Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:07 am

I'm not sure exactly how valid this argument is, but I'd like to mention it anyway:

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced, as in, there will be about as many polygamy unions as polyandry unions. (On the surface it seems as if polygamy would be the norm in the west, but I'm not really sure about that.) This would then lead to many people not being able to find a spouse (as they're all "taken"), which could concievably lead to unrest in society. (Some people have theorized that this is already happening in muslim countries - but I've seen nothing but speculation about it.) A counter-argument would be that there are several other factors that could create such "surplus" people - one-child policy of china combined with a lower regard for girls has already created a not insignificant surplus of chinese males, and you see similar trends in India. You also have a lot of people in the west who fail at finding spouses, and they haven't done much beyond raging on the internet - but then they'd mostly blame themselves for failing to attract a wife, instead of blaming others for stealing all the women.

This is all speculation really, but it brings me to my point: Gay marriage is undoubtedly a stabilizing factor on society. "Defense of marriage"-people love to talk about how many benefits there are for married people, they just fail to bring any valid arguments for why this applies to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples. So the evidence seems to indicate that allowing more people to marry is a net benefit to society. Polygamy/polyandry matches may bring similar benefits, but it also may bring its share of problems.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:43 am

One thing polygamy (is polyandry the version where one woman has more than one husband?) would do in the world of today - give more time and less stress to households that took advantage of the possibility.

Legally, of course, there is nothing prebventing multiple adult households - its a perception issue (and then there is the "can only marry one of them, so can't marry any"/"secondary wife/husband" issues that stems from the lack of legal union) - for instance if my finacee and I wanted another man or woman in our houshold, there is nothing legally stopping us form doing so - and in regards to custody it would, in the case of 2+ women, always be the borth mother and the father of record that has custody - which could create issues of course. In regards to custody in a multiple man situation, thats a bit more tircky, though it could be decided by the involved parties by declaration, though shared custody would be better for the children involved.

As to the divorce issues. Dividing up ownership would be relatively easy under normal rules with a bit of common sense - if 1 person wants to exit the union, they quite simply get 1 share of any commonly owned property (including land, house and chattel). Custody would be a bit trickyer if the exiting spouse was a birthparent, as it then becomes a birthparents rights versus the good of the child (which could be one and the same, but could also be in opposition) - though that can still be the case today, as unless both birthparents are exiting, the union would sitll have 1 birth parent in it.

In reality, I think the biggest hurdle to a functioning polygamic legal union, would be opposition from the same groups that generally oppose gay unions, on the same grounds - either based in religion or personal philosophy, that its "unnatural" or some other reason.

Looking at the knowledge we have from the animal kingdom - humans developed as polygamous originally, with males having more than 1 female (males are generally larger than females) - in the animal kingdom that is usually a very distict sign that the larger gender is dominantly polygamous.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:54 am

Passionario wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:Legalize polygamy. Discuss.


From a purely legal viewpoint, legalizing polygamy, polyandry or any other kind of marriage with more than two partners has one major problem that legalizing gay marriage doesn't have: namely, divorce. With gay marriage, deciding who gets to keep which property and who gets the custody of the children is just as simple (if painful) as with straight marriage. With polygamy, you'd need to rewrite the entire procedure from scratch, and it would be far more complicated.

I don't think that's a big deal. We have plenty of multi party property disputes to draw from.

I really don't care either way but there is no judicial reason to legalize it. People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else. So it would only be legalized through the legislative process, which means it's going to have to become much more popular than it currently is.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:58 am

I actually don't have any qualms about polygamy/polyandry. I would draw the line in the sand where the article mentions - legal-aged, consenting adults, but other than that, I can't see any real reason to prevent it. Sure, some laws in regards to taxes or divorce might have to be reinterpreted (through courts or legislation) to encompass a multiple spouse household... but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be done.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3582
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:15 am

Fridmarr wrote:there is no judicial reason to legalize it.


Is there any judicial reason to make it illegal?

Fridmarr wrote:People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else.


Is this substantially different from people arguing that the Equal Protection clause isn't applicable in Same Sex Marriage because gay people also have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?

As far as divorce/inheritance determinations: that's what probate courts are for.

Also yes I intended to include polyandry in the original post. I'm curious as to why the original editorial singled out polygamy.

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced


I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:17 am

No there isn't a judicial reason to make it illegal, but that has no relevance, because the legislative branch has already done that. The only judicial concern then becomes whether or not there is reason for the judicial branch to overrule the legislative process.  In this case, there is isn't any that I can see.
 
