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.

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.

Society is free to structure itself. It's called "constituting a government." In a governed society however, INDIVIDUALS are not free to structure themselves however they choose, which is why governments exist; to regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of the society.

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.

Yes, actually they do apply. Marriage is a contract that both parties agree to. Like any contract, it can and should be enforced against unilateral violation of the provisions of the contract. Society (through government) has a legitimate authority to enforce such contracts, particularly when breach of the contract damages society, such as when parents divorce and thereby harm children and burden society with their care and upbringing in the stead of the parent who breached the contract.

I have no problem with divorce before children are created, but once children are involved, absent gross physical or mental abuse, which should be criminal and dealt with criminally, divorce should NOT be permitted until all the children have reached legal majority. That is in the best interests of the children, who are interested parties in the marriage contract, and society, which justifiably favors stable homes for child rearing.

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.

So is freedom of disassociation. But not when one has signed a contract that binds one to specific performance as regards association with one's spouse and children. Freedom of association, like almost all rights, can be voluntarily surrendered or infringed upon, and that's exactly what the marriage contract does. It binds two people to one another exclusively.

And, in every jurisdiction in the western world I'm aware of, physical cruelty and infidelity are no longer requirements of divorce.

More's the pity.

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.

Resolving verbal cruelty in a marriage is a civil matter as a breach of contract. If one contracts to "honor" one's spouse, then this creates an enforceable expectation that the courts can and should enforce using fines. Verbally abuse your spouse, pay a fine. That'll fix it.

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.

For whom? For the person who wants a divorce, certainly. But for the other spouse, the children and society? Not nearly so much.

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.

And rightfully so. We'd be far better off as a global society if divorce were illegal.

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.

It's a valid concern. It was then and it still is.

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

Here I disagree. They tend to be far more narcissistic than before, at the very least.

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.

Different argument. We were not discussing (explicitly) men who were married. Marriage creates a legal and enforceable contract on BOTH party's part. Marriage SHOULD utterly preclude a woman from unilaterally aborting a fetus, in a rational legal world not driven by feminist rhetorical claptrap.

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.

No, it would be a civil infraction and the cure would be that you would be married to the father (or mother) involuntarily. The creation of a child should create a presumptive marriage, since that is the best way for society to ensure that the child is properly cared for and raised.

That's no different relative to the children as getting divorced when the child is 1 year old.

I would not allow divorce once children enter the picture until the youngest is 18.

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.

Precisely correct. Better than than foisting the single mother and child off on society as indigents.

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.

Indeed, says I. But the truth remains that narcissistic mothers who want a child as a means of self-gratification or to pander to their own lack of self-worth are the least qualified to actually raise them.

[Seth]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

[Schneibster]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

I won't enter into a marriage contract that signs away that right. I think you'll find a majority of the population agrees with me.

[Seth]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

I won't enter into a marriage contract that signs away that right. I think you'll find a majority of the population agrees with me.

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

That's the thing, you see, it's not just two people entering a marriage contract, it's also a contract with society, and especially with children, if they come along, so you don't necessarily get the choice.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Society is free to structure itself. It's called "constituting a government." In a governed society however, INDIVIDUALS are not free to structure themselves however they choose, which is why governments exist; to regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of the society.

Structuring a society is not the same as "constituting a government." Governments are instituted among people to secure certain rights and liberties, and they derive their just power only from the consent of the governed. None of the purposes of government are to "regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of society," and that power is certainly not delegated to the government in the Constitution.

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.

Yes, actually they do apply. Marriage is a contract that both parties agree to. Like any contract, it can and should be enforced against unilateral violation of the provisions of the contract. Society (through government) has a legitimate authority to enforce such contracts, particularly when breach of the contract damages society, such as when parents divorce and thereby harm children and burden society with their care and upbringing in the stead of the parent who breached the contract.

Marriage is not the same as a commercial contract, which is why marriage has its own statutes and is not governed by general contract law or the Uniform Commercial Code. Divorce is not a violation of the provisions of the contract, well, unless someone agrees to that term, which nobody does. You would be assuming that marriage contracts contain a term that one will not divorce and that by divorcing, it constitutes a breach or default. It doesn't.

