Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Equal Rights for Men (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Equal Rights for Men
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let me put my concern this way: culture is as much perception as anything else. If people think that marriage is a stable, bedrock institution, then marriages will tend to be more stable. If people think that marriage is an unstable, unreliable institution, then the prophecy is self-fulfilled.


At this point, I think your argument relies heavily on the inflection provided by words like "stable" and "bedrock." You need to remember why the laws were changed in the first place - a lot of people were stuck in terrible marriages, and extrication from them was often costly and difficult. As women gained equality under the law - as our society moved towards more individualism, less collective family organization (this change already coming about as a result of postwar prosperity) - our laws adjusted accordingly. It really was a matter of fairness. In the 1960's, marriage law was full of medieval, propertarian concepts, such as that raping one's wife was a legal impossibility.

You call marriages from 50 years ago "stable." I call them "oppressive."

quote:
It's meaningless to talk about comparisons between states in this context. It's the culture that has changed across the board that matters, not the particular laws of any given jurisdiction.

Exactly the point I made.

quote:
I'm not saying that no-fault divorce is the sole reason for why we went from divorce being almost unheard of to divorce being over 50%, but I suspect it's a big factor.
Since you're into drawing parallels, let me point out here that I think you're describing "no-fault" divorce without reference to what produced it, in exactly the same way that VL was describing "ghetto culture" without reference to what produced it. Before you complain that we're going in cirlces - the relevant distinction to be made is: where there is a MAJOR social policy shift that occurs, was it a matter of consensus for all involved, or simple majority rule?

Did the inhabitants of the ghetto have any say through the democratic process in the conditions that created the ghetto? NO.

Did the beneficiaries/victims of no-fault divorce have any say through the democratic process in the creation of no-fault divorce? YES.

[ June 02, 2009, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jason, also think about the fact that divorce rates in the US in recent years are about 30-40 times** the rate in Canada, which has had a national liberal no-fault divorce law since 1985. The rate in the US in 1950, 20 years before the first no-fault law was passed in California was still 3 times the highest annual rate Canada has ever had (1987).

It's not one thing, it's complicated.

** No linkies, as I'm simplifying and condensing information from multiple sites.

[ June 02, 2009, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you are arguing vehemently for no-fault divorce as necessary and a good thing for society...than shouldn't you be PROUDLY proclaiming responsibility for effecting the dramatic change in society thanks to the left wing, feminist lobbies efforts? (It certainly was left-wing feminists that were the impetus behind the no-fault divorce paradigm).

Yes, I do. Hooray for Reagan. I applaud him for responding to the democratic will. It wasn't just a cadre of left-wingers. If it were, Reagan would not have signed off on it.

quote:
she is no longer sexually attracted and excited by her husband, she has no penalty for stopping to have sex with him. A husband who's wife got fat...or becomes a nagging harridan? Oh, he's got no choice. No incentive. If HE wants to "find fulfillment" and start banging another lady...that's gonna end with him suffering the penalty for adultery when his wife divorces him, gets custody and makes him pay.

Three simple points.

1. Human beings in marriage are not each the property of the other. They used to be, but not any more. That was old-school marriage, and I happily dance on its grave.

2. Adults are free to openly honestly negotiate whatever arrangement suits them, including an "open marriage."

If you want the laws to prevent people from doing this, find another country, one much less interested in freedom and human rights than this one.

3. Adultery is very difficult to prove in court, and as such is only rarely the basis for divorce. Most divorce lawyers advise that citing adultery is usually a dead end, because the burden of proof is too high.

[ June 02, 2009, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<quote>to protect adults, to protect children, and to protect the integrity of the judicial system which was actively embracing perjury and fraud in order to allow divorces in cases where it was clearly needed. </quote>

Fascinating...because the reality is, quite different from these so-called justifications. Now we have far more children that suffer from divorces in which no real abuse occurred. It was just one spouse or the other got bored, or infatuated with another person, and they saw no social, cultural or financial penalty to violate their marital vows and destroy their families.

And needless to say, a small minority of abused children/wives is a tragedy....but nowhere near the tragedy that society has undergone with the ubiquitous spread of broken homes and children raised without Father's in their lives.

Oh, and were do you get this notion that "at-fault" divorce made it almost impossible to get one?

Hogwash.

Don't remember that old 80's TV show, divorce court? That show was nothing BUT a he-said/she-said re-enactment of REAL cases from at-fault divorces.

The person, man or woman, that broke the marriage contract, paid the consequences for their behavior...and the spouse that was wronged would be compensated.

