NationStates Jolt Archive

This is what you have to do to save the institution of marriage:
(It does not involve banning gay marriages and is a lot more effective) It is from my old political campaign and got me lots of votes.

1. Men should have a federal right to bloodtest if a woman wants a court to force them to
involuntarily pay child support. This right would not apply if the man waves it.

2. Regarding child support, I favor allowing nonmonetary child support. Under this proposal,
the parent paying the support would have the right to make nonmonetary child support in the form of
paying the rent, paying utilities, buying food, clothing, etc. if such arrangement is court approved.

3. Require men and women who have to pay child support to spend at least 2 days a week with their
children unless special circumstances make this impossible. For example, the father lives in New York while the mother and child live in Los Angeles, or if the father molested or abused the child.

4. I support allowing both parents to claim the children on their federal tax returns whether they are married or not. Even if the woman is working and already claims the child. Both should be allowed to claim the children. Allowing a a father to deduct child support from his taxes will encourage deadbeats to start paying up. This also means bigger tax savings for American couples.

5. Everyone should have the right to sue third persons who destroy their families by engaging in adultry with their spouse or being a bad influence on their children.

6. We ought to make marriage counseling tax deductible.

7. We ought to have a National Day of the Family added to our calendar.

8. There ought to be subsidized child care for women who agree to finish their education and for working mothers.

9. If a man or woman chooses to stay home and take care of the kids, that family should be given a bigger deduction on their federal taxes. We should not punish people who make this decision, we should help them. We could give them a $50 dollar deduction if one spouse chooses to stay home.

10. I support requiring parental consent for girls under 18 to get an abortion unless one of the parents has abused or molested her. :D :D :D :lol: :lol:

Why on earth would you encourage people sue those who engage in adultery? There would be so many thousands of useless lawsuits, not to mention thousands of cases of suspcion and parinoia leading to failed relationships because someone was looking for an adulterous affair...No, this would be abused beyond all comprehension. Singles Bars would disappear overnight ;)

Other than that...not a bad idea.

Singles Bars would disappear overnight ;)


lol!

10. I support requiring parental consent for girls under 18 to get an abortion unless one of the parents has abused or molested her. :D :D :D :lol: :lol:

I don't think this would "save the institution of marriage" as much as "cause a new explosion in the number of single mothers and destitute kiddies".

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though.

I like most of what you say....

but not this:

7. We ought to have a National Day of the Family added to our calendar.

If you have a family...

EVERY day should be Family Day.


and I also believe that allowing people to sue for adultery would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

i totally oppose giving tax breaks to people who decide to stay at home instead of working. if they don't work, they don't get paid...simple. it's not our business to support other people's families, and if they can't support them on one income then they either should both work or shouldn't have had children. your family is your business, and neither the government nor your fellow citizens should support it.

fathers already have the right to get a blood test if they doubt paternity and are being required to pay support, by the way. at least where i live they do.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

So if a wife goes out and has a baby by a man other than her husband, the husband should get screwed over by it? Who gives a damn what the law says? It isn't his mess; it should be his choice whether or not he takes care of the kid. If the wife doesn't want to lose her husband's support of her child, she shouldn't have had the affair in the first place. Do wives have to support their husbands' out-of-wedlock kids? Didn't think so, and no court in the nation would make them. And don't tell me it's "different" for women - it's the same damn mistake.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

um, the law cares very much if you are the biological parent, in order to establish you as the legal parent. if a man doesn't think a child is his and he doesn't want to be responsible for it then that's perfectly fine and reasonable...if you used a condom every time with your girl, and made it clear you didn't want kids, and then a month after you break up she says she's pregnant, then i think you would be totally reasonable for asking her to prove it's yours before you sign on for a lifetime commitment you didn't want.

not everyone wants kids. i don't, and i'm a girl. guys don't have to want kids, and any guy who doesn't want to be in his offsprings' life shouldn't be...there is nothing special about having sperm that makes a guy a good father, so if he doesn't want to be there he shouldn't be forced into it. he won't be a good father if he doesn't want to be one, anyway.

to say that a guy should just love a child that isn't his is silly and unreasonable. if his girl cheated on him and had somebody else's baby then he will be forced to remember that every time he sees the kid. not to mention that it's NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY. he didn't make the baby, he shouldn't have to pay for it. the guy who makes the baby has to deal with the consequences, unless some other guy voluntarily steps up and says he WANTS to do so.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

um, the law cares very much if you are the biological parent, in order to establish you as the legal parent. if a man doesn't think a child is his and he doesn't want to be responsible for it then that's perfectly fine and reasonable...if you used a condom every time with your girl, and made it clear you didn't want kids, and then a month after you break up she says she's pregnant, then i think you would be totally reasonable for asking her to prove it's yours before you sign on for a lifetime commitment you didn't want.

not everyone wants kids. i don't, and i'm a girl. guys don't have to want kids, and any guy who doesn't want to be in his offsprings' life shouldn't be...there is nothing special about having sperm that makes a guy a good father, so if he doesn't want to be there he shouldn't be forced into it. he won't be a good father if he doesn't want to be one, anyway.

to say that a guy should just love a child that isn't his is silly and unreasonable. if his girl cheated on him and had somebody else's baby then he will be forced to remember that every time he sees the kid. not to mention that it's NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY. he didn't make the baby, he shouldn't have to pay for it. the guy who makes the baby has to deal with the consequences, unless some other guy voluntarily steps up and says he WANTS to do so.I don'r know about this, cos it leads to problems with couples who have children via sperm doners and surrogates(including gay and lesbian couples), as well as to men who do choose to help raise and care for a child which isn't their own biologically. Sometimes these things aren't accounted for in the law and lead to people who act or take on the responsibilities of parents losing their rights because of DNA.

