Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 03, 2022, 12:27:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Should a married couple be force to remain together, even if one or both parties want to end the marriage?
#1
I support forced marriage (D).
 
#2
I oppose forced marriage (D).
 
#3
I support forced marriage (R).
 
#4
I oppose forced marriage (R).
 
#5
I support forced marriage (I/O).
 
#6
I oppose forced marriage (I/O).
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will?  (Read 767 times)
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2022, 11:53:44 AM »

Well, ideally we should want as many people as possible to be and stay married as to reap the rewards of these social benefits.

Allowing people to get divorced for no reason makes it too easy.  If one spouse can file for divorce without cause, there is less incentive for people to stay together and work things out.  If people find reasons to stay together, then most unhappy marriages will only be unhappy for a short period of time.

Irreconcilable differences between spouses can be justification for a divorce, but it should generally only be allowed after a good faith effort by both parties to save their marriage has been demonstrated (>6 months.) 

That's a reason to give a couple personal advice to stay together and work things out. That is not a justification to legally prohibit them for divorcing.  

Marriage is a lifelong contract between a man, a woman, and God.  So, yes, I oppose all no-fault divorce.  No-fault divorce threatens the sanctity of marriage as much as any of the more hotly debated issues.

I can think of few things more insulting to the sanctity of marriage than forcing two people to remain married against their will.
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2022, 11:55:53 AM »

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 


It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

Quote
And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   
You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

And that's how it should be.  One spouse shouldn't be able to hold the other hostage. 

Should a landlord be able to hold a tenant hostage?  One party cannot initiate termination of a lease agreement without cause.  Why should marriage be any different? 

I find this argument rather absurd.  An agreement to stay married to someone for the rest of your life is not, by its very nature, a normal agreement.  It's quite different in what it entails than a landlord/tenant or any similar agreement.  I shouldn't even have to explain why.

"I shouldn't have to explain why" really means "I don't have a reason why."

Our society's traditional insistence on virtue has been replaced with the "Me, Me, Me!" do-whatever-makes-you-happy morality of a Disney movie.  People are quick to justify their behavior only on the basis of it not actively *hurting* someone else, while ignoring the inability of a bare do-no-harm principle to build real human trust, connection, and community.  We then all stand back and gawk over why our civic culture is sicker than ever before.   

It takes a collective insistence on fixed virtues to cultivate the kind of environment where societies and families naturally flourish.  Skating through life letting people do "whatever makes them happy" leaves a lot of broken families and individuals along the way.   
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2022, 12:01:42 PM »

Well, ideally we should want as many people as possible to be and stay married as to reap the rewards of these social benefits.

Allowing people to get divorced for no reason makes it too easy.  If one spouse can file for divorce without cause, there is less incentive for people to stay together and work things out.  If people find reasons to stay together, then most unhappy marriages will only be unhappy for a short period of time.

Irreconcilable differences between spouses can be justification for a divorce, but it should generally only be allowed after a good faith effort by both parties to save their marriage has been demonstrated (>6 months.) 

That's a reason to give a couple personal advice to stay together and work things out. That is not a justification to legally prohibit them for divorcing. 

No one should be legally prohibited from divorcing if they can justify why.  It's when there's no stated reason for divorce that the state has the responsibility to step-in and pump the brakes.     

Also, it hasn't been said yet but this is a good point:  allowing no-fault divorce allows a lot of abusers and adulterers to get off scot-free.  That's why women's rights organizations mostly opposed no-fault divorce laws back in the 1950s-70s.  If a man is abusing or cheating on his wife, family courts need to consider those factors when determining alimony, spousal support, child custody, etc.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,863
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2022, 12:05:48 PM »

Absolutely not.

Divorce should be easy to obtain.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,403


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2022, 12:56:33 PM »

No but the initiating party should not receive financial benefits then
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2022, 01:53:36 PM »

No one should be legally prohibited from divorcing if they can justify why.  It's when there's no stated reason for divorce that the state has the responsibility to step-in and pump the brakes.

