Judge rules that a spouse must consent to sex with spouse...

[Seth]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Whatever. It's not the business of government to compel people who don't want to be married to remain married.

[hadespussercats]

Hey! I'm not Seth!

Dammit! Sorry....my apologies for that...

I suppose I can forgive you... this time...

[hadespussercats]

Which, considering how long she put up with it, might be worth damages.

Depends on her excuse for not noticing for so long. "It's been 20 years since we've had sex - but I'm sure tonight will be different!"

She gave up her sexy years never having sex.

Your lack of age is showing.

She probably noticed-- she might have believed him when he said he was just tired, and kept hanging in there, hoping he'd change.

Thanks for making me feel young, though!

[laklak]

Put on 200 pounds.......so she's probably somewhere in the vicinity of 300 - 350, assuming she wasn't a big'un to start with. Well, nothing wrong with a big woman, they provide warmth in the winter and shade in the summer, and if you're marooned on a desert island you can smoke them down into hams, picnics and ribs. Plus the lard, of course, you need that for decent biscuits.

[Robert_S]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Fatherless because the father being around endangered the benefits the mother and child were getting. That was an incentive for couples to not stick together.

[Seth]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Whatever. It's not the business of government to compel people who don't want to be married to remain married.

Actually, it is. Marriage is a government institution. It's a license issued by government for the purposes of creating an inseparable bond for supporting the family unit and structure because that's what's beneficial to society. Married persons get perks because government wants to encourage people to get married, stay married, and raise children in stable homes, because that gives children the best chance at a good life, and it helps stabilize society as a whole.

So government is perfectly entitled and empowered to set the rules of marriage, which include saying that once you get married, there are only a very few, if any, legitimate reasons for divorce, like physical cruelty or infidelity. Government is not obliged to allow ANYONE to be divorced if it doesn't believe it's in the best interests of society.

And our current culture proves the wisdom of limiting divorce to the most egregious of cruelty and abuse rather than the "no fault" system we have now. The breakdown of morality in our society, and the damage it's doing to our children is enormous, and it's largely the result of children not being raised in stable family environments, which is directly the result of narcissistic, self-indulgent, ignorant and selfish parents who have decided that their personal sense of fulfillment or satisfaction is more important than maintaining a stable home environment for children to grow up in.

Such people do great harm to both their children and to society, and I think they should be criminally sanctioned for violating their marriage oaths and their failure to provide a proper, stable home environment for their children.

If you're not going to stay married at least until your children reach majority, then don't get married in the first place. Narcissistic baby-mammas who deliberately have children as single mothers because they want some self-gratification are the last people on earth qualified to actually raise children.

[Seth]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Fatherless because the father being around endangered the benefits the mother and child were getting. That was an incentive for couples to not stick together.

Precisely correct. And that's the one thing Clinton did that partially redeems the fact that he was a fucking liar, he managed to get the welfare system reformed to put a stop to that sort of generational debilitation and defacto slavery to government dependency.

[Svartalf]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Fatherless because the father being around endangered the benefits the mother and child were getting. That was an incentive for couples to not stick together.

Oh, yeah, I remember a girl I used to call a friend who lived alone and, got pregnant at 16... After her kid was born, she grew paranoid of guys being seen around her home because she was in stark terror her benefits would be cut.
Which didn't prevent her from having her pussy stuffed on a regular basis.

[Schneibster]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Fatherless because the father being around endangered the benefits the mother and child were getting. That was an incentive for couples to not stick together.

Precisely correct. And that's the one thing Clinton did that partially redeems the fact that he was a fucking liar, he managed to get the welfare system reformed to put a stop to that sort of generational debilitation and defacto slavery to government dependency.

You just crowed over "putting a stop to" a man and a woman raising a child in a nuclear family.

A minute ago you were crowing about marriage.

Make up your fucking mind.

[Warren Dew]

Precisely correct. And that's the one thing Clinton did that partially redeems the fact that he was a fucking liar, he managed to get the welfare system reformed to put a stop to that sort of generational debilitation and defacto slavery to government dependency.

Well, one form of welfare was changed to mitigate that effect. There are plenty of other forms of welfare that still work the same way.

[Tyrannical]

I don't feel any which way about why they are getting a divorce. I thought it funny that money damages were awarded for failure to fuck. I would think if the sexes were reversed, and a man was awarded money damages because his wife wouldn't submit to him sexually enough, there might be a different reaction to this. What it says is - you don't have to consent, but if you don't consent, you may have to pay. I find it more curious and funny than anything else.