In the "any contract" you referred to, the courts do not have the power to enforce the private contract for the benefit of society as a whole. They can't keep a contract in force because it would benefit society. And, in fact, for a contract which requires personal services, the court can't even compel a person to fulfill their services - if the services aren't performed, then the court will award money damages only, and the parties will separate. In the case of divorce, the court follows the statute governing divorce, and does a distribution of marital assets and sets forth custody, support and visitation issues relative to children, and decides issues of alimony.

I have no problem with divorce before children are created, but once children are involved, absent gross physical or mental abuse, which should be criminal and dealt with criminally, divorce should NOT be permitted until all the children have reached legal majority. That is in the best interests of the children, who are interested parties in the marriage contract, and society, which justifiably favors stable homes for child rearing.

It's not necessarily in the best interest of the children for people to stay married.

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.

So is freedom of disassociation. But not when one has signed a contract that binds one to specific performance as regards association with one's spouse and children. Freedom of association, like almost all rights, can be voluntarily surrendered or infringed upon, and that's exactly what the marriage contract does. It binds two people to one another exclusively.[/quote]

Marriage doesn't do that - there is no "specific performance" required, other than to support one's children, which one can do without being married.

And, in every jurisdiction in the western world I'm aware of, physical cruelty and infidelity are no longer requirements of divorce.

More's the pity.

In my view, for the better.

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.

Resolving verbal cruelty in a marriage is a civil matter as a breach of contract. If one contracts to "honor" one's spouse, then this creates an enforceable expectation that the courts can and should enforce using fines. Verbally abuse your spouse, pay a fine. That'll fix it.

The marriage vow, the words exchanged, have little to do with the marriage contract. Marriage is governed by statute.

Courts can't issue "fines" for breaches of contracts. They can award money damages, not fines. Fines are awarded as criminal penalties, and you can bet that one spouse swearing out a criminal complaint and having their spouse arrested for verbal abuse is not going to "fix" anything.

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.

For whom? For the person who wants a divorce, certainly. But for the other spouse, the children and society? Not nearly so much.[/quote]

That depends on the situation. Sometimes, divorces is best for all concerned.

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.

And rightfully so. We'd be far better off as a global society if divorce were illegal.[/quote]

Worse off, I'd say.

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.

It's a valid concern. It was then and it still is.

Not just "then." Always. Even in the Roman Empire and in the middle ages, the current generation is always worse than came before. It's the human impulse to believe in a Golden Age, and the "good old days." Those are myths. Humans are basically the same now as they were in the past, and our kids are not worse than they were 100, 200, or 300 years ago. In the 19th century, arguably, kids were worse - Billy the Kid started off when he was 16, and we had droves of unsupervised kids on their own starting in their early teens. Drugs were legal, including cocaine and heroin, which could be purchased in the Sears Catalog. We got through it alright, and the reality was that kids then were no better or worse than they are today. Society certainly wasn't better because divorces required fault.

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

Here I disagree. They tend to be far more narcissistic than before, at the very least.

That's the crotchety old man talking there. "Kids today...these whipper snappers! Spoiled narcissists, the lot of 'em!" -- Our parents said that about us when we were kids, and their parents said that about them, and so on. Rebel Without A Cause was 60 years ago, and you'd think the kids depicted in that movie were punk kids of today....and you know what? They're about the same. The movie Blackboard Jungle is from the 1950's and purports to lament the state of education at the time, with out of control and unruly punk kids, smoking, doing drugs drinking and getting pregnant.....sound familiar?

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.

Different argument. We were not discussing (explicitly) men who were married. Marriage creates a legal and enforceable contract on BOTH party's part. Marriage SHOULD utterly preclude a woman from unilaterally aborting a fetus, in a rational legal world not driven by feminist rhetorical claptrap.[/quote]

I disagree. A woman can do what she wants with her own body, including the embryo or fetus attached to it. She is not the servant of a man. If men could get pregnant too, I would say the same thing.

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.

No, it would be a civil infraction and the cure would be that you would be married to the father (or mother) involuntarily. The creation of a child should create a presumptive marriage, since that is the best way for society to ensure that the child is properly cared for and raised.[/quote]

Damn, I am glad you're not emperor of the world. The society you describe sounds like a horror show.

I suppose you're in favor of polygamy, then, if a woman gets pregnant by two men, or one man impregnates multiple women.

That's no different relative to the children as getting divorced when the child is 1 year old.

I would not allow divorce once children enter the picture until the youngest is 18.

Good thing what you will and won't allow doesn't mean diddly. I would not allow another person to tell me who I need to be married to.