All the points you raise are valid, but there are things you don't take into account. Its not fair for legality to be based entirely on DNA.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

um, the law cares very much if you are the biological parent, in order to establish you as the legal parent. if a man doesn't think a child is his and he doesn't want to be responsible for it then that's perfectly fine and reasonable...if you used a condom every time with your girl, and made it clear you didn't want kids, and then a month after you break up she says she's pregnant, then i think you would be totally reasonable for asking her to prove it's yours before you sign on for a lifetime commitment you didn't want.

not everyone wants kids. i don't, and i'm a girl. guys don't have to want kids, and any guy who doesn't want to be in his offsprings' life shouldn't be...there is nothing special about having sperm that makes a guy a good father, so if he doesn't want to be there he shouldn't be forced into it. he won't be a good father if he doesn't want to be one, anyway.

to say that a guy should just love a child that isn't his is silly and unreasonable. if his girl cheated on him and had somebody else's baby then he will be forced to remember that every time he sees the kid. not to mention that it's NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY. he didn't make the baby, he shouldn't have to pay for it. the guy who makes the baby has to deal with the consequences, unless some other guy voluntarily steps up and says he WANTS to do so.I don'r know about this, cos it leads to problems with couples who have children via sperm doners and surrogates(including gay and lesbian couples), as well as to men who do choose to help raise and care for a child which isn't their own biologically. Sometimes these things aren't accounted for in the law and lead to people who act or take on the responsibilities of parents losing their rights because of DNA.

All the points you raise are valid, but there are things you don't take into account. Its not fair for legality to be based entirely on DNA.

huh? the law fully accounts for sperm donation and other artificial conception methods. if a man isn't biologically the father of a child then he cannot be held financially or legally responsible for it against his will. if he IS biologically the father then the means of conception (sperm donation, etc) determine the extent of his responsibilities. what's the problem with that?

when you donat sperm you sign a form that cuts any parental rights or responsibilities. when you and your wife use donated sperm you sign forms that make you the legal father of the product of those procedures. it's not that complicated, really.

Make divorce illegal except for adultery and domestic abuse.

Make divorce illegal except for adultery and domestic abuse.

yeah, because forcing people to be unhappy will be great! after all, if marriage is something we can trap people in, and it is made into an obligation and a punishment, then that will save it's true value and meaning!

marriage isn't about love, it's about obligation, everyone! if you aren't in love any more, and you aren't happy together, too bad! suffer on, because that's what will make marriage a stronger institution! not actually improving marriages, or helping people to make better choices within their marriages, but forcing them to stay in them against their will!

plus, we can give them even more incentive to cheat on each other and beat each other! after all, if that's the only way out of the marriage you don't want, then why not?!

Make divorce illegal except for adultery and domestic abuse.

yeah, because forcing people to be unhappy will be great!

I'm not forcing them to do anything.

1) If they're gonna be that stubborn to not bother sorting out their problems then that's certainely no reason to divorce.

2) Marriage should be for life (unless in said circumstances).

3) They shouldn't rush into marriage with someone.

Make divorce illegal except for adultery and domestic abuse.

yeah, because forcing people to be unhappy will be great!

I'm not forcing them to do anything.

1) If they're gonna be that stubborn to not bother sorting out their problems then that's certainely no reason to divorce.

2) Marriage should be for life (unless in said circumstances).

3) They shouldn't rush into marriage with someone.

um, if they want a divorce and you won't let them have one then that's forcing them to stay married against their will.

1. it's not always stubbornness...very often the differences simply can't be reconciled, no matter how much work goes into it.

2. why? because you say so? why should everyone live the way you tell them to, instead of how they feel is best for them and their family?

3. who says they did? a couple i know just got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, and they courted for 6 years before their wedding. studies show that courtship length is not correlated with likelihood of divorce in any significant way, and sometimes it actually is counterproductive; couples who live together before marrying, for example, are sometimes found to be more likely to divorce, even though they courted longer than other couples.

1. it's not always stubbornness...very often the differences simply can't be reconciled, no matter how much work goes into it.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this because I really do not believe that to be true.

2. why? because you say so? why should everyone live the way you tell them to, instead of how they feel is best for them and their family?

Because marriage is the best option. Simple as.

3. who says they did? a couple i know just got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, and they courted for 6 years before their wedding. studies show that courtship length is not correlated with likelihood of divorce in any significant way, and sometimes it actually is counterproductive; couples who live together before marrying, for example, are sometimes found to be more likely to divorce, even though they courted longer than other couples.

Well, my parents lived together for 6 years before getting married and they are still married 13 years later. And my Aunty and Uncle have lived together for 13 years (though they're not married).

It can and has been done. We shouldn't just give up on something so important and sacred as marriage like we do nowadays.

Why on earth would you encourage people sue those who engage in adultery? There would be so many thousands of useless lawsuits, not to mention thousands of cases of suspcion and parinoia leading to failed relationships because someone was looking for an adulterous affair...No, this would be abused beyond all comprehension. Singles Bars would disappear overnight ;)

Other than that...not a bad idea.

Up to, I think, the 1970's you could sue a third party (the person your spouse was cheating on you with). It was called Alienation of Affections.

Make divorce illegal except for adultery and domestic abuse.

So, the only way I can get out of this hypothetical marriage that both I and my spouse want to dissolve is to either have one of us caught commiting adultery on purpose or to attack my spouse.

Thus in an attempt to prevent divorces we increase adultery (or at least the charade of adultery sufficient to stand up in a court of law) and spouse-beating.

Have you ever done on research on marriage law in Victorian Britain? If not, then you have just independently recreated all the problems they ran into. Quite a remarkable achievement.

So, the only way I can get out of this hypothetical marriage that both I and my spouse want to dissolve is to either have one of us caught commiting adultery on purpose or to attack my spouse.

