• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

abolishing unilateral no-fault divorce by initiative?

Because you haven't made one. Where exactly would you like to go with such information?
The point is that divorce naturally favors women.

I don't think anyone is typically satisfied with a divorce, they tend to be rather emotionally damaging and painful. No amount of law is going to change that.
But, are they satisfied with the materialistic result?

80% of divorce is unilateral, with 1/3 being initiated by a man.
How many of them meet the following three requirements, simultaneously:

Unilateral
No-fault
Initiated by men.


You have are simply making **** up.
Can you at least TRY to write proper sentences?
 
Because marriage is a fundamental right!

You can't do that!

Marriage is a fundamental right.
So is free speech.

You have about as much chance taking away one as you do the other!

I'm not taking away the right for people to get married. I'm taking away the right for governments and institutions to get involved in marriage.
 
I'm not taking away the right for people to get married. I'm taking away the right for governments and institutions to get involved in marriage.

Then, why don't you take away the government's involvement in free speech, right to privacy, and right to peaceful enjoyment of your property (e.g. take away the government's involvement in removing and suing trespassers)?

Government is designed to protect these fundamental rights! A fundamental right is one that the government must not only recognize, but take reasonable measures to protect!

If the government doesn't HAVE to do that stuff, it's not a fundamental right.

And yet, marriage is a fundamental right.

That means that they have to recognize and protect it!

Good god, why do I have to spell it out for you like that?
 
Last edited:
And, to what objective standard would you have the court decide "okay, they can't work it out themselves; it's time for us to step in?"

Speaking from experience, the court will know when they need to step in when either person files a petition for divorce.

Courts will generally rubber stamp whatever a couple wants when they agree.
 
Yes, because 18 is the age of majority. It is at the age of 18 that a person is presumed mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Beyond that, it is discrimination.

If 18 is the age of majority, then why does someone have to be 25 to get elected to the House of Representatives, 30 to get elected to the Senate, and 35 to get elected to the Presidency?

Then, why is one person on the receiving end of an alimony bill, child support bill, and loosing half of his or her stuff.

Alimony is because the receiving partner may not have the skills necessary to support himself or herself since instead of obtaining job skills they spent their time managing the household and raising the kids, which is a full-time job if you want it done right. Child support is so that whoever doesn't have custody can help in the financial well-being of the child. And a person doesn't lose half of his or her stuff - both parties lose half of their stuff and divvy it between them.

You want an example of how someone has been wronged? There's one right there.

No it isn't.

And, how would we do that without short-changing the bank?

That's the bank's problem, not the problem of whoever wants to end the marriage. Just as it's a person's problem if they can't get credit, not the banks problem.

Then, find some for me.

I have more important things to do at the moment. You've got google. It's not that hard to find. Which you can do yourself. If you're not to scared to because doing so would destroy your hypotheses.

That would only make divorce even more volatile than it already is. There are no precedents! There is no way to predict how it's going to go down!

Well, we all live in a world of uncertainty.
 
Then, why don't you take away the government's involvement in free speech, right to privacy, and right to peaceful enjoyment of your property (e.g. take away the government's involvement in removing and suing trespassers)?

Government is designed to protect these fundamental rights! A fundamental right is one that the government must not only recognize, but take reasonable measures to protect!

If the government doesn't HAVE to do that stuff, it's not a fundamental right.

And yet, marriage is a fundamental right.

That means that they have to recognize and protect it!

Good god, why do I have to spell it out for you like that?

Then divorce is just as equal a fundamental right, and the government has no right to force me to remain in one if I choose to end it, no matter the reason why I chose to end it. To do otherwise would be for the government to endorse slave marriage.
 
The point is that divorce naturally favors women.

Divorce is a purely legal concept, so I have trouble seeing as how it "naturally" favors anyone. Women today have a significant edge in custody of children, but that isn't written in stone.

But, are they satisfied with the materialistic result?