Within our current system (and I say that so we don't get spun out of control on a discussion of rights and choices), it can easily be considered different if the court decides that homosexuality is not a choice.  If the court does not take that stance, then our current marriage laws would not contradict the equal protection clause. The court could easily rule that way which effectively returns gay marriage to legislatures. Though I don't think that's the issue they are reviewing anyhow.I don't see an equivalent with polygamy however.


The only way I see legalized polygamy it's through legislative action. And in truth gay marriage will also probably follow that path.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:31 am

fuzzygeek wrote:I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?


I tried to make the argument for why it could be in my post (TLDR version: people get angry when somebody hogs all the women/men.) I'm not sure how great the effect is, if it has any at all, but I've seen the argument made.

Counter to that is that nobody else has any say in what consenting adults get up to.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:53 pm

In his novel Friday, Robert Heinlein envisaged a world in which family units were formed from multiple men and women all married to one another and living together, sharing in the duties of earning money, raising children, etc.

While an interesting idea, I doubt very much it would work in practice.

The concept of poly marriage exists in many places in the world, and I don't have any particular issue with it provided it isn't exploitive. It's certainly not for me, however.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:29 pm

So the whole argument for austerity is based on an a spreadsheet error...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... CV20130418

Honest Mistake or Deliberate Error?

"Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds."
Yeah, but their results actually had that growth as negative, rather than just slowing down as the corrected spreadsheet now shows.

-0.1 to 2.2 growth is quite a difference, specially on a global scale.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9468
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:46 pm

Probably an honest mistake, but their methodology seems a little dodgy, as does the "well our math was wrong, but our central premise is still correct." statement.

If you want to make something deliberately misleading, you adjust your inputs *before* publishing them and your formulae, so anyone double-checking your work comes up with the same numbers in the end.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:45 pm

I'm pretty sure polygyny is the term for multiple wives, polyandry is the term for multiple husbands, and polygamy is the term for multiple marriage. So they're not singling out multiple wives, but actually using the catch-all term for multiple spouses.

I can see a solution to all divorce problems. If a couple divorces, or a trio, or a however-many-people-plus-a-dog-cat-and-goat divorce, then the simplest solution would be eminent domain. All contested assets become property of the state to be auctioned off to the highest bidder with the proceeds going to a worthy charity. If you really really REALLY want that throw blanket that grandma knitted for you ten years ago on Christmas? Put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, act like a reasonable adult and figure out a relatively amicable way of deciding who gets what. Then the number of spouses wouldn't matter a whit, and there would be equal treatment under the law for everybody.

But that's too draconian.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:37 am

SO you think the solution to divorces is to not make tham happen and have people sray in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would loose everything if they needed to divorce?

I could see the argument being made (still tood raconian) if divorce was actually somethin the state was hurt by, but as far as I'm awre, everyone could be divorced and it would hurt the state not one iota (there may be consequences due to differeing tax codes for spouses and divorced, but thats a tax issue, not a divorce issue).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:23 am

Divorces cost the state a LOT of money if you consider the man hours they spend tracking down people who fail to pay child support or (p)alimony alone, or the jail time people get for it once they've been tracked down. It gets worse when you consider the number of judges in civil court who have to preside over divorce proceedings.

I'm not saying that people have to stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because they would lose everything. I'm saying that adults should be able to work their shit out in an adult fashion. Risking the loss of anything you contest in a divorce, or having to put your money where your mouth is, would be draconian, yes - but possibly not unreasonable or unworkable as a solution. Public auction doesn't mean you can't go to the auction and bid on your belongings (and let's face it - most of the shit with sentimental value that gets contested in a divorce isn't objectively worth all that much to begin with), it just means that you have to be willing to risk losing them and paying to keep them.

Abusive relationships are a different matter entirely. If abuse can be proven, then the abuser should be sentenced as a criminal defendant, and the person leaving the abuser shouldn't have to risk anything. In cases like that? Fuck 'em. Let the shitsack abuser rot in prison and watch the person they abused for n (days/weeks/months/years - circle one) and prevent them from contesting anything in the divorce.

Needless to say, it's probably pretty clear that I'm against divorce. I could care less what you marry, or how, but if you give your solemn oath to make a lifelong commitment, then keep your damn word. Not to mention that divorce rates are stupid high and climbing. I also fully expect people to be able to act like adults and handle their problems in an adult fashion - but I'm constantly disappointed on that count.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:32 am

How do you divide up finances in that scenario, though? To be able to auction off belongings, you need to have already settled the matter of who gets what money.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:24 am

That's an absurd abuse of eminent domain, and spousal abuse isn't always crime.