That's Equality under the law.

Finally, jason's argument is NOT a zero sum, be all end all explanation of the dramatic rise of divorce.

It's a major factor..but the social and cultural attitudes and mores have undergone a significant paradigm shift in the past 20 years.

Where people were once embarrassed to admit being divorced...where there was a real stigma that people felt for failing their marriages, it has now become a virtual badge of honor...a status marker for martyrdom/victim status.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
OH how I laugh at the notion that the left-wing and the right-wing are opposed on this issue...that one or the other are responsible for the current state of affairs.

You lefists that are trying to point to Reagan and say "SEE!"

I think you missed the point of that. That was pointed out to help demonstrate that it's not particularly a leftist thing, but wasn't at all intended to make it a rightist thing. [Smile]

The rest of your post can probably be summarized:

"I think there's a strong bias in favor of women in child custody and other aspects of divorce settlements, and coupled with the easy access to divorce, this creates an incentive for some women to get a divorce, which is a problem when they don't care about how it affects their children or their former spouses."

Is that a fair summary?

[ June 02, 2009, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For the sake of a small minority of women that have been abused by bad husbands, we've implemented a system in which far more numbers of women have every incentive to essentially abuse...nay ENSLAVE their ex-husbands into peonage.

What do you call it when a court orders a man to pay more than 50% of his income to a woman that broke the marriage vow, has the house and the car and full custody...and has her new lover or boyfriend move in, while "DAD" gets to subsidize her new lifestyle?

And if he gets laid off...the courts do NOT recognize this, but in fact label him a deadbeat, take away his licenses and throws him in jail?

i.e. - He is forced to work and pay, pay, pay, or it's off to jail.

That is ****ing slavery if I ever saw the definition.

This is how it is RIGHT NOW under the system.

If you're for equality, than you're a blind fool to look at the status quo and claim it is some kind of mark for "progress" and "equality."

However many anecdotes you can cite, I think the picture you paint is more or less imaginary. It is not representative. I don't think you're interested in the nuances of the real world any more.

You can talk about "slavery" of our specific system all you want, but I see no sign that you can imagine ANY scenario in which men and women can stand on equal terms of personal responsibility without the man being "enslaved."

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can talk about "slavery" of our specific system all you want, but I see no sign that you can imagine ANY scenario in which men and women can stand on equal terms of personal responsibility without the man being "enslaved."
I JUST pointed that out in my last post! At-Fault divorce...where the party that breaks their vow is held accountable, rather than profit from it!

That is EQUALITY.

You can ignore anecdotal evidence all you like...there is a point where the anecdotes are so common, so upbiquitous, that they cannot be ignored or written off so that you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of advocating for abstract, ideological philosophies while ignoring the real world consequences when such a platform is implemented in real life.

It's a statistical fact that the woman instigates a no-fault divorce 70+% of the time.

Are you trying to say that that represents the percentage of poor, little women being abused by all their mean, nasty neanderthal men?

Yeah, right.

I bet you kid, that you can walk into any bar, in any city in any State of this country, and you can find a man whose wife left him/kicked him out of the house (many times via a false domestic violence restraining order), and has to pay child support - but his kids have been alienated from him and/or he only sees them every other weekend.

I for one, have seen far to many family, friends, acquaintances and colleagues put through the ringer of the system to ignore what the hell is really going on.

Are there women that get victimized by the status quo, too? Yep. But especially when it comes to children involved in a divorce, unless the mother is a proven crack whore caught abusing her children red handed, the female generally makes out like a bandit, while the ex-husband is forced to pay for it.

[ June 02, 2009, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However many anecdotes you can cite, I think the picture you paint is more or less imaginary.
This is the kind of attitude that I find absolutely infuriating.

When you see the real world consequences of the current system deeply affect people you know and love..when you see just how unjust a person can be treated by the system...we're supposed to just ignore what we see happen with our very own eyes and comfort ourselves by adhering to political shibboleths?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I JUST pointed that out in my last post! At-Fault divorce...where the party that breaks their vow is held accountable, rather than profit from it!

If you impose that now as the norm, fewer people will want to get married, and you'll have more "domestic partners" and informal marriages with children. People want the freedom to define the terms of contract they are entering into. Men and women should be able to negotiate on equal terms.

quote:
You can ignore anecdotal evidence all you like...there is a point where the anecdotes are so common, so upbiquitous, that they cannot be ignored or written off so that you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of advocating for abstract, ideological philosophies while ignoring the real world consequences when such a platform is implemented in real life.

It's a statistical fact that the woman instigates a no-fault divorce 70+% of the time.

Are you trying to say that that represents the percentage of poor, little women being abused by all their mean, nasty neanderthal men?

Yeah, right.

Of course not. No one makes that contention. But I think women do, in fact, find it easier to leave relationships than men do as a general rule.

Wasn't it you just a little while ago making a biocentric argument about men and women and their biological inclinations? Why is this valid for explaining traditional marriage, and not valid for explaining current behavior patterns?

The picture you paint is that women do not want to stay with men unless men restrain them.

[ June 02, 2009, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When you see the real world consequences of the current system deeply affect people you know and love..when you see just how unjust a person can be treated by the system...we're supposed to just ignore what we see happen with our very own eyes and comfort ourselves by adhering to political shibboleths?
I know and love a great many people. I know many divorced men and women, including my parents. I have seen nothing to indicate that the modern world is full of innocent, broken men whose wives left them for selfish reasons.

I do know men who lost custody of their kids. In every case, I was not surprised that they lost it. They were men who should not have had custody of their children, because they were not mature enough for the responsibility.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kid, the traditional institution of marriage was a system designed to constrain men and women from following their sex drive's imperative to the detriment of the family. Marriage SHOULD be about the kids. Marriage used to be a commitment based on reciprocal duties and responsibilities, instead of the current paradigm of some nebulous concept of "love."

Now that people place the utmost emphasis on "love" coupled with the laws as they are, the idea that "I am no longer in love" is used as all the justification necessary to break up a family, and put the kids through tremendous psychological turmoil and pain.

True "love" to me is the ultimate: self-sacrifice.

In other words, if you have kids, you need to conduct your life to benefit THEM.

That means if you are unhappy with your spouse...rather than pulling the plug and irrevocably affecting your children...you work on fixing your unhappiness.

The other corollary here is the idea of easy divorce also makes the idea of marital commitment very un-serious.

So what if I marry this person and it doesn't work out...I can always just get a divorce!

The removal of consequences for bad choices means people will not think so hard about making those bad choices in the first place.

If no-fault divorce were changed to at-fault divorce...and people knew they'd be "stuck," I bet there'd be a lot more people that would carefully assess the character and behavior and attitudes of their potential spouses before making that commitment.

A lot more people would be a lot more circumspect in saying "I Do" just because they are current sexually infatuated with that person.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haven't read the whole thread so if this was already covered sorry,

KidB,

quote:
You need to remember why the laws were changed in the first place - a lot of people were stuck in terrible marriages, and extrication from them was often costly and difficult.
Actually the laws were changed because people would make up horrible lies to get out of unwanted marriages when 'fault' was required.

Daruma,

quote:
The removal of consequences for bad choices means people will not think so hard about making those bad choices in the first place.

If no-fault divorce were changed to at-fault divorce...and people knew they'd be "stuck," I bet there'd be a lot more people that would carefully assess the character and behavior and attitudes of their potential spouses before making that commitment.

There might be some impact, but the most likely result is a return to large scale purgery. (Purgery during divorce proceedings even with no fault is pretty common over child custody, it would likely be far worse though for divorces).

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually the laws were changed because people would make up horrible lies to get out of unwanted marriages when 'fault' was required.
And sometimes they weren't lies. It was all part of the problem. People lied to get out of bad marriages, which involved time consuming and costly court procedures (which tells us how bad the marriages were, if they were not only willing to lie but spend months and thousands of dollars in court while having their name dragged through the mud), they had to lie to get out of abusive marriages, they had to spend months and thousands of dollars to get out of abusive marriages. It was all a mess. The fault-divorce marriage laws simply didn't work on any level.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage is a promise. One has the right to break a promise.

Don't believe me? Examine your own life. Probably a week's retrospect at most will suffice to prove my claim.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma, how's this: No fault stays as is for childless couples. However, once a child is born, and both parents who are married to each other acknowledge him as theirs (meaning the father does) - that changes the deal of their marriage and places SOME restrictions on a no fault divorce... some inescapable period of nagging by the system to get counseling, discuss the results, try to work it out, so on so forth, before granting a divorce.

I'd be down with that.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I bet there'd be a lot more people that would carefully assess the character and behavior and attitudes of their potential spouses before making that commitment."

Mmmmm, and even less people marrying, and doing it later. Just saying.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Daruma, how's this: No fault stays as is for childless couples. However, once a child is born, and both parents who are married to each other acknowledge him as theirs (meaning the father does) - that changes the deal of their marriage and places SOME restrictions on a no fault divorce... some inescapable period of nagging by the system to get counseling, discuss the results, try to work it out, so on so forth, before granting a divorce.

I'd be down with that.

I'd settle for simply erasing the automatic presumption of custody for the mother, forcing custodial parents to account for child support payments, and eliminating spousal support in all but exceptional cases.

quote:
Marriage is a promise. One has the right to break a promise.
A promise is gratuitous with no right of enforcement. Marriage creates very definite, enforceable rights. That is why marriage is actually a contract, not a mere promise.

However, unlike every other contract known to law, from the contract to paint your roof up to the contract to buy $1,000,000,000 worth of product, the law no longer accords any consequence to breach, indeed, to a fundamental breach such as adultery.

In this way, marriage is unique in contract law. It is simultenaously the most serious type of contract, with an extraordinary range of duties and rights that deeply impact the lives of those involved. Yet the law treats breach of its fundamental tenets as essentially inconsequential.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since you're into drawing parallels, let me point out here that I think you're describing "no-fault" divorce without reference to what produced it, in exactly the same way that VL was describing "ghetto culture" without reference to what produced it. Before you complain that we're going in cirlces - the relevant distinction to be made is: where there is a MAJOR social policy shift that occurs, was it a matter of consensus for all involved, or simple majority rule?

Did the inhabitants of the ghetto have any say through the democratic process in the conditions that created the ghetto? NO.

Did the beneficiaries/victims of no-fault divorce have any say through the democratic process in the creation of no-fault divorce? YES.

Is there some secret forced breeding program in the ghetto I am unaware of? I was talking about out of wedlock pregnancy and absent fathers. I am totally sympatheric to the conditions which created the ghetto, but my sympathy isn't helpful in any realistic way. To not expect the same
standards of the poor and or minorities morally is bit classist and racist.

Divorce is not the only solution to an unhappy marriage. Again there is a personal responsibility issue here as well. If your marriage is unhappy maybe you need to look at what the cause is and seek to amend that instead of throwing away the whole relationship.

Again we're back to free will and personal responsibility.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1. Human beings in marriage are not each the property of the other. They used to be, but not any more. That was old-school marriage, and I happily dance on its grave.

This is a Biblical concept from the New Testament and remains popular with many Christians, myself and my wife included.

I think the old notion we are thankfully moving away from is the wife as property of the husband as a one way deal. (You belong to me, I belong to me too.) All things considered I wouldn't put those dancing shoes on yet though.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now that people place the utmost emphasis on "love" coupled with the laws as they are, the idea that "I am no longer in love" is used as all the justification necessary to break up a family, and put the kids through tremendous psychological turmoil and pain.

True "love" to me is the ultimate: self-sacrifice.

I have no problem with your views, Daruma, but I don't want them imposed on me. In a free society, you and I can both make private arrangements and contracts as we see fit, and constrain ourselves consensually as we see fit.

As far as I'm concerned, "self-sacrifice" is a virtue only according to the morals of a slave mentality, which is what I consider Christianity and all other monotheistic/martyr-worshipping religions to be.

I also think this quivering over the "pain and suffering" that children experience over their parents' divorce is largely the result of the narcissism and projection of their parent's self-involved sense of guilt. I speak out of personal experience. I was an only child of 8 when my parents announced their split. I remember having to "act out" my sadness because they wouldn't shut up about how terrible they felt. I didn't care that much.

Children are actually far more emotionally resilient than most adults. This has been shown repeatedly, and is especially notable among child cancer patients. It makes sense - evolution built the young to survive and endure. It's when your older, and your seed is already out in the world that you go all mushy.

LR said:

quote:
Actually the laws were changed because people would make up horrible lies to get out of unwanted marriages when 'fault' was required.


That too. One does not negate the other.

VL said:

quote:
Is there some secret forced breeding program in the ghetto I am unaware of?
Yes. Most of American history has amounted to this.

quote:
I am totally sympatheric to the conditions which created the ghetto, but my sympathy isn't helpful in any realistic way. To not expect the same
standards of the poor and or minorities morally is bit classist and racist.

I'm not talking about expecting less from them. I have never said that. I'm talking about correctly identifying the source of the problem, because only by fixing that will people meet society's expectations.

We should have standards. But the standards are useless if those we hold them to have no means to meet them.

quote:
This is a Biblical concept from the New Testament and remains popular with many Christians, myself and my wife included.

Property cannot be owned by other property in some equal, reciprocal fashion. The very concept is legally self-negating. You can however, consider yourselves a single "person" if you like.

You are free to enjoy your beliefs under whatever religious covenant you make.

[ June 03, 2009, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have no problem with your views, Daruma, but I don't want them imposed on me. In a free society, you and I can both make private arrangements and contracts as we see fit, and constrain ourselves consensually as we see fit.
In every other form of private contract I am aware of, there are clear and definite consequences to a breach of contract, which are legally actionable in court. I would draw your attention to the equitable doctrine of Fundamental Breach which is recognized in one form or another throughout the common law world. In short, it is a:

quote:
‘well-known type of breach which entitles the innocent party to treat it as repudiatory and to rescind the contract’
There are all manner of legal justifications for this doctrine, but frankly, it just amounts to basic fairness. We agree that you deliver 10 widgets and I pay you $10. You fail to deliver the widgets, I don't have to pay you the $10.

It seems pretty elementary, doesn't it? Yet no-fault divorce does away with the legal consequences for the most basic and fundamental repudiations of the marriage contract.

I'm not saying that we should be throwing people in jail for infidelity, but if we're going to pretend that marriage is a serious commitment, why not impose on it some consequences at least as onerous as the contract for the guy who mows your lawn in the summer?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jason said:

quote:
In every other form of private contract I am aware of, there are clear and definite consequences to a breach of contract, which are legally actionable in court.
If I have a tenancy at will, and I want to move out, am I breaching the contract when I do so?

From a legal perspective, this is a non-argument you are making.

The contract is defined by the legal framework supporting it.

A marriage is not a business contract. It is fundamentally different from any other contract. Courts will not enforce contracts when the enforcement is burdonsome or repellant.

Some state have come up with super-binding marriage contracts that cannot be broken by no-fault. I wholly support the right of anyone to have those contracts available if that is what they wish. But that is not what most people want.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not saying that we should be throwing people in jail for infidelity, but if we're going to pretend that marriage is a serious commitment, why not impose on it some consequences at least as onerous as the contract for the guy who mows your lawn in the summer?
There are serious consequences to the mere act of leaving a marriage.

[ June 03, 2009, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am still in research mode. Will address it later
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I have a tenancy at will, and I want to move out, am I breaching the contract when I do so?
Moving out of an apartment where you have a "tenancy at will" contract isn't a violation of either parties' expectations under the terms of the contract. Therefore, there is no breach of any term, implied or otherwise, is there?

You don't consider adultery to be a fundamental breach of the marriage contract? Even in the context of completely secular civil ceremonies (for example, under the Quebec Civil Code) I am pretty sure that fidelity, or something analagous to it, is an explicit component, and if memory serves me correctly, is actually explicit in the wedding vows. Some of these vows are actually enshrined in statute. In some cases, you have people saying these vows before judges and in front of hundreds of witnesses.

Courts have enforced the flimsiest of promises in contract law. We're talking verbal agreements and handshakes and nods of the head. Yet a vow made in a church or in a courthouse, in front of your family, a judge, and a few hundred witnesses is considered what? Extranneous? Unenforceable? [Smile] Seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

quote:
From a legal perspective, this is a non-argument you are making.
? Well if you mean that it's a non-argument insofar as the law doesn't recognize infidelity as an actionable breach of contract, or sanction parties for what I would characterize as "fundamental breach" of the marriage contract, then of course you're right. That's the point. I think the law makes no sense in respect of marriage.

quote:
A marriage is not a business contract. It is fundamentally different from any other contract. Courts will not enforce contracts when the enforcement is burdonsome or repellant.
To me it is repellant to say that you can breach the marriage contract in the most fundemantal way imaginable, yet avail yourself of every benefit of that contract in spite of that breach, even to the detriment of the innocent party. And I'm not just talking about child-custody situations where there are innocent third parties' interest at stake. I'm talking about things like spousal support and marital property distribution that have nothing to do with innocent children. It offends the basic tenets of justice that someone should be able to profit from their own wrongdoing. But that's pretty much what the law is set up to permit. I see nothing exceptional about marriage that would make this anything other than an injustice. Maybe it isn't always the nightmare scenario that Daruma envisions, but I'm at a loss to understand how you can defend a system so perverse and contrary to basis fairness.

quote:
Some state have come up with super-binding marriage contracts that cannot be broken by no-fault. I wholly support the right of anyone to have those contracts available if that is what they wish. But that is not what most people want.
Why do you think that ordinary and frankly, universal principles of fairness and equity should apply to every other type of contract except this one?

[ June 03, 2009, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You don't consider adultery to be a fundamental breach of the marriage contract?
And with this question you go completely off the rails.

If I'm divorcing my spouse because I have good evidence that they've committed adultery, how is that a "no-fault" divorce? It isn't.

The rest of your hyperbolic post is spent tilting at windmills, rot responding to my arguments.

One other point: I seriously doubt that "wedding vows" are considered to be legally binding contractual terms. This is a formal ritual. The contract is something else.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Moving out of an apartment where you have a "tenancy at will" contract isn't a violation of either parties' expectations under the terms of the contract.
My point exactly.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Property cannot be owned by other property in some equal, reciprocal fashion. The very concept is legally self-negating. You can however, consider yourselves a single "person" if you like.

Well actually the idea is more that instead of posessing one's own body one posses the spouses body and vice versa.

Now as regards to the ghetto I am not proposing some draconian new drug laws or cutting off social programs which is what usually is coming after people start talking about "personal responsibility". However there's only so much that providing for material needs will accomplish. If people are provided with public housing and they vandalize it, that is not the state's fault. That is not even the fault of the institution of slavery. That's the fault of the vandal.

(Having said all that, a discreet way to get condoms of decent quality would probably help the situation.)

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

You raise a couple major points, especially the second. I will respond extensively tomorrow, or this evening, time permitting.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

If I'm divorcing my spouse because I have good evidence that they've committed adultery, how is that a "no-fault" divorce? It isn't.

Uhhhh...because under "no-fault" the fact that your spouse cannot be penalized for the adultery! That is the fundamental difference.

Because while the theory is a man or a woman can commit adultery that results in their spouse filing for divorce, the statistical fact that the female enjoys an undeniable gender bias under the status quo goes to show what a lie "no-fault" divorce really is.

He cheats - she divorces, she gets custody, child support, alimony, keeps residence to raise children...

She cheats - he divorces, she gets custody, child support, alimony, keeps residence to raise children...

I'm surprised you don't get this kid...are you deliberately obtuse on this basic point?

Or are you simply incapable of seeing beyond your own personal experience with your own familial breakup?

Your fooling yourself if you think your parents divorce didn't have a significant effect on your life.

Do you hate your father?

If so...why?

If not...do you have a good relationship with him?

[ June 03, 2009, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I'm not saying that we should be throwing people in jail for infidelity, but if we're going to pretend that marriage is a serious commitment, why not impose on it some consequences at least as onerous as the contract for the guy who mows your lawn in the summer?

How do you propose that be done without increasing the difficulty of escaping abusive situations, drug abuse, suicide rates, and overall incidence of perjury? (All of which declined dramatically as a result of no-fault divorce)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, this is bizarre coming from me, as I'm a near atheist, but why not go the route that Jesus taught -- who basically said that divorce is acceptable, but remarriage afterwards is not?

Abusive situations *should* be easy to escape from.
But divorcing your current spouse to marry a younger (or richer) model should also be discouraged.

You ought get only one marriage recognized from the state.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Pyrtolin, this is bizarre coming from me, as I'm a near atheist, but why not go the route that Jesus taught -- who basically said that divorce is acceptable, but remarriage afterwards is not?

Abusive situations *should* be easy to escape from.
But divorcing your current spouse to marry a younger (or richer) model should also be discouraged.

You ought get only one marriage recognized from the state.

The state should remain separate from the religious stance, and such evaluations are of a completely religious nature. The Catholic Church does, in fact, generally adhere to this standard. but remember a few things about Jesus's stance:

- His position was that a vow made in God's name was unbreakable. It had nothing to do with marriage itself, a generally civil institution at the time (do recall that the Romans married as well, but not in the name of the god that Jesus represented), but the fact that the people he was speaking to used God as a witness to seal the vow. Marriages made with a lesser, purely civil oath were not at question.

- Jesus believed that the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the people that he spoke to. He discouraged marriage in general in favor of exclusive commitment to God. It was based on his teachings that, for the first few centuries of its existence, the Church did not sanction marriage at all, leaving it, again, as a purely civil matter.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I said I'm not religious. I don't care what Jesus said except when I find it good advice. Sorry for mentioning his name and thus bringing in the religious complications in this.

So what do you think about the idea of the state recognizing only one marriage? By itself -- independent of what Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or anyone else said?

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I'm divorcing my spouse because I have good evidence that they've committed adultery, how is that a "no-fault" divorce? It isn't.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding is that California only has no-fault divorce... you can only get divorced for "irreconcilable differences." So asking for a divorce on the grounds of adultery is meaningless... it doesn't matter the reason, other than adultery made it so "we couldn't get along." The court just doesn't care. They *might* take it into account for custody, but it has to be pretty bad to overcome the inherent assumption of female custody.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
So what do you think about the idea of the state recognizing only one marriage? By itself -- independent of what Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or anyone else said?

Because there's a greater overall value to leaving open the encouragement toward forming a stable long term relationship in the future, including encouragement to find a proper partner to help raise existing children. (As noted elsewhere, encouraging good marriages is a good idea, but policies that try to force marriage without regard to quality do more damage than good)

Does it make sense to penalize people who have made a mistake in the past in such a way that they are prevented from making optimal choices in the future? (I think that this is an essential question to ask of any penalty being assessed, not only on a social level but economic and legal as well. Penalties that exacerbate a problem generally do not have enough of a deterrent effect to compensate for the additional damage, and only make sense if punishment or profit are the actual motives rather than reduction of bad behavior)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How do you propose that be done without increasing the difficulty of escaping abusive situations, drug abuse, suicide rates, and overall incidence of perjury? (All of which declined dramatically as a result of no-fault divorce)
Suicide rates for whom? It was my understanding that men are at a much higher risk for suicide than women, particularly those that have recently been divorced.

Before I answer the question though, let me just query: is there actually objective evidence supporting a causal connection (not merely correlation) between a decline in suicide, drug abuse, and domestic violence with the advent of no-fault divorce?

One point on the abuse issue. I think it goes without saying that if your spouse is beating you up, any sane regime would categorize that as a legitimate ground for divorce. So for truly abused women, I can't see any issue.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding is that California only has no-fault divorce... you can only get divorced for "irreconcilable differences." So asking for a divorce on the grounds of adultery is meaningless... it doesn't matter the reason, other than adultery made it so "we couldn't get along." The court just doesn't care. They *might* take it into account for custody, but it has to be pretty bad to overcome the inherent assumption of female custody.
Well, that's my point. It's not the divorce itself, but what kind of arrangement follows it where all the other evidence of wrong-doing comes in.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma said

quote:
Uhhhh...because under "no-fault" the fact that your spouse cannot be penalized for the adultery! That is the fundamental difference.

Because while the theory is a man or a woman can commit adultery that results in their spouse filing for divorce, the statistical fact that the female enjoys an undeniable gender bias under the status quo goes to show what a lie "no-fault" divorce really is.

He cheats - she divorces, she gets custody, child support, alimony, keeps residence to raise children...

She cheats - he divorces, she gets custody, child support, alimony, keeps residence to raise children...

I'm surprised you don't get this kid...are you deliberately obtuse on this basic point?

Or are you simply incapable of seeing beyond your own personal experience with your own familial breakup?

Your fooling yourself if you think your parents divorce didn't have a significant effect on your life.

Do you hate your father?

If so...why?

If not...do you have a good relationship with him?

As I stated earlier, proving adultery in a court of law is, generally speaking, too difficult to bother with. The evidence threshold is too high. Unless you have hired detectives and swabbed for DNA, you’re probably not going to get anywhere with it. This has nothing to do with no-fault divorce. It’s just a matter of evidentiary procedure. So “cheating” as a legal basis for divorce does not describe the majority of cases.

What the couple knows about their reasons for divorce are not the same as what the court knows. The vast majority of divorces are uncontested, meaning both parties have signed off on it. Which is permitted, last I checked, in any free society. If you can mutually consent to be bound by a contract, you can do the same to be unbound.

Your “he cheats/she cheats scenario is by definition only going to describe a very small portion of the divorces that occur in terms of legal bias. If the court is not recognizing that adultery has occurred, it can hardly use adultery as a basis for a bias against men.

quote:
Your fooling yourself if you think your parents divorce didn't have a significant effect on your life.

I never said it didn’t have a significant effect. I said I wasn’t emotionally hurt by it all that much. They had joint custody, so it’s not like anyone deserted me. It had a very significant effect on my life. My life got to be a lot less sheltered, and I learned things about different social strata. The details are too difficult to cover here fully, but basically I moved up and down several times from rough blue-collar neighborhoods to rooming with millionaires when my mom became a sort of renter/housekeeper for a German-Brazilian banking family. I went from a tiny condo to Bauhaus mansion, though we never had all that much money. Meanwhile, my dad remained in his little suburban townhouse. Look, it was a very weird life, but an interesting one in many ways. One of the kids (older than me about 10 years) from the megabucks family we lived with later became an internet porn star. A feminist one. She ran her own production studio. Go wild with that one, Daruma. You know you want to! [Wink]

My parents anguished about the divorce but I got tired of their winging. It was their unhappiness that affect me the most. Children are emotional sponges, so their unhappiness and anxiety rubbed off on me. But had they remained together it would have been 10 times worse. I am sooooo glad they split. The thought of the additional 11 years with the two of them in the same house makes me shiver just thinking about it.

My parents did do things which hurt me emotionally, but those things were happening before the divorce, and would’ve continued under any circumstance, because of who they were as people.

I dunno, perhaps I’m a freak of nature. But one of my clearest memories is thinking, right after they told me, “why do they want me to cry so much?”. And I got sick of their insistence for years after that any daily unhappiness I felt had to be based on them and their damn relationship problems, as if I had no life of my own. It really made me angry.

But Daruma, I can honestly, unequivocally say that from age 8 onwards, well into my adult years, I never once wished that my parents were back together. I simply do not recall having those feelings at any time.

NOW I wish they were, but for selfish reasons. Neither of them remarried. They’ve had since 1981 to find new life-mates and they’ve both completely botched every attempt. Now they both live alone. I’m an only child, and I’m facing a future about 10-15 years from now of putting my life on hold so I can shuttle back and forth between Atlanta and Boston to look after them in their respective states of fusty decrepitude. If they’d remarried and made more babies, it would’ve made my life a bit easier. Ah, well. Gotta love ‘em.

No, I do not hate my father. Yes, I have a good relationship with him. What the hell kind of question is that?

I knew many kids with divorced parents. The only kids I knew who never saw their fathers were kids whose fathers simply left them. That happened to my lifelong best friend, actually. He has an awesome mom, but his dad is an asswipe. And yes, that hurt my friend greatly. Abandonment, not divorce, is what really hurts kids in my experience.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL


quote:
Well actually the idea is more that instead of posessing one's own body one posses the spouse's body and vice versa.

This is perfectly alright as a spiritual concept, if that's what you want, but it is in no way what the state recognizes in a "marriage contract."

Personally, I find the concept repugnant.


quote:
Now as regards to the ghetto I am not proposing some draconian new drug laws or cutting off social programs which is what usually is coming after people start talking about "personal responsibility". However there's only so much that providing for material needs will accomplish. If people are provided with public housing and they vandalize it, that is not the state's fault. That is not even the fault of the institution of slavery. That's the fault of the vandal.

(Having said all that, a discreet way to get condoms of decent quality would probably help the situation.)

Vandalism is more the state's fault that you realize.

Here's what happened in the 1960's when major cities started building up the "projects." The state took public money to create private corporations which built the giant low-rent housing complexes. It then essentially handed over all aspects of the management of the building to the private owners of said corporation.

The owners of the buildings, now operating on a purely profit-motive, even though they were nominally providing a state service, refused to provide adequate security in the buildings. The city wouldn't police them, because the cops don't patrol private property (they only respond to emergency calls). And the landlords simply ignored calls from tenants that the lack of nighttime security was creating a crime magnet. Think about it, you have five or six huge dorm-like buildings in one condensed area, and no cops and almost non-existent security. Tenants quickly began to realize that the projects were a place to be left and forgotten.

When you have no means to control certain basic issues as securing your home and maintaining it, it ceases to feel like your home. It's more like a pseudo-prison. And that's how many tenants came to view it.

Meanwhile, at the same time, the govt was promoting moving white folk into Levitown-style suburban developments through other initiatives, basically exacerbating the racial gap - putting white folks in a situation where they would have wealth and assets and blacks would not.

The city didn't just give stuff to blacks and black neighborhoods. It also stole a great deal. It seized huge swathes out of eminent domain to build bypasses and power stations and the like, driving down their property values. It favored big corporations over small business, leading to the departure of the manufacturing sector, and creating a hostile environment for small business. Essentially, it stole from African-Americans any opportunity to accumulate wealth. All this happened right along with supposedly benevolent welfare state-initiatives, which at best only half-compensated for how the state was screwing people over.

People know when they're getting shafted, and when the game has been fixed against them. Vandalizing your prison cell is a normal, human reaction.

[ June 04, 2009, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1