Thus in an attempt to prevent divorces we increase adultery (or at least the charade of adultery sufficient to stand up in a court of law) and spouse-beating.

Have you ever done on research on marriage law in Victorian Britain? If not, then you have just independently recreated all the problems they ran into. Quite a remarkable achievement.

:roll:

Or perhaps you should stay in your marriage and try to work your differences/problems out.

Why are you being so cynical?

1. it's not always stubbornness...very often the differences simply can't be reconciled, no matter how much work goes into it.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this because I really do not believe that to be true.


*shrugs* okay.


2. why? because you say so? why should everyone live the way you tell them to, instead of how they feel is best for them and their family?

Because marriage is the best option. Simple as.


again, why? because you say so? a loveless, unhappy marriage isn't the best option for anybody, and psychological studies show that divorce can actually be healthier for a child than to watch his/her parents in an unhappy union.


3. who says they did? a couple i know just got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, and they courted for 6 years before their wedding. studies show that courtship length is not correlated with likelihood of divorce in any significant way, and sometimes it actually is counterproductive; couples who live together before marrying, for example, are sometimes found to be more likely to divorce, even though they courted longer than other couples.

Well, my parents lived together for 6 years before getting married and they are still married 13 years later. And my Aunty and Uncle have lived together for 13 years (though they're not married).

It can and has been done. We shouldn't just give up on something so important and sacred as marriage like we do nowadays.
yes, it can be done. but not by every couple. some people find out they aren't right for each other after several years, and others simply grow apart. you have to remember that when marriage was first established as a "lifelong" union the life span was about a third of what it is now...a "lifetime" marriage was maybe 20 years, if you were lucky, and if you weren't rich it would be about 10 years because your wife would die in child birth around then.

my parents have been married for 28 years this July, and have never been married to anyone else. i know that marriage CAN work, but not every couple is right together. there is no reason to punish people for not getting along; it's their business, not yours, and unless you are prepared to personally oversee every marriage in the world i don't think you have any right to pass judgment on them. let them chose what they believe is best, and admit that they know their relationship better than you ever could. if they don't want the marriage enough to try then nothing you say will force them to feel differently, and forcing them to pretend is both cruel and naive.

Why are you being so cynical?

...because in Victorian Britain which had much the same kind of policy regarding divorce it was not uncommon for married partners to decide they would disolve their marriage, and so would arrange to have one of them (usually the man) caught in the act of adultery: thus the divorce could legally take place.

In this case I claim it as being realist, rather than cynical.

my parents have been married for 28 years this July, and have never been married to anyone else. i know that marriage CAN work, but not every couple is right together. there is no reason to punish people for not getting along; it's their business, not yours, and unless you are prepared to personally oversee every marriage in the world i don't think you have any right to pass judgment on them. let them chose what they believe is best, and admit that they know their relationship better than you ever could. if they don't want the marriage enough to try then nothing you say will force them to feel differently, and forcing them to pretend is both cruel and naive.

IMO, marriage is something which the couple have made in front of God. We should not break this union for any reason (except those stated) as, IMO, it is wrong. My opinion will not change and I do not believe that divorce should be as easy today as it is.

Marriage is no easy ride in life and there will be times (many occasions) when it is perhaps the worst thing in the world but just because you have hit a horrible patch does not mean that you should divorce or even be able to divorce.

Why are you being so cynical?

...because in Victorian Britain which had much the same kind of policy regarding divorce it was not uncommon for married partners to decide they would disolve their marriage, and so would arrange to have one of them (usually the man) caught in the act of adultery: thus the divorce could legally take place.

In this case I claim it as being realist, rather than cynical.

and i heartily agree. i would certainly work my ass off to save my marriage, but i am worldly enough to know that many marriages simply can't keep working. if that was the case in my marriage i would get a divorce, out of respect for my partner and myself, and if adultery or abuse were the only ways to do that then i am sure my partner and i would come to an understanding. we could stage an abuse case pretty convincingly, i think, or agree to simply go our separate ways and find other partners, and when that happened the union could be disolved in the eyes of the law as it would already have been in our hearts. my oath would be to my partner, and if we agreed it wasn't working and released each other then i would consider myself free to go, no matter what the law said.

I think they should try to make it easier for families to have a stay at home parent (This could be done through tax breaks and the like). Me and my brother and sister have been lucky enough to have a stay at home mother and I think it's been really beneficial to us.

i dont think blood tests should be a right. Even If it his not his child he should still love it. To not would be simply spiteful. You already know that the law doesnt much care if you are a biological parent, only If you are the legal one.

um, the law cares very much if you are the biological parent, in order to establish you as the legal parent. if a man doesn't think a child is his and he doesn't want to be responsible for it then that's perfectly fine and reasonable...if you used a condom every time with your girl, and made it clear you didn't want kids, and then a month after you break up she says she's pregnant, then i think you would be totally reasonable for asking her to prove it's yours before you sign on for a lifetime commitment you didn't want.

not everyone wants kids. i don't, and i'm a girl. guys don't have to want kids, and any guy who doesn't want to be in his offsprings' life shouldn't be...there is nothing special about having sperm that makes a guy a good father, so if he doesn't want to be there he shouldn't be forced into it. he won't be a good father if he doesn't want to be one, anyway.

to say that a guy should just love a child that isn't his is silly and unreasonable. if his girl cheated on him and had somebody else's baby then he will be forced to remember that every time he sees the kid. not to mention that it's NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY. he didn't make the baby, he shouldn't have to pay for it. the guy who makes the baby has to deal with the consequences, unless some other guy voluntarily steps up and says he WANTS to do so.I don'r know about this, cos it leads to problems with couples who have children via sperm doners and surrogates(including gay and lesbian couples), as well as to men who do choose to help raise and care for a child which isn't their own biologically. Sometimes these things aren't accounted for in the law and lead to people who act or take on the responsibilities of parents losing their rights because of DNA.