Who knows? Every marriage has different financial circumstances.

How many of them meet the following three requirements, simultaneously:

Unilateral
No-fault
Initiated by men.

I am not sure. Marriage statistics are fuzzy to begin with, and its hard to find such specific details.

Can you at least TRY to write proper sentences?

My mistake, let me be more clear. You are completely ignorant about the legal status of a prenuptial agreement, yet you made a completely false statement claiming that they are not legally valid.
 
If 18 is the age of majority, then why does someone have to be 25 to get elected to the House of Representatives, 30 to get elected to the Senate, and 35 to get elected to the Presidency?
Because it's in the constitution.

Age discrimination is merely a statute.

Alimony is because the receiving partner may not have the skills necessary to support himself or herself since instead of obtaining job skills they spent their time managing the household and raising the kids, which is a full-time job if you want it done right.
No, that's child support. If you have no kids, you still get alimony.

Child support is so that whoever doesn't have custody can help in the financial well-being of the child. And a person doesn't lose half of his or her stuff - both parties lose half of their stuff and divvy it between them.
Then, a woman who marries a rich man should not be allowed to go through with her gold-digging plans.

No it isn't.
You don't consider the loss of net worth a compensatory injury?

That's the bank's problem, not the problem of whoever wants to end the marriage. Just as it's a person's problem if they can't get credit, not the banks problem.
This means it will be less likely for banks to give credit to married couples at all. They don't want the headaches.

I have more important things to do at the moment. You've got google. It's not that hard to find. Which you can do yourself. If you're not to scared to because doing so would destroy your hypotheses.
Dude, YOU'RE the one disagreeing with the mainstream belief! YOU'RE the one who holds the burden of proof!

Well, we all live in a world of uncertainty.
But, the least we can do is make it reasonably certain.
 
No, that's child support. If you have no kids, you still get alimony.

Check with your specific state one that. Mine (SD) has no alimony laws. There is no chart to determine mandatory alimony like there is for child-support. If she wants alimony she has to find a way to get me to agree to it. It's not even something she can sue me for.
 
Divorce is a purely legal concept, so I have trouble seeing as how it "naturally" favors anyone. Women today have a significant edge in custody of children, but that isn't written in stone.
But, it IS etched in binding precedent, common law, and case law.

Who knows? Every marriage has different financial circumstances.
Please, give me STATISTICS.

I am not sure. Marriage statistics are fuzzy to begin with, and its hard to find such specific details.
Until then, we will use the mainstream belief.

My mistake, let me be more clear. You are completely ignorant about the legal status of a prenuptial agreement, yet you made a completely false statement claiming that they are not legally valid.
In my state, yeah, they are.
 
Because it's in the constitution.

Age discrimination is merely a statute.

Then why can a 16-year-old drive can get a driver's license but a 13-year-old can't?


No, that's child support. If you have no kids, you still get alimony.

I said run a household. Kids may or may not factor into that. And it may be the case that a woman hasn't developed any job skills because her husband pressured her into being a housewife. If the wife didn't get a job because of pressure from her husband, why should she suffer after the divorce because of it?

Then, a woman who marries a rich man should not be allowed to go through with her gold-digging plans.

Then what do you propose to do about rich men who divorce their wives so they can marry a younger girl for arm-candy?

Besides, when a woman divorces a rich man, they might have married each other when they were both poor, so that hardly qualifies as gold-digging.


You don't consider the loss of net worth a compensatory injury?

Not when it goes to children or loss of net worth on behalf of the wife because the husband insisted she be a housewife instead of a career woman.


This means it will be less likely for banks to give credit to married couples at all. They don't want the headaches.

Then they shouldn't get married.


Dude, YOU'RE the one disagreeing with the mainstream belief! YOU'RE the one who holds the burden of proof!

So you'd rather look at evidence that only supports your initial hypothesis rather than look at any contravening evidence? If that's the case, then you just want to do your initial ideas and don't want to really help anything.

But, the least we can do is make it reasonably certain.

Not at the expense of forcing a person to stay in a marriage they don't want to be in.
 
Check with your specific state one that. Mine (SD) has no alimony laws. There is no chart to determine mandatory alimony like there is for child-support. If she wants alimony she has to find a way to get me to agree to it. It's not even something she can sue me for.

Good for you. However, there is still work that needs to be done if we are to clean up divorce courts.

99% of these problems can be solved in one fell swoop if we pass one of my two proposed amendments.

So, to that end, can you please tell me, specifically, what problems these amendments will actually create, or, specifically, how they will not solve the various problems already in place?
 
99% of these problems can be solved in one fell swoop if we pass one of my two proposed amendments.

Oh yeah. 99% of the problems in divorce courts can be solved if we make it nigh impossible for people to get divorced. Good idea.

Why not just go with my idea and solve 100% of the problems in divorce courts by not letting people get married in the first place?
 
Then why can a 16-year-old drive can get a driver's license but a 13-year-old can't?
Compelling government interest.

What compelling government interest can you show to justify raising the age at which you can get married?

I said run a household. Kids may or may not factor into that. And it may be the case that a woman hasn't developed any job skills because her husband pressured her into being a housewife. If the wife didn't get a job because of pressure from her husband, why should she suffer after the divorce because of it?
So, why does she need alimony to do that?

If she's living by herself, without kids, she can get a f*cking job! Work at McDonalds for all I care; you don't need skills to do that!

Then what do you propose to do about rich men who divorce their wives so they can marry a younger girl for arm-candy?
The one who petitions for the divorce is automatically at fault unless proven otherwise.

There's my answer to that.

Besides, when a woman divorces a rich man, they might have married each other when they were both poor, so that hardly qualifies as gold-digging.
Mrs. Leno married her husband, Jay, under those circumstances.

That doesn't mean that Mrs. Leno cannot think to herself, "hey, if I divorce him now, I'll be rich, with no strings attached!"

Remember, blood may be thicker than water, but money is a whole hell of a lot thicker than blood.

Not when it goes to children or loss of net worth on behalf of the wife because the husband insisted she be a housewife instead of a career woman.
Then, get a job working fast food. You don't need a "career" to do that.

Or, get re-married.

Then they shouldn't get married.
Marriage is a fundamental right!

What is it going to take for that sentence to not go in one ear and out the other?

So you'd rather look at evidence that only supports your initial hypothesis rather than look at any contravening evidence? If that's the case, then you just want to do your initial ideas and don't want to really help anything.
Show me evidence that supports your claim, and I'll look at it.

But, you have to actually SHOW me the evidence!

Not at the expense of forcing a person to stay in a marriage they don't want to be in.
Under my plan, if they file for divorce without proving just cause, they are automatically at fault.

"You want a divorce? Fine, but you're not getting ANY of my stuff, and I'm not paying you a dime in alimony, and I want custody of the kids. If you accept those terms, sure, I'll divorce you, you unfaithful b*tch."
 
Oh yeah. 99% of the problems in divorce courts can be solved if we make it nigh impossible for people to get divorced. Good idea.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

You can still get unilaterally divorced; merely, the unilateral divorcer is presumed at-fault unless he or she can prove otherwise.

Why not just go with my idea and solve 100% of the problems in divorce courts by not letting people get married in the first place?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
 
Stop putting words in my mouth.

You can still get unilaterally divorced; merely, the unilateral divorcer is presumed at-fault unless he or she can prove otherwise.

So a woman who doesn't love her husband anymore should lose her kids and pay alimony just because she doesn't love her husband anymore and divorces from him? That's hardly just.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

And you can't use legislation to rule to force at-fault divorces, or have the courts presume that whoever initiates the divorce is at-fault.
 
So a woman who doesn't love her husband anymore should lose her kids and pay alimony just because she doesn't love her husband anymore and divorces from him? That's hardly just.
Wait until the youngest kid is 18 (you know, "for the sake of the children"). THEN, get divorced.

Once they are divorced, there are no financial complications. Each divorcer supports themselves, either with a new marriage, or getting a job.


And you can't use legislation to rule to force at-fault divorces, or have the courts presume that whoever initiates the divorce is at-fault.
Sure you can.

Let me compare it this way: If an employee quits work, he is presumed to be at-fault for the employment relationship termination until he can prove that he quit due to harassment from his employer.

If an employee is fired, the employer is presumed to have done it for no good reason, and therefore, is presumed to be responsible for unemployment benefits, unless he can prove otherwise.

Let's have that similar "petitioner is at fault until he can prove otherwise" mentality in divorce court.

Besides, you can do what I propose, simply because there is no law against it.

You can't do what you propose because there IS a law against it (that law being, a binding precedent from SCOTUS).
 
Wait until the youngest kid is 18 (you know, "for the sake of the children"). THEN, get divorced.

So it's better to raise a child with two parents hostile to each other than to let them peacefully separate? That's really bad for the mental wellness of the child.

Once they are divorced, there are no financial complications. Each divorcer supports themselves, either with a new marriage, or getting a job.

Even if one party pressures or agrees with the other party not to pursue a career in order to spend more time taking care of their children, so when they divorce they have no job skills to speak of and therefore can't earn a salary at their age to properly support themselves?



Sure you can.

Let me compare it this way: If an employee quits work, he is presumed to be at-fault for the employment relationship termination until he can prove that he quit due to harassment from his employer.

If an employee is fired, the employer is presumed to have done it for no good reason, and therefore, is presumed to be responsible for unemployment benefits, unless he can prove otherwise.

Let's have that similar "petitioner is at fault until he can prove otherwise" mentality in divorce court.

Besides, you can do what I propose, simply because there is no law against it.

You can't do what you propose because there IS a law against it (that law being, a binding precedent from SCOTUS).

Or we can keep no-fault divorces and let lawyers work everything out on a case-by-case basis since those writing laws are too far removed from each individual divorce case to make broad, sweeping legislation like that.
 
So it's better to raise a child with two parents hostile to each other than to let them peacefully separate? That's really bad for the mental wellness of the child.
Then, custody should go to the one who is not at-fault for the divorce.

Even if one party pressures or agrees with the other party not to pursue a career in order to spend more time taking care of their children, so when they divorce they have no job skills to speak of and therefore can't earn a salary at their age to properly support themselves?
You don't need skills to work fast food. Anyone can do that.

Or we can keep no-fault divorces and let lawyers work everything out on a case-by-case basis since those writing laws are too far removed from each individual divorce case to make broad, sweeping legislation like that.
Oh, we can try not doing that.

You seem to think that divorce is fine the way it is. Is that true?

And, how is my proposal "broad and sweeping?" If you can prove that your spouse hit your or cheated on you, you can file the petition for divorce without being at-fault. If you have the evidence, you have nothing to fear.
 
Last edited:
Then, custody should go to the one who is not at-fault for the divorce.

Why? Just because they're not at-fault for the divorce doesn't mean they automatically make a better parent than the other person.


You don't need skills to work fast food. Anyone can do that.

Yes, but the pay of that job is not enough for a person to support themselves or their family on.


Oh, we can try not doing that.

You seem to think that divorce is fine the way it is. Is that true?

No, as I said before, I think divorce should be easier and marriage should be more difficult.
 
Why? Just because they're not at-fault for the divorce doesn't mean they automatically make a better parent than the other person.
If the other parent is too immature to tough it out until the kids are adults, that's a pretty good indicator that they are lousy parents... because they are lousy people.

Yes, but the pay of that job is not enough for a person to support themselves or their family on.
Yes it is.

The poverty level for a single person is $10,830 per year.

FY 2009/2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines - LIHEAP Clearinghouse

Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

Working 36 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, you make $13,050. Take out the 7.65% in FICA and Medicare taxes, and you are left with approximately $12,050. If you have no kids, that's enough to live off of.

No, as I said before, I think divorce should be easier and marriage should be more difficult.
No matter how much support you get for the latter, you can't do that!

But, on the former, is my straw man the fact that you think divorcees should have the right to get divorced quickly and quietly, and only go to divorce court if they can't agree on terms, just like how you go to a civil court if you can't agree on a settlement in a tort case?

Would you like all divorces to, at first, attend a mandatory mediation?

If so, what should we do if the mediation does not bear fruit?
 
Last edited:
If the other parent is too immature to tough it out until the kids are adults, that's a pretty good indicator that they are lousy parents... because they are lousy people.

Why does a person's role as a husband or wife reflect their ability to be a father or a mother? Those roles are mutually exclusive.


Yes it is.

The poverty level for a single person is $10,830 per year.

FY 2009/2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines - LIHEAP Clearinghouse

Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

Working 36 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, you make $13,050. Take out the 7.65% in FICA and Medicare taxes, and you are left with approximately $12,050. If you have no kids, that's enough to live off of.

Bull****. Especially if they have kids.

No matter how much support you get for the latter, you can't do that!

While I may not be able to make marriage more difficult, I can do what I can to make divorce easier.
 
Why does a person's role as a husband or wife reflect their ability to be a father or a mother? Those roles are mutually exclusive.
So, I guess, my criminal record is mutually exclusive with my ability to do a job that I'm applying for.

What gauge would we use to determine a person's worthiness as a parent?

Bull****. Especially if they have kids.
I have proven how a fast food job is sufficient to pay for yourself using math. Now, can YOU prove that my math is wrong?

While I may not be able to make marriage more difficult, I can do what I can to make divorce easier.
And, how do you want to do that?

Don't "change this" and "change that." Completely get rid of divorce as we know it, and tell me what you would replace it with. The current divorce laws are the Articles of Confederation; what is the language of the new Constitution?
 
So, I guess, my criminal record is mutually exclusive with my ability to do a job that I'm applying for.

Yes, actually, I do believe that to be the case.

What gauge would we use to determine a person's worthiness as a parent?

I know what gauge we shouldn't use, and it shouldn't be whether or not someone wants to remain a husband or wife to a particular person.

I have proven how a fast food job is sufficient to pay for yourself using math. Now, can YOU prove that my math is wrong?

While you factor in the pay they receive, you don't factor the cost of living, such as mortgage/rent, car insurance, health insurance, food, utilities, etc. So get back to crunching.

And, how do you want to do that?

Don't "change this" and "change that." Completely get rid of divorce as we know it, and tell me what you would replace it with. The current divorce laws are the Articles of Confederation; what is the language of the new Constitution?

Well, I don't want to get rid of divorce - I want to make it easier. One way I would make pre-nups mandatory before anybody gets married, for one. That would force a couple to insulate themselves in case they do divorce without being hurt because one or the other asked for a pre-nup.
 
Yes, actually, I do believe that to be the case.
Then, you are on an island.

Try lobbying your legislature to pass a law recognizing criminal history as a protected class in employment. You'll get laughed out of the building.

I know what gauge we shouldn't use, and it shouldn't be whether or not someone wants to remain a husband or wife to a particular person.
I asked you what gauge we SHOULD use.

I will when I get the time to crunch the numbers.
Until then, I'm right, and you're wrong.

Well, I don't want to get rid of divorce - I want to make it easier. One way I would make pre-nups mandatory before anybody gets married, for one. That would force a couple to insulate themselves in case they do divorce without being hurt because one or the other asked for a pre-nup.
When it is time for divorce, would you like to have mandatory mediations before going to court?
 
Back
Top Bottom