"I don't love them and don't want to be married to them anymore" is enough of a justification.  

Our society's traditional insistence on virtue has been replaced with the "Me, Me, Me!" do-whatever-makes-you-happy morality of a Disney movie.  People are quick to justify their behavior only on the basis of it not actively *hurting* someone else, while ignoring the inability of a bare do-no-harm principle to build real human trust, connection, and community.  We then all stand back and gawk over why our civic culture is sicker than ever before.

Your hardcore social traditionalism is very disturbing. "It's not harming anyone" is always a sufficient justification for doing something.

It takes a collective insistence on fixed virtues to cultivate the kind of environment where societies and families naturally flourish.  Skating through life letting people do "whatever makes them happy" leaves a lot of broken families and individuals along the way.   

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Let people make their own decisions. Stop trying to babysit people and legislate morality.

No but the initiating party should not receive financial benefits then

This is also absurd and will pressure people to stay with partners they don't love, particularly women as they tend to be more financially dependent on their partners than the other way around.
Logged
AntiCrist DeSantis
DaleCooper
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,402


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2022, 12:23:42 AM »

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.
Logged
Regime Libertarian
theflyingmongoose
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,206
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2022, 12:55:40 AM »

Marriage is a lifelong contract between a man, a woman, and God.  So, yes, I oppose all no-fault divorce.  No-fault divorce threatens the sanctity of marriage as much as any of the more hotly debated issues.

I mean why would you care about domestic abuse victims if you oppose letting 10 year-old rape victims get abortions?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,403


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2022, 01:05:43 AM »


This is also absurd and will pressure people to stay with partners they don't love, particularly women as they tend to be more financially dependent on their partners than the other way around.

Id support a 1 year transition period but no financial benefits after that
Logged
LBJer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 915
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2022, 08:45:12 AM »

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others. 
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2022, 11:19:06 AM »

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others. 

What else is even the point of the law, human society, etc. than to enforce and uphold a collectively held set of moral beliefs and attitudes? 
Logged
LBJer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 915
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2022, 11:28:03 AM »
« Edited: August 06, 2022, 11:41:45 AM by LBJer »

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy.  

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others.  

What else is even the point of the law, human society, etc. than to enforce and uphold a collectively held set of moral beliefs and attitudes?  

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

And I find this whole argument about divorce being "emotionally damaging"--whether to children or anyone else--to be downright pathetic.  We've gone to war--and killed many innocent bystanders (including children) in the process--for things much less tangible that the right to have or not have consensual relationships/marriages of one's choosing.  
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,043
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2022, 11:42:10 AM »

I don't oppose no fault divorce. Speaking as someone who has parents that are divorced, looking back at their marriage, I can honestly say that they were both better off for the divorce. Granted, it was a very unique set of circumstances that caused them to separate and then divorce (he came out as trans, which took a toll on her mental state and triggered a brief affair on her part), but even before those circumstances they got into many big fights and looking back I can't help but think for the 4-5 years prior to the events that triggered their separation and eventual divorce, they were in it "for the kids." Not to mention, the time after their divorce just showed how different they really are as people. Did they try to make it work? Yes, but in the end it didn't. Do they still care for each other? Yes, they're still friends to this day, they're just too different to be more than that. Was it rough for me to go through everything they went through? Yes, even though I wasn't a young child, I was 16 when they separated, it was rough, but on balance my family was better off for it in the long run.

My Grandparents were married for over 50 years, they largely only stayed together "for the kids" and because they were relatively old school catholics. They were miserable and I didn't want my parents to end up the same way and am glad they didn't, nor would I want anyone else to end up that way.

Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2022, 11:49:38 AM »

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

Quote
And I find this whole argument about divorce being "emotionally damaging"--whether to children or anyone else--to be downright pathetic.  We've gone to war--and killed many innocent bystanders in the process--for things much less tangible that the right to have or not have consensual relationships/marriages of one's choosing. 

Decades of research have shown that divorce negatively affects children.  I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for your "live and let live" sexual ethic. 

Taking a stand that the option for no-fault divorce is necessary for "the right to have or not have relationships/marriages" is bizarre.  I'll ask again - were people not allowed to freely marry in New York State prior to 2010?  or the UK before 2020?  or in most U.S. states and Western countries prior to the most recent 20-30 years?
Logged
LBJer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 915
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2022, 12:25:42 PM »
« Edited: August 06, 2022, 12:28:44 PM by LBJer »

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

Ah yes, there's no right more precious than the right to oppress other people...

Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,043
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2022, 12:48:19 PM »

I also think it's quite disturbing that so many Republicans on this forum, who on average are more moderate than non atlas Republicans, support "forcing people to remain married against their will" because that tells me a huge number of non atlas Republicans support that and worse.
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2022, 01:13:55 PM »

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

Ah yes, there's no right more precious than the right to oppress other people...



You don't even know what you're talking about. 
Logged
LBJer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 915
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2022, 02:49:04 PM »

I also think it's quite disturbing that so many Republicans on this forum, who on average are more moderate than non atlas Republicans, support "forcing people to remain married against their will" because that tells me a huge number of non atlas Republicans support that and worse.

Agreed, but considering the number that had no problem with Donald Trump taking children away from their parents, it shouldn't be surprising.
Logged
Official Penguin Books Account
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,193
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2022, 04:26:12 PM »

I think marriage should be treated as a contract with particularly strong punitive damages for breach.
Logged
Pressing and Holding the Gas Price Go Up Button
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,980
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 06, 2022, 05:39:12 PM »

Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2022, 07:24:51 PM »


Is this a reference to me because I mentioned my parents are divorced?
Logged
Pressing and Holding the Gas Price Go Up Button
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,980
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 06, 2022, 08:01:09 PM »


Yes, but mostly because you made the thread.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 06, 2022, 09:45:43 PM »

Decades of research have shown that divorce negatively affects children.  I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for your "live and let live" sexual ethic. 

If you're so concerned with the negative impacts on children, then why would you allow divorce in the case of cheating? You've said that infidelity is sufficient grounds for a divorce, so why is that an acceptable reason to allow these negative effects to take place, but not merely falling out of love?

Taking a stand that the option for no-fault divorce is necessary for "the right to have or not have relationships/marriages" is bizarre.  I'll ask again - were people not allowed to freely marry in New York State prior to 2010?  or the UK before 2020?  or in most U.S. states and Western countries prior to the most recent 20-30 years?

No, they were not.
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,987
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2022, 10:31:39 PM »

All the reasons stated by the red avatars in this thread are precisely why I support no-fault divorce when there are not minor children involved. That changes when minor children are involved. Minors lack both the rights and the corresponding responsibilities of adults, are not fully independent moral agents (and at a young age are hardly moral agents at all), and do not have the ability to provide for themselves independently. Adults have the ability to meaninfully improve their life situation through their own actions. Children do not. Thus it is incumbent upon the adults in their lives to make decisions that are in the best interests of the children. It is demonstrably very bad for the children involved for the parents to divorce without good cause. Thus, the state should restrict divorces involving minor children by requiring demonstration of good cause. I do not care one whit about religious beliefs about a "contract with God" or anything along those lines. My reasoning is entirely secular and is the natural conclusion when you value the well-being of the children over the desires of the parents. Rights come with responsibilities, and marriage is no exception.
Logged
DT
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,383
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2022, 09:14:41 AM »

I also think it's quite disturbing that so many Republicans on this forum, who on average are more moderate than non atlas Republicans, support "forcing people to remain married against their will" because that tells me a huge number of non atlas Republicans support that and worse.

Disagree.  Divorce is such a readily accepted and common circumstance in our country that few people spend much time thinking about it.  Ideological online conservative types are exactly the type of folks you'd expect to have well-formed issue opinions about divorce.  The bulk of actual Republican voters are not particularly (socially) conservative to the same extent folks like ER are. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 14 queries.