All the points you raise are valid, but there are things you don't take into account. Its not fair for legality to be based entirely on DNA.

huh? the law fully accounts for sperm donation and other artificial conception methods. if a man isn't biologically the father of a child then he cannot be held financially or legally responsible for it against his will. if he IS biologically the father then the means of conception (sperm donation, etc) determine the extent of his responsibilities. what's the problem with that?

when you donat sperm you sign a form that cuts any parental rights or responsibilities. when you and your wife use donated sperm you sign forms that make you the legal father of the product of those procedures. it's not that complicated, really.Take the example of a lesbian couple who use a sperm doner for one of them to have a baby. Now if they split up, only one of them is biologically connected to the child, but both have a strong emotional attachment. The law will tend to favour the woman with the biological connection. Now that may seem reasonable, but imagine that instead of splitting up, the biological parent dies. In this case, absent a joint adoption which isn't always possible under the law, the child's other mother would have less rights than say, the family of the deceased biological parent. The child could then pass into the hands of grandparents on the biological side an leave the surviving part of the couple with almost no rights to her child. Thats one of many possible circumstances where genetics is not sufficiant.

What made you come up with this list?

1. it's not always stubbornness...very often the differences simply can't be reconciled, no matter how much work goes into it.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this because I really do not believe that to be true.

2. why? because you say so? why should everyone live the way you tell them to, instead of how they feel is best for them and their family?

Because marriage is the best option. Simple as.

3. who says they did? a couple i know just got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, and they courted for 6 years before their wedding. studies show that courtship length is not correlated with likelihood of divorce in any significant way, and sometimes it actually is counterproductive; couples who live together before marrying, for example, are sometimes found to be more likely to divorce, even though they courted longer than other couples.

Well, my parents lived together for 6 years before getting married and they are still married 13 years later. And my Aunty and Uncle have lived together for 13 years (though they're not married).

It can and has been done. We shouldn't just give up on something so important and sacred as marriage like we do nowadays.

I know a couple who have been married for thirty years, and are finally getting divorced because the marriage is a sham. one member of the couple has been miserable for well over 15 years, which is no way to live. this person has done their best to make the relationship work with counselling, and has really worked hard, but has finally realised that they would be much happier alone than with the person they are forced to live with every day. People do not just divorce on a whim. it's hard and heartbreaking. but you only get one life. what the hell is the point in spending most of that time miserable depressed and lonelier than you would be if you were free to be yourself?

On the issue of child support, I think a father should have the right *before the child is born* to say he does not want to be a part of the child's life. If the mother still chooses to have the baby, he will simply never have any parental rights whatsoever to that child. If a father wants a paternity test right away to determine whether or not he is the father in order to make decisions on child support/etc, no problem. However, I do not think this should be an option with a couple that has been together, raising a child for years. If the father has recognized and supported that child as his own, he shouldn't be able to call foul just because he wants to get out of paying child support, because at that point, the money is likely necessary in order to provide for the child.

To Catholic Europe, if abuse and adultery are the only good reasons for divorce, what do you say to instances in which one spouse is ruining the relationship in another way. For instance, my father is an alcoholic. There was generally no direct abuse, but he could be and was very belligerent. Over the course of most of my childhood, his drinking got progressively worse and worse. My parents were unhappy together, and I knew it. My mother tried everything she could, but in the end the marriage was simply unsalvagable and she did not love him any more. I was probably one of the few children in history who was happy when my mother told me she was filing for divorce. Ten years later, I can still say that my parents' divorce was the best possible decision for my mother, myself, and my brother and, in the long run - even my father. But according to you, this should not have been allowed.

IMO, marriage is something which the couple have made in front of God. We should not break this union for any reason (except those stated) as, IMO, it is wrong. My opinion will not change and I do not believe that divorce should be as easy today as it is.

Marriage is no easy ride in life and there will be times (many occasions) when it is perhaps the worst thing in the world but just because you have hit a horrible patch does not mean that you should divorce or even be able to divorce.

my marriage was made in front of a hung-over municipal judge. if its OK with him, can i get a divorce?

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though. biological reasons make sure brothers aren't marry sisters, actually.

What made you come up with this list?
From my old campaign site (from 2000 elections).
I am thinking about using it again.

In Canada, the law doesn't care about DNA tests. They force men to support other people's children regardless.
And if someone spends 20 years trying to save a marriage and fails, then no matter what you do, they will divorce.
A husband is engages in alcoholism is guilty of domestic abuse of his family. A divorce is justified on those grounds.

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though.
I agree but most Americans don't even know how to have a real marriage anymore. America's common perception of marriage is that you do it for the sex, then you argue (cause your marriage is bad if you don't fight a lot), and then you divorce and go on to the next person and the cycle repeats.
But the govt. should not force people to stay married. That is between them and their God.

In Canada, the law doesn't care about DNA tests. They force men to support other people's children regardless.
And if someone spends 20 years trying to save a marriage and fails, then no matter what you do, they will divorce.
A husband is engages in alcoholism is guilty of domestic abuse of his family. A divorce is justified on those grounds.

Umm, that's not true.. any one can get a court order for a DNA test in Canada and if the man or the woman refuse to take it.. The court will act accordingly..

Just for the record.. there is nothing wrong with marriage.. I'm very happily married.. my parents were married for 44 years when my father passed away.. many marriages make it just fine.. you just don't hear about those ones..