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.

Precisely correct. Better than than foisting the single mother and child off on society as indigents.

They aren't necessarily indigents.

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.

Indeed, says I. But the truth remains that narcissistic mothers who want a child as a means of self-gratification or to pander to their own lack of self-worth are the least qualified to actually raise them.[/quote]

Says you.

They may well be well-qualified to raise children, because their sincere desire to have children and their devoted love to the children make them wonderfully attentive and caring mothers. We also have no idea - there is no evidence - demonstrating the population of mothers who are narcissistic and who want children as a means of self-gratification to pander to their own lack of self-worth. This appears to be more of a reflection of your negative opinion of women in general, one which I do not share.

[Coito ergo sum]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

Entering a marriage contract does not entail signing away that right. Nothing on the marriage license says that. There is no written contract, absent a prenup.

So, where has anyone "signed away that right?"

[Seth]

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 a 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.[/quote]

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.

Society is free to structure itself. It's called "constituting a government." In a governed society however, INDIVIDUALS are not free to structure themselves however they choose, which is why governments exist; to regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of the society.

Structuring a society is not the same as "constituting a government." Governments are instituted among people to secure certain rights and liberties, and they derive their just power only from the consent of the governed. None of the purposes of government are to "regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of society," and that power is certainly not delegated to the government in the Constitution.

Nonsense. Government is "the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out." In a republican form of government that uses democratic methods, the securing of rights and liberties requires structuring of the exercise of rights and liberties by all. In any governed society the most essential aspect is that the members of the society subject their exercise of rights, to one degree or another, to the interests of society as a whole. That's "structuring a society." And it's most certainly the purpose of government to regulate individual behavior in the interests of fulfilling the structural desires of the society in which he or she lives. It's called "law." Law is the basic structure of any society that is the expression of the interests of the society for peace, order, harmony, liberty and other like attributes of civilization and community.

And the power to make law is explicitly delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, not to mention the Constitutions of the several states.

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.

Yes, actually they do apply. Marriage is a contract that both parties agree to. Like any contract, it can and should be enforced against unilateral violation of the provisions of the contract. Society (through government) has a legitimate authority to enforce such contracts, particularly when breach of the contract damages society, such as when parents divorce and thereby harm children and burden society with their care and upbringing in the stead of the parent who breached the contract.

Marriage is not the same as a commercial contract, which is why marriage has its own statutes and is not governed by general contract law or the Uniform Commercial Code. Divorce is not a violation of the provisions of the contract, well, unless someone agrees to that term, which nobody does. You would be assuming that marriage contracts contain a term that one will not divorce and that by divorcing, it constitutes a breach or default. It doesn't.

It can.

In the "any contract" you referred to, the courts do not have the power to enforce the private contract for the benefit of society as a whole. They can't keep a contract in force because it would benefit society.

They can if society is a party to the contract, and marriage, being a function of the state, necessarily includes the interests of society. That's precisely why anti-miscegnation laws were held to be valid exercises of the government for so long, and why today gay marriage is still unlawful in many states. Government has long regulated the marriage relationship, including dictating who may and may not marry and what the terms and conditions of a marriage are in the civil sphere. That's why there are things like "no-fault divorce" and "alimony."

Government is deeply embedded in the social issues and internal workings of marriage and has been for thousands of years. That's simply a fact of history.

And, in fact, for a contract which requires personal services, the court can't even compel a person to fulfill their services - if the services aren't performed, then the court will award money damages only, and the parties will separate. In the case of divorce, the court follows the statute governing divorce, and does a distribution of marital assets and sets forth custody, support and visitation issues relative to children, and decides issues of alimony.

"The statute governing divorce." Er, that would be government regulating marriage, now wouldn't it? And what I'm saying is that there is nothing in the law that would prevent government from OUTLAWING divorce entirely, or placing pretty much any sort of constraint on getting a divorce that society feels is justified, so long as it doesn't violate a civil right. And I'm suggesting that society may construe the marriage contract as accepting as a condition of being married under the civil law, that one's "freedom of association" may be infringed when it is in the best interests of society that a couple remain together, particularly when it comes to raising children.

I see no impediment in the law or the Constitution that would prevent society from passing such laws. The right of freedom of association does not apply because the marriage contract is entered voluntarily by both parties, who may be bound to the rules of marriage that society sets forth in the law without violating someone's constitutional rights.