Basically you're trying to create a system where people aren't allowed to be wrong...
It is hopelessly flawed.

Edit: That's not even eminent domain, that's just government seizure of property, which opens all kinds of problems. For eminent domain the government has to pay for it, which would defeat the purpose.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:51 pm

...
Last edited by Passionario on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:13 pm

If they contest it, the proceeds of the auction go toward paying court costs and the remainder gets donated to a charity or something. Nobody profits.

Spousal abuse should always be a crime. Period. Whether it's man on woman, woman on man, or whatever, it's still abuse and should be treated no differently than child abuse.

How would people not be allowed to be wrong, Fridmarr? You mean as far as "I picked the wrong spouse"? If that's so, then there should be repercussions for that decision. If I'm driving down the road and take a wrong turn, I'm out the cost of gas plus time and wear & tear on my car to get back to where I'm supposed to be. If I pick the wrong answers on a test, I get a lower score on the test and could fail it. If I make the wrong investments, I could end up going bankrupt. Why should people get a free pass on the most important decisions in their life, when there are penalties in everything else for making the "wrong" choice?

Divorce as it currently stands is far easier than just sacking up and fixing your relationship. To me it shows a lack of maturity, a lack of problem-solving skills, and a lack of ability to compromise. Not to mention a lack of ability to keep one's given word. Why should there be no repercussions for that?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:18 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9468
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:24 pm

Fiveslives, have you ever been divorced yourself?

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that it's an easy and painless choice free of any repercussions (as opposed to being a highly traumatic event that will leave its mark on you forever).
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:25 pm

Fivelives wrote:Spousal abuse should always be a crime. Period. Whether it's man on woman, woman on man, or whatever, it's still abuse and should be treated no differently than child abuse.

There are different types of abuse, you can be abusive to anyone and it's not a crime. In fact, you are free to be abusive, it's protected by the first amendment. That's pretty obvious.

Fivelives wrote:How would people not be allowed to be wrong, Fridmarr? You mean as far as "I picked the wrong spouse"? If that's so, then there should be repercussions for that decision. If I'm driving down the road and take a wrong turn, I'm out the cost of gas plus time and wear & tear on my car to get back to where I'm supposed to be. If I pick the wrong answers on a test, I get a lower score on the test and could fail it. If I make the wrong investments, I could end up going bankrupt. Why should people get a free pass on the most important decisions in their life, when there are penalties in everything else for making the "wrong" choice?


...are you even hearing yourself? You just suggested that the cost of gas, plus time and wear on your freaking tires after making a wrong turn while driving, is more of a consequence than what someone endures in picking the wrong spouse and having their marriage fail. Exactly how do you think failed marriages manifest themselves? They aren't happy times, they aren't without significant amounts of stress and consequence. They sure as heck are a lot more painful than a mile of extra gas and worn tread on a tire... I don't know how you got the idea that people getting divorced have managed to bypass all the consequences of picking the wrong spouse and having their marriage fail, but that notion is rather poorly thought out.

Wrong choices have consequences and a failed marriage tends to have some of the biggest that people will encounter in their lives. We do not punish people most of the wrong decisions that they make, beyond the natural consequences of those decisions. I don't see any particular logic in adding a punishment to divorce, particularly something so over the top like taking away everything that they earned. I mean we don't do that to the worst criminals among us.

Fivelives wrote:Divorce as it currently stands is far easier than just sacking up and fixing your relationship. To me it shows a lack of maturity, a lack of problem-solving skills, and a lack of ability to compromise. Not to mention a lack of ability to keep one's given word. Why should there be no repercussions for that?
Well no kidding. I mean, if they thought that they could reasonably fix the relationship, they probably wouldn't be getting divorced. As I pointed out, there are plenty of repercussions to having a marriage fail. This whole train of thought is just entirely illogical.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:11 am

I'm a widower.

Fridmarr, I'm not saying to take away everything they earned, but that if they can't make an amicable division of goods then there should be a repercussion - and I suggested that any contested items are the ones vulnerable. I also mentioned bad investments and bankruptcy, which is pretty much on a par with divorce (at least in terms of impact on your life).

As far as abuse, it has to be proven and should be a matter for criminal courts, not civil ones. There have been thousands of proven cases of spousal abuse - verbal, emotional, and physical - and if someone is convicted of spousal abuse, then they should go to jail and their spouse should get all the joint assets.

