laws (at least in Texas) can be applied even when there is only one LEGAL marriage. I was appalled that the law could prosecute men for having a religious leader pronounce them married to multiple women (who they SUPPORTED) even if they didn't ask for civil protection of the union. (I'm not commenting here on any of the age issues associated with this.) I mean, if a man goes around poking himself into a different woman every night, the law says nothing - but if he has a dozen that he calls wife, and shelters, then he's a criminal? There's something seriously wrong with that picture, and I think it all has to do with semantics.
I wonder, what would happen if someone actually put forth a bill to remove the world "marriage" from family law. Who wants to try it? After all, there is president. The word "idiot" has only recently been removed from the legal codes of many states!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.
Edited for spelling.
I'd be interested to hear how. I understand the problems it has created in the form of underaged marriage, and other despicable acts. But that's not a problem specific to polygamy. In fact, I would feel comfortable wagering there are far more cases of that activity outside of polygamy. Arguably it's the secrecy involved that leads to these problems. Polygamy can easily be legalized without legalizing the more nefarious aspects associated with the practice. It seems to me that it is hypocritical to be in favor of gay marriage and not polygamy.
That said, I personally have no opposition to either. Religiously, I believe the only marriage sanctioned by God is between a man and a woman and nothing more. But legally, I do not believe either should be hindered.
Also, to the original post, if someone chooses to protest, that's their business. I didn't agree with what OSC said, but I also don't think his comments caused any fear or panic. Is there any actual evidence his words have elicited fearful or panicked response? It seems to me it is a simple matter of differing opinion.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