I have no problem with divorce before children are created, but once children are involved, absent gross physical or mental abuse, which should be criminal and dealt with criminally, divorce should NOT be permitted until all the children have reached legal majority. That is in the best interests of the children, who are interested parties in the marriage contract, and society, which justifiably favors stable homes for child rearing.

It's not necessarily in the best interest of the children for people to stay married.

That would be a matter for the divorce court to decide, not the affected individuals.

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.

So is freedom of disassociation. But not when one has signed a contract that binds one to specific performance as regards association with one's spouse and children. Freedom of association, like almost all rights, can be voluntarily surrendered or infringed upon, and that's exactly what the marriage contract does. It binds two people to one another exclusively.

Marriage doesn't do that - there is no "specific performance" required, other than to support one's children, which one can do without being married.

Actually, for a long time in history marriage did exactly that. The ease with which one can be divorced these days is of quite recent vintage, and it's a creature of law, just like marriage is. This means that society can re-impose the conditions of marriage that obtained previously if it chooses to do so, which would mean that married persons would be compelled to stay together unless there were adequate LEGAL grounds for government authorizing a divorce.

As a side note, in Colorado and other states, "common law marriage" is easy to perform. You become legally married simply by agreeing to be married and by holding yourselves out as a married couple in public. Something as simple as registering at a no-tell motel as "Mr. and Mrs." can be proof of common law marriage.

However, there is NO SUCH THING as common law divorce in Colorado. If you get common law married, and you want to split up, you have to go through the legal divorce process just like anybody else.

This demonstrates that both marriage and divorce are creatures of the law, and therefore subject to government oversight and regulation according to the will of the People.

And, in every jurisdiction in the western world I'm aware of, physical cruelty and infidelity are no longer requirements of divorce.

More's the pity.

In my view, for the better.

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.

Resolving verbal cruelty in a marriage is a civil matter as a breach of contract. If one contracts to "honor" one's spouse, then this creates an enforceable expectation that the courts can and should enforce using fines. Verbally abuse your spouse, pay a fine. That'll fix it.

The marriage vow, the words exchanged, have little to do with the marriage contract. Marriage is governed by statute.

It's also governed by common law. And in the common law marriage is more than just a convenient way to get laid.

Courts can't issue "fines" for breaches of contracts. They can award money damages, not fines. Fines are awarded as criminal penalties, and you can bet that one spouse swearing out a criminal complaint and having their spouse arrested for verbal abuse is not going to "fix" anything.

Nothing precludes society from providing for civil or criminal penalties for violations of the marriage contract, and arrest and punishment for bad behavior has as its object rehabilitation and behavior modification. There are other penalties than arrest that can be assigned that can effectively modify behavior.

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.

For whom? For the person who wants a divorce, certainly. But for the other spouse, the children and society? Not nearly so much.

That depends on the situation. Sometimes, divorces is best for all concerned.

True enough, but that's a decision that a judge should make, after giving due consideration to how it affects others.

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.

And rightfully so. We'd be far better off as a global society if divorce were illegal.

Worse off, I'd say.

Our society today is less stable and children are in more peril with freely-available divorce than they were in times past, when families had to make an effort to stay together and partners were not simply allowed to walk away from their obligations at their whim and caprice.

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.

It's a valid concern. It was then and it still is.

Not just "then." Always. Even in the Roman Empire and in the middle ages, the current generation is always worse than came before. It's the human impulse to believe in a Golden Age, and the "good old days." Those are myths. Humans are basically the same now as they were in the past, and our kids are not worse than they were 100, 200, or 300 years ago. In the 19th century, arguably, kids were worse - Billy the Kid started off when he was 16, and we had droves of unsupervised kids on their own starting in their early teens. Drugs were legal, including cocaine and heroin, which could be purchased in the Sears Catalog. We got through it alright, and the reality was that kids then were no better or worse than they are today. Society certainly wasn't better because divorces required fault.

I disagree. I see a crumbling of society on a widespread scale, particularly in the United States, where moral boundaries that keep society working smoothly are badly broken and we have many more children who are being raised improperly and who are imperiled by the lack of parenting and guidance that a strong family structure provides. This results in a larger dependent class as the kids grow up to be incompetent adults incapable of supporting themselves and therefore more dependent on government for support.