I'd have to see a picture too. I wonder if, on appeal, the fact that she's (hypothetically) put on 200 pounds since they got married might mitigate the award.

I can certainly agree that failure to engage in conjugal relations ought to be grounds for divorce...on either side...but money damages? That's outrageous.

It's France, they have that covered. The judge would have fined the wife for not keeping herself "up"

[Coito ergo sum]

Which, considering how long she put up with it, might be worth damages.

Depends on her excuse for not noticing for so long. "It's been 20 years since we've had sex - but I'm sure tonight will be different!"

She gave up her sexy years never having sex.

Your lack of age is showing.

She probably noticed-- she might have believed him when he said he was just tired, and kept hanging in there, hoping he'd change.

Thanks for making me feel young, though!

Ahh the pervasive lament....women marry men, hoping that men will change. Men marry women, hoping that women won't. Both are inevitably disappointed...

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't support any requirement for "grounds" for divorce. "I don't like you anymore" ought to be sufficient.

And therein lies the cause of the inevitable slide of stable society into the morass of hedonistic debauchery and chaos. That's precisely what AFDC (welfare) did to blacks in the US prior to 1994, and we have generations of amoral criminal thugs raised in fatherless homes to show for it.

If you're not willing to commit to working through the tough times, don't swear an oath and get married.

Whatever. It's not the business of government to compel people who don't want to be married to remain married.

Actually, it is. Marriage is a government institution. It's a license issued by government for the purposes of creating an inseparable bond for supporting the family unit and structure because that's what's beneficial to society. Married persons get perks because government wants to encourage people to get married, stay married, and raise children in stable homes, because that gives children the best chance at a good life, and it helps stabilize society as a whole.

Calling it a government institution begs the question. Lot's of things are government institutions and yet are not properly the role of government. I'm sure you can name a few.

Society ought to be free to structure itself - like when a woman gets pregnant, it's not up to the government. Or, shouldn't be.

There are plenty of reasons you can outline why the government has marriage laws, but they do not apply to situations where people do not consent to be married. marriage doesn't serve any of the goals you listed when it is compelled.

So government is perfectly entitled and empowered to set the rules of marriage, which include saying that once you get married, there are only a very few, if any, legitimate reasons for divorce, like physical cruelty or infidelity. Government is not obliged to allow ANYONE to be divorced if it doesn't believe it's in the best interests of society.

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty. And, in every jurisdiction in the western world I'm aware of, physical cruelty and infidelity are no longer requirements of divorce. The opinion of one of the spouses that the objects of matrimony have been frustrated are sufficient. And, that's rightly so, because to require a person to live in a marriage in which their spouse is verbally cruel to them is a horrible idea, and not in society's interests.

And our current culture proves the wisdom of limiting divorce to the most egregious of cruelty and abuse rather than the "no fault" system we have now.

I don't see it doing that. It seems no fault divorce works quite well, and it's getting even better as divorce proceedings are slowly devolving into less and less "adversarial" proceedings, which they are.

The breakdown of morality in our society, and the damage it's doing to our children is enormous, and it's largely the result of children not being raised in stable family environments, which is directly the result of narcissistic, self-indulgent, ignorant and selfish parents who have decided that their personal sense of fulfillment or satisfaction is more important than maintaining a stable home environment for children to grow up in.

That's the same lament that every generation has. Morality in the current generation is always supposed to be breaking down, the kids are always disrespectful, and the younger generation is always wild and unstable, selfish, spoiled and weak. At the beginning of world war 2 the lament was the same and there was a big concern whether Americans were too soft and spoiled to be any good at fighting.

The reality is, people aren't much different today than they were 30 years ago, 60 years ago, or 90 years ago.

Such people do great harm to both their children and to society, and I think they should be criminally sanctioned for violating their marriage oaths and their failure to provide a proper, stable home environment for their children.

They should be required to care for their children, yes. Although, I think you were the one arguing that men need not care for their children, if they metaphorically aborted them while in utero.

If you're not going to stay married at least until your children reach majority, then don't get married in the first place.

Then by your logic, they ought to be criminally punished for having children out of wedlock in the first place. That's no different relative to the children as getting divorced when the child is 1 year old.

Or, if there is an out of wedlock pregnancy, then a test needs to be done, the father identified, and the police can be called in to perform the shotgun wedding.

Narcissistic baby-mammas who deliberately have children as single mothers because they want some self-gratification are the last people on earth qualified to actually raise children.

Says you. And, your opinion means fuck-all in regard to someone else having a kid. Many folks may think you are the least qualified to have children, but their opinion doesn't constrain your liberty either.

[Schneibster]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.