Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 03, 2022, 12:19:22 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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
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 766 times)
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« on: August 02, 2022, 09:32:20 AM »

What is your opinion on no-fault divorce?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2022, 01:59:03 PM »

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

As a child of divorce, this is a monstrously stupid idea.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2022, 11:16:04 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. 

How does it benefit the couple or society to force them to stay together against one or both of their wills?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2022, 11:29:23 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. 

How does it benefit the couple or society to force them to stay together against one or both of their wills?

The societal benefit is that marriage encourages people to share resources and plan for the future in a way that benefits multiple outcomes like household income, parenting quality, health insurance, home ownership, etc.

That's the social benefit of marriage. I asked what is the benefit of forcing people to do it against their will?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #4 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
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #5 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
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2022, 07:24:51 PM »


Is this a reference to me because I mentioned my parents are divorced?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #7 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
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,678
United States



« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2022, 08:06:13 AM »

The "what about the negative impacts on the child" argument is the dumbest possible defense of the conservative position here, because it ignores that the effects of divorce go beyond ending the legal union between the parents.

If a couple is truly dead set on ending their relationship, then they're going to stop having a relationship, regardless of their technical legal situation. You can't force a couple to live together or be civil to one another, and I'd imagine that those are among the primary reasons why children of divorce have worse outcomes.

So unless you plan on banning separations as well... find a new argument.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.038 seconds with 11 queries.