The reason for this in part is the breakdown of the family structure that has been deliberately attacked by the Fabian Socialists and Marxists, who believe (rightfully) that by breaking down the family structure and marginalizing the authority of the parents, dependence upon, and therefore obedience to the central socialist government will be enhanced. In Cambodia, during the terror reign of the Khymer Rouge, (and ongoing today in Red China) one of the primary methods of indoctrinating and propagandizing children is to alienate them from their parents by physically taking them from their parents and putting them in communist creches and schools where they were taught to inform on and denounce their parents.

The breakdown of families, and the ease of divorce is far from accidental. It's quite deliberate and it's part of the Marxist plan for communist domination of the planet. I would see that trend reversed.

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

Here I disagree. They tend to be far more narcissistic than before, at the very least.

That's the crotchety old man talking there. "Kids today...these whipper snappers! Spoiled narcissists, the lot of 'em!" -- Our parents said that about us when we were kids, and their parents said that about them, and so on. Rebel Without A Cause was 60 years ago, and you'd think the kids depicted in that movie were punk kids of today....and you know what? They're about the same. The movie Blackboard Jungle is from the 1950's and purports to lament the state of education at the time, with out of control and unruly punk kids, smoking, doing drugs drinking and getting pregnant.....sound familiar?

Back then the "rebel without a cause" was the exception. Now he's the rule.

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.

Different argument. We were not discussing (explicitly) men who were married. Marriage creates a legal and enforceable contract on BOTH party's part. Marriage SHOULD utterly preclude a woman from unilaterally aborting a fetus, in a rational legal world not driven by feminist rhetorical claptrap.[/quote]

I disagree. A woman can do what she wants with her own body, including the embryo or fetus attached to it. She is not the servant of a man. If men could get pregnant too, I would say the same thing.

She's the partner of the man in creating a child. Half the genetic material belongs to him, and if she voluntarily accepts that DNA and a child is created, she has formed a contract in my estimation, and should be held to it. Don't want to be party to the contract? Don't get pregnant.

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.

No, it would be a civil infraction and the cure would be that you would be married to the father (or mother) involuntarily. The creation of a child should create a presumptive marriage, since that is the best way for society to ensure that the child is properly cared for and raised.[/quote]

Damn, I am glad you're not emperor of the world. The society you describe sounds like a horror show.

Why? You have a problem with people being required to step up and acknowledge their responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions?

I suppose you're in favor of polygamy, then, if a woman gets pregnant by two men, or one man impregnates multiple women.

I have no problem with polygamy at all. Indeed, polygamy may be a more stable family structure than one man/one woman. Of course it's physically impossible for a woman to get pregnant by two men because only one sperm can fertilize an egg. If two get in, the whole assembly dies.

That's no different relative to the children as getting divorced when the child is 1 year old.

I would not allow divorce once children enter the picture until the youngest is 18.

Good thing what you will and won't allow doesn't mean diddly. I would not allow another person to tell me who I need to be married to.

Good thing you don't get to make the rules, society does. And because it does, it can make that rule if it choose to do so, and it can enforce it whether you like it or not.

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.

Precisely correct. Better than than foisting the single mother and child off on society as indigents.

They aren't necessarily indigents.

And so long as they aren't a burden on the public, I have less of a problem, although children do grow up better off if they have two parents in the home.

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.

Indeed, says I. But the truth remains that narcissistic mothers who want a child as a means of self-gratification or to pander to their own lack of self-worth are the least qualified to actually raise them.[/quote]

Says you.

Indeed.

They may well be well-qualified to raise children, because their sincere desire to have children and their devoted love to the children make them wonderfully attentive and caring mothers.

Do go look up the definition of "narcissism" sometime. Narcissists do NOT make good parents. Their desire to have a child is not about the child, it's about THEM and their image. Typically narcissistic mothers who are wealthy are the ones who have a baby and then the baby is raised by a nanny because the narcissist mother is off partying or buying clothes and jewelry.

We also have no idea - there is no evidence - demonstrating the population of mothers who are narcissistic and who want children as a means of self-gratification to pander to their own lack of self-worth. This appears to be more of a reflection of your negative opinion of women in general, one which I do not share.

I think perhaps a psychiatrist might disagree with you. And I don't have a negative opinion of women in general, I have a negative opinion of SPECIFIC types of women, and for very good reasons.

[Coito ergo sum]

The quoting of your last post is all over the place and is repeating things. So, I've about said most everything.

1. We do not have any idea of what the population of mothers is that are narcissistic and who want children as a means of self-gratification. There really isn't any data on that. My assumption is that the population of such persons is relatively low.

2. Lots of people, not just narcissistic women, may make bad parents. Workaholic dads. Alcoholics. Selfish, unemotional folks. Violent folks. Sociopaths. Etc. There never has been a test or a required psych evaluation required before insemination is permitted. So, with all due respect for your opinion of certain kinds of women, it really doesn't matter.

3. Whether you or anyone else thinks that children grow up better when there are two parents in the home means fuck all. Others disagree. In a free society, we ought to let people do as they please in that regard, and the government ought to confine itself to securing the liberties and freedoms that it was constituted to secure. We don't need bureaucrats sticking their noses into bedrooms and into childrearing. They are incompetent to do that, as they are incompetent in most things. They should stick with regulating markets, enforcing the criminal laws, and doing other things that governments do.

4. As to what the government can and can't enforce, I would challenge the constitutionality under First Amendment and 14th Amendment (if it's a state) of compelled marriage. I assure you, I'd have a good case.


5. I have no problem with people being required to step up and take responsibility. Marriage is not taking responsibility. Taking care of one's children is taking responsibility, and formal marriage is not required for that.

[Seth]

The quoting of your last post is all over the place and is repeating things. So, I've about said most everything.

Thanks for the consolidation.

1. We do not have any idea of what the population of mothers is that are narcissistic and who want children as a means of self-gratification. There really isn't any data on that. My assumption is that the population of such persons is relatively low.

That may be true, but that's who I was referring to.

2. Lots of people, not just narcissistic women, may make bad parents. Workaholic dads. Alcoholics. Selfish, unemotional folks. Violent folks. Sociopaths. Etc. There never has been a test or a required psych evaluation required before insemination is permitted.

That's true, but they are not who I was referring to.

So, with all due respect for your opinion of certain kinds of women, it really doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. This does not mean however that other poor parents are to be ignored but they are not who I was referring to.

3. Whether you or anyone else thinks that children grow up better when there are two parents in the home means fuck all. Others disagree.

It means exactly as much as your claims mean, so, sauce, goose, gander.

In a free society, we ought to let people do as they please in that regard,

Protection of children against the incompetence or malice of their parents is one of the things that government does, and justifiably so.

and the government ought to confine itself to securing the liberties and freedoms that it was constituted to secure.

You mean like securing the liberties and freedoms, and fundamental rights of minor children who cannot protect their own rights?

We don't need bureaucrats sticking their noses into bedrooms and into childrearing.

Ah, so you approve of incest with one's minor children? I see.

They are incompetent to do that, as they are incompetent in most things.

Well, it's true that government is marginally competent in most things, but it's still a necessary evil, and the protection of children against malice or incompetence of their parents is one of those areas in which government has proper authority to regulate parental behavior.

They should stick with regulating markets, enforcing the criminal laws, and doing other things that governments do.

You mean like enforcing the criminal laws against abandoning and refusing to support one's children?

4. As to what the government can and can't enforce, I would challenge the constitutionality under First Amendment and 14th Amendment (if it's a state) of compelled marriage. I assure you, I'd have a good case.

Under today's laws, certainly. Under a new statute, perhaps not.

5. I have no problem with people being required to step up and take responsibility. Marriage is not taking responsibility. Taking care of one's children is taking responsibility, and formal marriage is not required for that.

But it's efficient for that, and government, being the authority regarding marriage, can certainly decline to dissolve a contract once entered into under government sanction.

[Schneibster]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

I won't enter into a marriage contract that signs away that right. I think you'll find a majority of the population agrees with me.

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

That's not an imposition on free association. It's paying for the situation you helped create. Libertardians are a bit hazy on the whole social responsibility thing.

That's the thing, you see, it's not just two people entering a marriage contract, it's also a contract with society, and especially with children, if they come along, so you don't necessarily get the choice.

Sure I do. I can get a divorce. Duh.

Why do you want to "fix" that?

Just askin'.

[Seth]

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

That's not an imposition on free association. It's paying for the situation you helped create. Libertardians are a bit hazy on the whole social responsibility thing.

Er, that's exactly what I just said. You're a bit hazy on understanding simple sentences, evidently.