Bankruptcy actually has far more effects on your life than divorce does: you can't get a loan for a home, business, or car (at least not at anything other than rates that would make a usurer vomit. When I started rebuilding my credit after the military, I took out a car loan at 29.99% APR for 14 months). You can't get any sort of line of credit at all. You get turned down for a LOT of jobs outside low-paying low-skilled jobs (try working at a bank with a bankruptcy on your credit. They'll laugh at you and toss you out on your ear). You can't open credit union accounts, etc. A bankruptcy pretty much puts a 7 year hold on your life, not to mention the seizing of assets in the process itself. I mentioned making wrong turns and getting test answers wrong as part of the "every mistake we make has consequences".

Failed marriages have none of those consequences, barring the division of jointly held debt in the divorce proceeding itself, which may lead to bankruptcy. There isn't even any kind of real social stigma attached to it at all anymore, and people who have had 3, 4, or even as many as 6 spouses are actually celebrated in some circles.

So what repercussions are you talking about?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:24 am

Everything can be contested in a divorce, a person's entire livelihood, from all their current assets to even their future assets, not to mention their relationship with their children.

No, all abuse is not a crime. Only very specific kinds are criminal, it's not illegal to be a dick.

Please don't take one example and make it the rule. I know several people who have declared bankruptcy that for whom it had minimal impact aside from clearing their debts. I know people who have been divorced for whom the entire process was brutal, from the effects of the failed marriage itself, to their children, to the financial fallout, (divorce can be quite expensive for all involved) to their post divorce relationships. Either situation can be very traumatic, of course the repercussions aren't identical between divorce and bankruptcy because they are two totally different things, but its crazy to suggest that divorce is less significant.

This idea that a failed marriage has no repercussions is lunacy.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:32 pm

Bankruptcy still wrecks your credit until it drops off your credit report. That takes 7 years.

All abuse should be a crime. There's a difference between just being a dick and being abusive.

If everything is contested in a divorce, then that would be the nuclear option, no? If Mr. Smith can contest everything, then so can Mrs. Smith. Then nobody wins, so it wouldn't be too likely and it would've achieved the purpose of having a more amicable split which takes less time and resources.

Either way, I admit the idea wouldn't work. It would be nice though, if people were penalized for divorce - might make them think twice about trying alternate solutions (like maybe, compromise and problem solving), and it also might make people think long and hard about whether or not they really want to spend the rest of their life with a person.

If people can't grow the hell up and act like adults, someone should smack them on the wrist and remind them that they should act their age.

Edit to add: Scratch the previous edit. I missed a paragraph there, my bad. Nyrgh. Fivelives requires sleep.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:35 pm

Why do I have the feeling that if divorce is really hard to get, people would just kill their spouses...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9468
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:56 pm

Fivelives wrote:Bankruptcy still wrecks your credit until it drops off your credit report. That takes 7 years.
Yes, but how much that affects someone depends on how much they need it. Really though, this line of logic is dumb. I'm not comparing bankruptcy and divorce, but merely acknowledging the incredibly obvious fact that a failed marriage has consequences that can be quite traumatic and troublesome.

Fivelives wrote:All abuse should be a crime. There's a difference between just being a dick and being abusive.
Look this isn't debatable. You can't make all abuse illegal, because people are allowed to say what they want, and that shouldn't change. A judge will acknowledge it in a divorce proceeding and deal with it accordingly, but no one will be charged with a crime. To that end though, what a person should be able to do is remove themselves from an abusive relationship without fear of a ridiculous punishment.

Fivelives wrote:If everything is contested in a divorce, then that would be the nuclear option, no? If Mr. Smith can contest everything, then so can Mrs. Smith. Then nobody wins, so it wouldn't be too likely and it would've achieved the purpose of having a more amicable split which takes less time and resources.

Either way, I admit the idea wouldn't work. It would be nice though, if people were penalized for divorce - might make them think twice about trying alternate solutions (like maybe, compromise and problem solving), and it also might make people think long and hard about whether or not they really want to spend the rest of their life with a person.
lol right, so one side can intimidate the other into not contesting anything by holding a nuclear option over their head...that's terrific.

I don't know what your perspective on marriage is, but pretty much everyone I know who is married or divorced thought about all those decisions pretty hard. Divorce is a penalty, it's one of the many potential consequences of a failed marriage.

I've had my say, I think my stance here is pretty obvious, so I'm done with this debate.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest