Divorce

@Kary: Have an article on how courts enforce the 50-50 rule in Australia.

What country do you want next?

@DG:

You also realize that it takes two people to complete a divorce, right?

No, not necessarily. The courts may be merciful in Washington state.

edited 24th Jan '11 7:00:43 PM by Rottweiler

Maybe the problem isn't so much that divorce is too easy to obtain, but that marriage is.

I think it's both, but yes.

Cute. You can't bear to either treat me with basic respect or just leave me alone, so you hunt down one irrelevant statistic that supports your worldview so you can say you've done it.

Too little too late at this point, I'm afraid. I just ran fresh out of give-a-shit.

I want to say that divorce needs to remain as easy as marriage, because otherwise abusive spouses have the edge.

Divorce seems to be widely abused though as a way to get out of commitment.

I feel that you need to know if your spouse is an abusive fuck before you marry them.

Abusers don't generally show their true colors until it has become difficult for their partner to leave them.

Cute. You can't bear to either treat me with basic respect or just leave me alone,

Yeah, except that isn't at all what he's doing. He's civilly presenting a dissenting opinion. On what planet does that translate to not showing basic respect?

so you hunt down one irrelevant statistic that supports your worldview so you can say you've done it.

If he's arguing that divorce destroys a person's financial assets, then a statistic saying that divorce is the largest destroyer of financial assets in Australia is pretty relevant.

Too little too late at this point, I'm afraid. I just ran fresh out of give-a-shit.

Well, good to know that actual research and fact won't sway you, then.

Yeah, hey, why don't you read his reply to my first post in this thread again, and then try to tell me he was showing me respect? Enough's enough—I'm not so hard up for human conversation that I have to put up with any more of that.

Divorce is troublesome. But not as troublesome as a society where people are trapped in bad or loveless marriages. Maybe the problem isn't so much that divorce is too easy to obtain, but that marriage is. I think a lot of stupidity could be avoided if marriage licenses had a mandatory waiting period of six months to a year.

If anything, divorce is a correction of a mistake. It would be much better if such mistakes did not happen in the first place, and easy availability of divorce can be a factor in being less careful about marriage as one should be, but thing is, no matter what we do, bad marriages still will happen. It is not possible to eliminate them completely. So, there should always be a way out of bad marriage.

Really, this one would not even contemplate ever getting married if there was no possible way back and making a mistake meant being trapped forever.

I did. The worst he said to you was that you didn't cite sources, which was true, and a snarky comment about the word myth. That's far from a personal attack.

As someone who has actually been through a divorce...

Yes, it's a bitch. It costs time, money and effort that can be better served elsewhere. But staying in a marriage that is no longer working is even worse. And laws that trap people in loveless or abusive unions (and/or make it one person's "fault" that the marriage is ending) are a gross miscarriage of justice, and the religious attitude of it being a sin is one of the dumber contributions of organized religion to society. Honestly, I'd like to bitch-slap those who perpetuate this idea with a tire-iron.

Someone suggested a waiting period; good idea, even though it wouldn't have helped me. I waited 6 years to marry my wife and things still fell apart. Again, it happens. I'm glad I live in a no-fault state that deals prefunctorily with short, childless marriages.

Divorce is necessary because people and situations change over time. The person you fell in love with might not be that person ten years down the line, and who they become might not be someone you can live with. Honestly, if there wasn't the moral stigma against divorce, I would have done it about three years sooner and saved a lot of people a good deal of trouble.

For the record, I find it telling that those against divorce are arguing from statistics while those for it argue from actually having been involved in one. Those who categorically say it's a bad idea...go out, get married, find you don't like the situation and then come back to this argument.

"Oh, and that thing about people turning a profit by divorcing their higher-earning spouses? It's a myth. The rule is that after a divorce, the standard of living enjoyed by the lower-earning spouse drops pretty sharply, while that of the higher earner rises. So let's put that particular accusation to bed, shall we?"

I might buy that in the case of people earning average wages, but in cases where one spouse brings enormous wealth to the marriage (as in, millions or billions), then the lower-earning spouse (assuming they were of average/lower-class means) will come out ahead, in the absence of pre-nups and the like.

"Honestly, I'd like to bitch-slap those who perpetuate this idea with a tire-iron."

Yes, God forbid anyone hold a tighter standard of morality than you. They obviously deserve to be bludgeoned for the presumption.

It is not necessary a tighter standard, just different one. It is quite possible to have a moral standard according to which forcing people to be trapped in loveless unions none of them wants to remain in is not moral.

Yay for prenups

Not all us believe that the union requires love in the first place.

Exactly. That's why it is difficult to compare which set of morals is "stricter" - they rely upon different assumptions and values to begin with.

(sigh) This one is just somewhat tired of assumption that opposing certain restriction=lax set of morals. If that was not the assumption you've made please accept my apologies, and I have to learn some reading comprehension.

edited 25th Jan '11 11:29:27 AM by Beholderess

But you can have one that is stricter in that it requires more conditions to become marries and more conditions to become divorced in terms of morality.

I'd say that someone who is against divorce lives by a tighter set of rules since they don't have the freedom to get out. In that case, if it is a love-based marriage, know the person you love before marrying them. Live with them a couple of years without marriage so you can leave.

Heh, certainly a good suggestion. I do consider rush marriages too be stupid, period, and would not mind if there was some arbitrary waiting time specifically to minimise that. But due to human nature, while it might be possible to reduce incidence of bad marriage, it is not possible to eliminate it completely. So there has to be some way of correcting such mistakes, and leaving both people to suffer in the marriage that went badly is senseless cruelty, and Disproportionate Retribution for simple mistake with no malicious intent.

And yes, if divorces were banned, this one would not contemplate being married even if she met someone who would be an absolutely perfect match. I'd prefer to live together without marriage then, because there is absolutely no guarantee that neither of us will not change in the direction that makes us incompatible, that we will not become strangers at one point. And being trapped with a stranger is not something I wish, nor is it something I would wish to inflict upon the one I once loved.

My parents recently got divorced properly. The proceedings have been going on for about a year and even though she had been the one cheating for five years (and she actually did it when I became sick), my Mum was the one to file for it. She claimed physical violence which, to be honest, makes me not want to even see her in fear of injuring something.

^ Yeah, that's the problem with at-fault divorce states.

"I mean, heck, I already think it's a good idea for couples to live together for a while before thinking about marriage."

You'd think so, but no. Apparently, people who cohabite before marrying have lower-quality marriages on average.

The theory is that deciding to move in seems much less 'serious' a decision than deciding to marry (so people do it even when they're not completely sure about the relationship), but once you've moved in together, inertia can keep you together even when the relationship isn't working. Then you might get married mainly because you've been living together so long.

edited 25th Jan '11 1:39:43 PM by Ettina

@Ettina: I used to disagree with you, but now I'm not so sure considering I cohabitated with my future spouse for six years and our relationship ended in acrimonious divorce.

That said, I don't think the other end of the spectrum (getting married when you barely know the other party) works either.