Down with Divorce

[Left Coast]

Overall that statement is too simplistic and pat. It overlooks complexities, nuances, and details, and fails to acknowledge their existence.

Not at all. Relationships are complex and nuanced. Marriages aren't identical. That very fact is the reason I can say some divorces happen for better reasons than others.

That doesn't change the scientific literature on the effects of divorce on kids though.

 

[Left Coast]

Many view divorce as a bad thing that ought to be avoided at all costs, rather than a saving grace for a marriage that isn't healthy.

It can be both, in my view. Divorce, on the whole, is not a situation people want to find themselves in. It's generally very painful and breaks families apart. That said, there are circumstances where it can be better for two people who truly can't make their relationship work to split rather than stay together.

 

[ppp]

Not at all. Relationships are complex and nuanced. Marriages aren't identical. That very fact is the reason I can say some divorces happen for better reasons than others.

That doesn't change the scientific literature on the effects of divorce on kids though.

As with the previous post, that doesn't say anything. It hints around. But that is all. [shrug]

 

[Left Coast]

As with the previous post, that doesn't say anything. It hints around. But that is all. [shrug]

We must be miscommunicating. Oh well.

Be well!

 

[Heyo]

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. One can view marriage as more than a business negotiation and also not make dumb financial decisions.

And one can view marriage as just a business transaction and make dumb financial decisions.
All I'm saying is that the probability of making bad decisions is inverse proportional to the realism with which one sees marriage.
Knowing that about a third of all marriages end in divorce and realising that you are not special and marrying anyway is a risk/cost evaluation.
Thinking that you are special and divorce could never happen to you is just as likely to lead to disappointment as thinking that you will never get caught when robbing a bank.
And the "'till does us part" notion instils that naïvety. It also carries the danger of a "gotcha" mentality. "I worked so hard to get you before the altar, now that I'm married, I can relax."
With a temporary marriage you are aware that a performance report is coming up and that you have to keep on your toes.

 

[Heyo]

Do divorces cost big money is the breakup is amiable? In that case would one even need an a lawyer?

You still need a lawyer as the contract never was between you and your spouse, it was between you, your spouse and the state.
But in an amicable divorce you can have one lawyer who handles the part that is between the couple and the state.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, but a lot of religions frown on pre-marital sex.

Do you think frowning stops many unmarried couples having sex?

 

[Heyo]

I think the main thing I've been confused about in this conversation is if you're going into it with the idea that it might be temporary, why marry at all? Other than than for tax reasons, why bother?

Why clean the house? It will get dirty all by its own in no time. Other for a very temporary state of being clean, why clean at all?

 

[McBell]

Fine, if that is your solution, but other people want to get married.
Without marriage the whole fabric of society would be destroyed.
What would happen to children?

the whole fabric of society hinges on a legal contract between two people?

Seems a bit dramatic to me.
Especially considered all the people who are getting along just fine with out your society hinging legal contract.

 

[McBell]

The Bible is not my Book, so I don't go by the Bible.
The Baha'i Faith does have marriage and divorce laws but they are different from what is in the Bible.

Then you are merely speaking out of ignorance.
Go read the Bible then come back and tell us how marriage is not a business transaction.

 

[McBell]

Do you think frowning stops many unmarried couples having sex?

Not in the least bit.
Though there are many a marriage that took place only because they could not deny the sex already took place.

 

[1213]

Marriages should have term limits (3-5 years) where the participants must actively choose to extend the commitment. ...

Sounds too communistic to me. Why not keep marriage as it is, life sentence, and offer separate 5 year plans for those who want that?

 

[Estro Felino]

Because many women in the US are not for pre-marital sex, so men feel almost "forced" to get married.

There a solution for American guys: European women. Like Victoria Silvstedt.

 

[Wu Wei]

View attachment 86331

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/divorce/pdfs/(C)%202011-0610_1.pdf

yes, and your point is? This is No-Fault Divorce and it is still not the same as your original statement "wanting to not be married"

 

[ppp]

yes, and your point is? This is No-Fault Divorce and it is still not the same as your original statement "wanting to not be married"

If all you're doing is complaining that the words aren't the same, I don't care. In the real world we have synonyms and paraphrasing. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact is not my problem.

 

[JustGeorge]

Why clean the house? It will get dirty all by its own in no time. Other for a very temporary state of being clean, why clean at all?

That's what I keep telling my husband!! I'm glad someone gets it.

I guess outside of religious reasons, I don't understand why people marry.

I know I'm married. I was content to live together, but it meant a lot to my husband to get married. In his case, I think it was to flip the bird to all of those who had turned their nose up at him and to gain a family he hadn't had(he'd been on his own since 12). I went along with it because it clearly meant a lot to him, and I love him.

I just wonder where the urge comes from. My grandmother lived with someone for over 20 years, until he died(my biological grandpa died long before my birth). They loved each other very much, but said they didn't want to bother with the wedding and paperwork.

 

[Wu Wei]

If all you're doing is complaining that the words aren't the same, I don't care. In the real world we have synonyms and paraphrasing. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact is not my problem.

It is not a fact at all, if you are sticking to your original statement, that is opinion based on faulty or lackadaisical interpretation.

I acknowledge no fault divorce. However english words have meanings and interpretations, especially legal, are important and based on your words "wanting to not be married" it means, at least to me "you no longer feel like being married therefore you can get a divorce because you feel like it".... there is a lot more to "no fault" than that..... especially since we are talking about 2 people.

I have no desire to convince you or change your mind, I know that will not happen. However others that read this thread this may find this useful

No Fault divorce - is a divorce that can be obtained without anyone having to allege or prove that one party's behavior is to blame

"Wanting to not be married" - I don't feel like it

 

[ppp]

I acknowledge no fault divorce. However english words have meanings and interpretations, especially legal, are important and based on your words "wanting to not be married" it means, at least to me "you no longer feel like being married therefore you can get a divorce because you feel like it".... there is a lot more to "no fault" than that..... especially since we are talking about 2 people.

Yes. You have expressed this several times. But all that you have said (at length) is that they are different. You have yet to explain your thinking as to how they are different. My words, to which you have yet to express a practical objection, mean that a person who is married can get up out of bed, walk into a lawyers office, swear out a petition for divorce, give no reason other than irretrievable breakdown. which they do not have to prove or convince anyone of in anyway. At that point the months-years long process of divorcing begins - disposition of children, settlement of assets, etc.

But the point is that the person seeking the divorce does not have to convince anyone that they are justified in their decision. They don't have to provide evidence, or convince a judge that they have grounds. The fact that they want to not be married is grounds enough.

You disagree. Fine. Don't just repeat that I am wrong, Explain the difference.

 

[Wu Wei]

Yes. You have expressed this several times. But all that you have said (at length) is that they are different. You have yet to explain your thinking as to how they are different. My words, to which you have yet to express a practical objection, mean that a person who is married can get up out of bed, walk into a lawyers office, swear out a petition for divorce, give no reason other than irretrievable breakdown. which they do not have to prove or convince anyone of in anyway. At that point the months-years long process of divorcing begins - disposition of children, settlement of assets, etc.

But the point is that the person seeking the divorce does not have to convince anyone that they are justified in their decision. They don't have to provide evidence, or convince a judge that they have grounds. The fact that they want to not be married is grounds enough.

You disagree. Fine. Don't just repeat that I am wrong, Explain the difference.

Yes you have also said this several times, however what you are saying now is not the same as what you originally said. You are currently defending a statement I never disagreed with.... I have acknowledged "No fault', i completely disagree wth your interpretation of that as simply meaning "wanting to not be married".....and I did explain it, you may want to reread my last couple posts.... therefore I maintain, your original statement is wrong....

However this is pointless, you will continue to defend "no fault" which I was never denying, and telling me I never explained what I meant when I have done in 2 or 3 posts already.

 

[ppp]

i completely disagree wth your interpretation of that as simply meaning "wanting to not be married"

I have seen no explanation of practical differences from you, nor do I anticipate any will be forthcoming. So, that is that.