Speaking of which, I got the Goddess to agree to be on my next campaign committee.
She'll be doing my PR (and get me lots of votes in the process :lol: )

In Canada, the law doesn't care about DNA tests. They force men to support other people's children regardless.
And if someone spends 20 years trying to save a marriage and fails, then no matter what you do, they will divorce.
A husband is engages in alcoholism is guilty of domestic abuse of his family. A divorce is justified on those grounds.

Umm, that's not true.. any one can get a court order for a DNA test in Canada and if the man or the woman refuse to take it.. The court will act accordingly..

Just for the record.. there is nothing wrong with marriage.. I'm very happily married.. my parents were married for 44 years when my father passed away.. many marriages make it just fine.. you just don't hear about those ones..
You would know more than me about Canadian laws. I was just referring to a decision by a Canadian judge who ruled that a guy had to pay for someone else's kid even though the DNA results said he was not the father and he never had sexual relations with kid's mother. He only lived with her after the kid was born.
My parents were married for a very long time, (in their 20's until until my mother died at the age of 60). That's a long time to stay married in modern day America. That was despite incidents of adultery earlier in their relationship. And despite the domestic abuse. They always found a way to work through it. Only death was able to end their marriage.

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though. biological reasons make sure brothers aren't marry sisters, actually.

No. The biological consequences of brothers and sisters marrying and having kids together are the reasons for the legislation. There's nothing biological preventing a brother and sister from, uhm, pretending they aren't brother and sister. However the inbreeding will cause some pretty nasty illnesses and deformities down the line.

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though. biological reasons make sure brothers aren't marry sisters, actually.

Exactly how would biology stop me from marrying my sister?

my marriage was made in front of a hung-over municipal judge. if its OK with him, can i get a divorce?

I was expressing my own personal opinion on this matter and what I would do, if I could and was in power, to save the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do with current laws or systems but rather our own personal opinions as to what we should think happens.

If I had my way, you wouldn't get a divorce.

my marriage was made in front of a hung-over municipal judge. if its OK with him, can i get a divorce?

I was expressing my own personal opinion on this matter and what I would do, if I could and was in power, to save the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do with current laws or systems but rather our own personal opinions as to what we should think happens.

If I had my way, you wouldn't get a divorce.

So no matter how unhappy the relationship gets..divorce would be out of the question...suppose therapy didn't work...religous counseling didn't work, and the husband is still a domineering jerk or the wife a complaining nag or vice versa..divorce would still be out of the question, they should remain in a marriage where there is no love?

Take the example of a lesbian couple who use a sperm doner for one of them to have a baby. Now if they split up, only one of them is biologically connected to the child, but both have a strong emotional attachment. The law will tend to favour the woman with the biological connection. Now that may seem reasonable, but imagine that instead of splitting up, the biological parent dies. In this case, absent a joint adoption which isn't always possible under the law, the child's other mother would have less rights than say, the family of the deceased biological parent. The child could then pass into the hands of grandparents on the biological side an leave the surviving part of the couple with almost no rights to her child. Thats one of many possible circumstances where genetics is not sufficiant.

i don't believe i ever claimed that genetics determines who makes a good parent...in fact, much of my point was that it DOESN'T. an unwilling father, biological or not, should never be forced to take part in a child's life, and the same applies for mothers. conversely, if a non-biological parent wants to step in and chose to parent then that's just as good as a biological parent.

the gay rights issue seems irrelevant here, if you don't mind my saying. we are all painfully aware of how unjust current laws are regarding lesbian and gay couples who try to adopt and form families, and i would never argue that the laws are reasonable in that area. however, i have a lesbian godmother who adopted two children with her partner of 10 years, and when they later split they had the same sort of custody arrangements as a divorced couple would because they had set that up when they signed the adoption papers; you can do that if one of you bears the child from a sperm donor, just as a male and female married couple do when they use such a procedure. if people don't bother to use the legal resources that are available i don't have any sympathy for their situation.

my marriage was made in front of a hung-over municipal judge. if its OK with him, can i get a divorce?

I was expressing my own personal opinion on this matter and what I would do, if I could and was in power, to save the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do with current laws or systems but rather our own personal opinions as to what we should think happens.

If I had my way, you wouldn't get a divorce.

So no matter how unhappy the relationship gets..divorce would be out of the question...suppose therapy didn't work...religous counseling didn't work, and the husband is still a domineering jerk or the wife a complaining nag or vice versa..divorce would still be out of the question, they should remain in a marriage where there is no love?

because marriage is about obligation to God, not about love between two people. if we allow marriage to just be about love, respect, and honor then that will totally rob it of the meaning God intended: for two people to be forced to put up with each other no matter what, until one of them dies or they beat each other up!

because marriage is about obligation to God, not about love between two people. if we allow marriage to just be about love, respect, and honor then that will totally rob it of the meaning God intended: for two people to be forced to put up with each other no matter what, until one of them dies or they beat each other up!

:roll:

Nice sarcasm..... :roll:

You're correct marriage isn't just about love it is also about the sacred bond that you made between yourself and God.

But, unlike what you have sarcastically stated, marriage is about love, honour and respect between not only yourself and your partner but also for the bond that you made in the eyes of God.

And, anyway, if we were to grant divorces then remarrying would simply be seen as adulterous.

I think they should try to make it easier for families to have a stay at home parent (This could be done through tax breaks and the like). Me and my brother and sister have been lucky enough to have a stay at home mother and I think it's been really beneficial to us.

i had two working parents and i think it's been really beneficial to my brother and i. therefore i think there should be tax breaks and incentives for parents to NOT stay at home.

or hey, how about we not give tax breaks based on how people chose to deal with their own families? if one of your parents chose to stay home that's fine, but that's your family's business. if you can't seem to make ends meet that way then you parents should have made better choices, either by both working or by not having as many children...it's not the government's job to give you money you didn't earn. staying at home with your kids doesn't make you a better parent, and it's certainly not any kind of special accomplishment, so why are you proposing we reward people for it?

My marriage, when I get one, will have absolutely no mention of the G word. God ain't in the contract, marriage is about love.

On the other hand, it's case study time.

My uncle and his wife have gotten divorced twice, and are currently in the process of getting another one. Since they've gotten divorced and married again to each other a number of times already, and aren't looking like giving it up, I believe the courts should say this to them on their current divorce: No.

because marriage is about obligation to God, not about love between two people. if we allow marriage to just be about love, respect, and honor then that will totally rob it of the meaning God intended: for two people to be forced to put up with each other no matter what, until one of them dies or they beat each other up!

:roll:

Nice sarcasm..... :roll:

You're correct marriage isn't just about love it is also about the sacred bond that you made between yourself and God.


your marriage may be, but i don't see why you would want to force that belief on other people.

my parents' marriage has nothing to do with God, and they would be offended if you told them it had, and it's lasted 28 years with no signs of stopping. i agree with them that to allow God into your marriage is an insult to everything your union should stand for, and introduces an unwelcome third party into what should be a bond of honor and respect between you and your partner alone. yet i would never ask for (or want) others to give up their beliefs just so i get my way. i wouldn't want other people to force themselves to marry the way i think is best, because i'm not that disgustingly arrogant.

you've shown yourself to be an intelligent and capable debater, so i am surprised and disappointed to hear the sort of self-righteous and childish position you are taking here. you say that if you had your way nobody would get divorces, and that honestly amazes me...you really are claiming that you know better that anybody else about marriages you have never seen or learned a single thing about. you ignore the historical evidence proving that your system leads to loveless and abusive marriages, increased adultery and violence within couples, and a whole host of other problems. all you seem to care about is that everybody live the way you live. i'm sorry, but that's one position i have no respect for whatsoever.



And, anyway, if we were to grant divorces then remarrying would simply be seen as adulterous.

huh? if we grant divorces then remarrying isn't adultery. it's only in your twisted world that people are only allowed one chance at love; to the sane world, people grow, change, and sometimes move on from their first love. that's not wrong, or dirty, or dishonorable. it's as honest and pure as any first love, and no God that deserves worship would tell you differently. the bond between two people should be about love and respect, and sometimes that love and respect leads you to the unhappy conclusion that you cannot live together without hurting each other. if you truly love your spouse then you recognise such a sad outcome and do the only honorable thing by letting them go their seperate way. you don't force them to stay with you against their wishes, enduring unhappiness simply because you have to get your way, and if you do then you certainly shouldn't try to blame your own selfish cowardice on some supernatural figure just to hide the fact that you are too much of a jerk to do the right thing.

marriage is a scary and intimidating thing, and i honestly think people cling to beliefs like yours because they are afraid their partner will leave them if they are given the chance. it's must safer in some ways to know that the one you love has no choice but to stay with you. but that's not right, it's not fair, it's not just, and it's certainly not love. marriages of that sort can never be free of the taint of obligation and control. if you want to know what real love is then you have to give your trust to your partner, and know that they COULD leave you but they chose not to of their own free will. you have to know that they are with you out of their own desire and love, not simply because they aren't allowed to leave. without that trust you have no true love, and that's your loss.

My uncle and his wife have gotten divorced twice, and are currently in the process of getting another one. Since they've gotten divorced and married again to each other a number of times already, and aren't looking like giving it up, I believe the courts should say this to them on their current divorce: No.

wow, that's just weird. i mean, i know some people who have had multiple divorces, but never multiple divorces to the same person.

i'd say the courts should let them get the divorce, but not another marriage. that way they know that this is the last shot, ever, and there won't be any "on-again" after this "off-again."

And, anyway, if we were to grant divorces then remarrying would simply be seen as adulterous.

So, have you changed from your position of allowing divorces in cases of adultery or spousal abuse?

Another question: if me and my hypothetical spouse weren't allowed to get divorced, and so we decided to split up, live apart and never have anything to do with each other ever again, would this be better or worse than us getting divorced?

your marriage may be, but i don't see why you would want to force that belief on other people.

my parents' marriage has nothing to do with God, and they would be offended if you told them it had, and it's lasted 28 years with no signs of stopping. i agree with them that to allow God into your marriage is an insult to everything your union should stand for, and introduces an unwelcome third party into what should be a bond of honor and respect between you and your partner alone. yet i would never ask for (or want) others to give up their beliefs just so i get my way. i wouldn't want other people to force themselves to marry the way i think is best, because i'm not that disgustingly arrogant.

you've shown yourself to be an intelligent and capable debater, so i am surprised and disappointed to hear the sort of self-righteous and childish position you are taking here. you say that if you had your way nobody would get divorces, and that honestly amazes me...you really are claiming that you know better that anybody else about marriages you have never seen or learned a single thing about. you ignore the historical evidence proving that your system leads to loveless and abusive marriages, increased adultery and violence within couples, and a whole host of other problems. all you seem to care about is that everybody live the way you live. i'm sorry, but that's one position i have no respect for whatsoever.

This thread asked us what we, personally, thought should be done to save marriage. So I said what I personally would do. I have never once claimed that I am correct or that my way of life is the right way of life. All I have stated is what I believe should happen and what I would do to save marriage. It has nothing to do with making sure everybody lives the way I will live (as I'm not married yet) but rather the sacred institution of marriage is kept.

huh? if we grant divorces then remarrying isn't adultery. it's only in your twisted world that people are only allowed one chance at love;

Urm...excuse me. I've never called your ideal world twisted or your opinions twisted. :x

My uncle and his wife have gotten divorced twice, and are currently in the process of getting another one. Since they've gotten divorced and married again to each other a number of times already, and aren't looking like giving it up, I believe the courts should say this to them on their current divorce: No.

wow, that's just weird. i mean, i know some people who have had multiple divorces, but never multiple divorces to the same person.

i'd say the courts should let them get the divorce, but not another marriage. that way they know that this is the last shot, ever, and there won't be any "on-again" after this "off-again."

Here's the thing: They're every bit the life partners that "marriage" entails...they just seem to be addicted to the stress and heartbreak of a divorce.

They have four daughters, who are surprisingly unscrewed up. One of which is a happily married PhD in engineering, the other three all nurses.

The really fun thing about it is; I can remember sitting in the marquee six months ago commenting to granddad "I give it six months."

I'm not getting married. Ever. Farthest I'm going is civil union. It's not just for homosexual couples, you know.
It's just that I can't shake this notion I have of marriage being a state where the man and woman involved stop loving each other and take on an excessively uncomfortable and unstable relationship instead.

See, here's the thing: my parents are now divorced. However, the problem I have isn't that they divorced at all, but that they didn't do it soon enough.

I did not exactly have a happy childhood, largely because my parents stayed together. They don't mix well, those two. It was my dad mostly. He wasn't physically abusive, but he played these unpleasant mind games all the time.. When there wasn't a lot of tension in the home, it was only because my mom decided to give in and do whatever my dad said.

My mom tried to make it work for 20 years, but in the end, there was just no way. Long story short, it wasn't a very happy home.

Point is, forgetting about the man and woman in the marriage for a moment, how is it a better idea to keep raising the kids in that kind of environment? -They- never entered into any kind of agreement to belong to that family. It was pretty much TS for me and my sister because my mom spent so much time trying to "make it work."

I don't know why I even bother to argue it.
Bearing in mind that I only say this out of the frustration of having tried it so many times, there is just no arguing with someone who claims the support of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, real or imaginary.

Pfff. Give me a break. I'm in a bad mood this morning.

Newsflash!

Atheists can't get married!

Well wow.. didn't know that.

Why not setup a soicety like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World with a few modifications? Remember "Sterilization is Civilization"

But of course we couldn't have eternal peace and prosperity becuase you "Christains"* object.


*I would important to remind the readers that the writter is a christian himself.

Atheists can't get married!

Hmmm? That's a new one on me.

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself an atheist. Agnostic would probably be more accurate.

control+s always worked for me when I wanted to save something.

At the rate it's going, marriage licenses are going to be like dog licenses, you get it renewed every five years :cry: .

Makes ya kinda sad. But I do support gay, state recognized marriages. Then churches can decide whether or not God likes em'. Course, I think the big guy already knows.

Hmm... Another way to decrease divorce rates would be to make the details of divorce court proceedings public knowledge. In Australia, this is what kept a lot of families together - fear of the shame they would face if the world found out about their cheating/abusing ways.

if the question is how can the institution of marriage be saved....
it cant be done.
none of the original posters suggestions would have any effect on saving marriage
blood tests, child support, tax incentive, are all useless to keeping a marriage together.

the only way to "save" the institution of marriage is to outlaw divorce.
not that that will change the reality of couples splitting up and making new lives, it will just make us feel better that there is no divorce.

people were not happier in the past, they just settled for less. we are no longer willing to stay in abusive, loveless, sham marriages.

there is no way to know you are making a good choice before you get married. some are more obviously insane than others but people who are very well matched on paper can end up just as miserable as the obvious train wrecks.

i think that personal freedom and happiness is more important than the false image of a happy orderly society. we cant force people to be good spouses, we shouldnt try to force them to stay together in misery

Why not setup a soicety like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World with a few modifications? Remember "Sterilization is Civilization"

But of course we couldn't have eternal peace and prosperity becuase you "Christains"* object.


*I would important to remind the readers that the writter is a christian himself.

A gramme is better than a damn.

(aieeee)

when marriage has to be regulated by legislation, marriage has become very sad. :cry:

Marriage has always been regulated by some form of legislation - usually just to make sure that brothers aren't marrying sisters though. biological reasons make sure brothers aren't marry sisters, actually.

No. The biological consequences of brothers and sisters marrying and having kids together are the reasons for the legislation. There's nothing biological preventing a brother and sister from, uhm, pretending they aren't brother and sister. However the inbreeding will cause some pretty nasty illnesses and deformities down the line.
That's a false statement. The laws were made based on ignorant presumptions that science has now proven to be false.

Take the example of a lesbian couple who use a sperm doner for one of them to have a baby. Now if they split up, only one of them is biologically connected to the child, but both have a strong emotional attachment. The law will tend to favour the woman with the biological connection. Now that may seem reasonable, but imagine that instead of splitting up, the biological parent dies. In this case, absent a joint adoption which isn't always possible under the law, the child's other mother would have less rights than say, the family of the deceased biological parent. The child could then pass into the hands of grandparents on the biological side an leave the surviving part of the couple with almost no rights to her child. Thats one of many possible circumstances where genetics is not sufficiant.

i don't believe i ever claimed that genetics determines who makes a good parent...in fact, much of my point was that it DOESN'T. an unwilling father, biological or not, should never be forced to take part in a child's life, and the same applies for mothers. conversely, if a non-biological parent wants to step in and chose to parent then that's just as good as a biological parent.

the gay rights issue seems irrelevant here, if you don't mind my saying. we are all painfully aware of how unjust current laws are regarding lesbian and gay couples who try to adopt and form families, and i would never argue that the laws are reasonable in that area. however, i have a lesbian godmother who adopted two children with her partner of 10 years, and when they later split they had the same sort of custody arrangements as a divorced couple would because they had set that up when they signed the adoption papers; you can do that if one of you bears the child from a sperm donor, just as a male and female married couple do when they use such a procedure. if people don't bother to use the legal resources that are available i don't have any sympathy for their situation.
having an unwilling father is worse than having no father at all.

my marriage was made in front of a hung-over municipal judge. if its OK with him, can i get a divorce?

I was expressing my own personal opinion on this matter and what I would do, if I could and was in power, to save the institution of marriage. It has nothing to do with current laws or systems but rather our own personal opinions as to what we should think happens.

If I had my way, you wouldn't get a divorce.

So no matter how unhappy the relationship gets..divorce would be out of the question...suppose therapy didn't work...religous counseling didn't work, and the husband is still a domineering jerk or the wife a complaining nag or vice versa..divorce would still be out of the question, they should remain in a marriage where there is no love?

because marriage is about obligation to God, not about love between two people. if we allow marriage to just be about love, respect, and honor then that will totally rob it of the meaning God intended: for two people to be forced to put up with each other no matter what, until one of them dies or they beat each other up!
marriage was never about God. It was about the close friendship and love between two people. Marriage has always been about love.

No. The biological consequences of brothers and sisters marrying and having kids together are the reasons for the legislation. There's nothing biological preventing a brother and sister from, uhm, pretending they aren't brother and sister. However the inbreeding will cause some pretty nasty illnesses and deformities down the line.
That's a false statement. The laws were made based on ignorant presumptions that science has now proven to be false.

Notice the person said "down the line." Sure, if a single brother and sister marry, there is only a small chance that any problem will occur. But European royal families proved what happens with too much inbreeding. Harmful recessive traits that would normally only affect a small percentage of people can affect huge percentages in an inbreeding society. The many diseases associated with certain breeds of dog are another proof that inbreeding is a bad idea. Nothing that I have seen has ever proven the idea that inbreeding is generally a bad thing to be false.

I think they should try to make it easier for families to have a stay at home parent (This could be done through tax breaks and the like). Me and my brother and sister have been lucky enough to have a stay at home mother and I think it's been really beneficial to us.

i had two working parents and i think it's been really beneficial to my brother and i. therefore i think there should be tax breaks and incentives for parents to NOT stay at home.

or hey, how about we not give tax breaks based on how people chose to deal with their own families? if one of your parents chose to stay home that's fine, but that's your family's business. if you can't seem to make ends meet that way then you parents should have made better choices, either by both working or by not having as many children...it's not the government's job to give you money you didn't earn. staying at home with your kids doesn't make you a better parent, and it's certainly not any kind of special accomplishment, so why are you proposing we reward people for it?
It's not the government's money. Its their money. If they want to give less to the govt. I support them on that. This is not about rewarding them, its about not punishing them cause married people with children are being forced to pay twice the tax everyone else is and that is discrimination.

if the question is how can the institution of marriage be saved....
it cant be done.
none of the original posters suggestions would have any effect on saving marriage
blood tests, child support, tax incentive, are all useless to keeping a marriage together.

the only way to "save" the institution of marriage is to outlaw divorce.
not that that will change the reality of couples splitting up and making new lives, it will just make us feel better that there is no divorce.

people were not happier in the past, they just settled for less. we are no longer willing to stay in abusive, loveless, sham marriages.

there is no way to know you are making a good choice before you get married. some are more obviously insane than others but people who are very well matched on paper can end up just as miserable as the obvious train wrecks.

i think that personal freedom and happiness is more important than the false image of a happy orderly society. we cant force people to be good spouses, we shouldnt try to force them to stay together in miseryI would support a ban on divorce but only if the same law said that people had up to 1 and years to have their marriage nullified. Since most (80%) divorces occur with in the first 6-7 months of the marriage in rl.

<!-- Horribly typoed double-post deleted //-->

if the question is how can the institution of marriage be saved....
it cant be done.
none of the original posters suggestions would have any effect on saving marriage
blood tests, child support, tax incentive, are all useless to keeping a marriage together.

the only way to "save" the institution of marriage is to outlaw divorce.
not that that will change the reality of couples splitting up and making new lives, it will just make us feel better that there is no divorce.

people were not happier in the past, they just settled for less. we are no longer willing to stay in abusive, loveless, sham marriages.

there is no way to know you are making a good choice before you get married. some are more obviously insane than others but people who are very well matched on paper can end up just as miserable as the obvious train wrecks.

i think that personal freedom and happiness is more important than the false image of a happy orderly society. we cant force people to be good spouses, we shouldnt try to force them to stay together in miseryI would support a ban on divorce but only if the same law said that people had up to 1 and years to have their marriage nullified. Since most (80%) divorces occur with in the first 6-7 months of the marriage in rl.

...and if in two year's time the couple decide they can't stand each other, the same old problem arises. Divorce isn't a good thing, it never will be. But being forced to stay together I think would be worse.

And as for the person who's aunt and uncle have divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried.. uhm, as messed up as that sounds, why not let them? As long as they're paying for the admin costs, why should anyone else care?

Wanna save marrige?

Make people perfect.

Sorry, but part of being a person means you're gonna screw up. That includes issues on marrige. It would be wonderful if marrige always worked out, but then we could also become a communist nation and never worry about self defense or have any armies. Because there is only way any of that would work; people became perfect. But it isn't going to happen.

And, since marrige can be done in a courtroom, not just a church, I don't see why there needs to be a movement to "protect the sacred union of marrige." Look, it's simple. You protect your own damn sacred unions and get your face out of other people's lives. If a couple rushes into a relationship and get a divorce, it's got nothing to do with you. Now, if it was purely religious, you could get all flustery and angry and give them a stern talking to about hellfire and whatnot.

Well, technically, under rights to free speach and such you can do that now. But in that case you're not so much ranting at their divorce as you're shoving your religion in their face.

As a note, I'm a dead-again christian. Used to be for a long time, then decided to become diest :p