That's the thing, you see, it's not just two people entering a marriage contract, it's also a contract with society, and especially with children, if they come along, so you don't necessarily get the choice.

Sure I do. I can get a divorce. Duh.

Why do you want to "fix" that?

Just askin'.

For now. And because easy divorce is bad public policy.

[Coito ergo sum]

The quoting of your last post is all over the place and is repeating things. So, I've about said most everything.

Thanks for the consolidation.

1. We do not have any idea of what the population of mothers is that are narcissistic and who want children as a means of self-gratification. There really isn't any data on that. My assumption is that the population of such persons is relatively low.

That may be true, but that's who I was referring to.

Sure, but it's importance is dependent on how prevalent this narcissistic woman is that only has babies to server her selfish conceits... I have a feeling they are not particularly common. Moreover, if we're talking about who should be trusted raising children, I could probably make an argument that most of the population, men and women alike, have characteristics which call their parenting into question, in my opinion.

2. Lots of people, not just narcissistic women, may make bad parents. Workaholic dads. Alcoholics. Selfish, unemotional folks. Violent folks. Sociopaths. Etc. There never has been a test or a required psych evaluation required before insemination is permitted.

That's true, but they are not who I was referring to.

I know, but referring to one group of incompetent parents specifically, while ignoring the great masses of other categories of incompetent parents, doesn't make much rational sense.

So, with all due respect for your opinion of certain kinds of women, it really doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. This does not mean however that other poor parents are to be ignored but they are not who I was referring to.

It really doesn't matter. It's just not the business of third parties to invade parental rights like you're suggesting.

3. Whether you or anyone else thinks that children grow up better when there are two parents in the home means fuck all. Others disagree.

It means exactly as much as your claims mean, so, sauce, goose, gander.

Exactly. My point, exactly. Which is why the government ought to be out of this. The government is even less able to make a reasonable decision on these matters.

In a free society, we ought to let people do as they please in that regard,

Protection of children against the incompetence or malice of their parents is one of the things that government does, and justifiably so.

Only to the extent of the criminal law, punishment of crimes. What you're talking about is forcing people to get and stay married. Those are radically different things.

and the government ought to confine itself to securing the liberties and freedoms that it was constituted to secure.

You mean like securing the liberties and freedoms, and fundamental rights of minor children who cannot protect their own rights?

Yes. Forcing people to get married and stay married does nothing to support the right of minor children who cannot protect their own rights.

We don't need bureaucrats sticking their noses into bedrooms and into childrearing.

Ah, so you approve of incest with one's minor children? I see.

No. But, that's a crime. There is a difference between forcing people to get married because you think that having two married parents is best for children, across the board, and punishing someone for murder, rape, incest, mayhem, or theft.

They are incompetent to do that, as they are incompetent in most things.

Well, it's true that government is marginally competent in most things, but it's still a necessary evil, and the protection of children against malice or incompetence of their parents is one of those areas in which government has proper authority to regulate parental behavior.

Yes, but forcing people to get married, or forcing them to stay married does not protect children against malice or incompetence. Taking action when there is evidence that a crime has been committed is a completely different animal.

They should stick with regulating markets, enforcing the criminal laws, and doing other things that governments do.

You mean like enforcing the criminal laws against abandoning and refusing to support one's children?

Yes. One does not need to be married in order to not abandon and to support one's children. Time sharing and child support can work just fine in that regard. Forcing people to maintain a piece of paper saying they are married doesn't do anything. Married people can sleep in separate bedrooms, and even separate houses. They can agree to allow each other fuck other people. They can act for all intents and purposes as unmarried people. And, unmarried people can behave as married people and raise a child in a perfectly healthy manner - I know people whose parents were never married, but lived together. I know people who grew up in divorced homes with a parent paying child support who are perfectly fine.

Forced marriage doesn't do any of the things you're citing.

4. As to what the government can and can't enforce, I would challenge the constitutionality under First Amendment and 14th Amendment (if it's a state) of compelled marriage. I assure you, I'd have a good case.

Under today's laws, certainly. Under a new statute, perhaps not.

If the statute does what you're suggesting it should do, it would almost certainly be held unconstitutional.

5. I have no problem with people being required to step up and take responsibility. Marriage is not taking responsibility. Taking care of one's children is taking responsibility, and formal marriage is not required for that.

But it's efficient for that, and government, being the authority regarding marriage, can certainly decline to dissolve a contract once entered into under government sanction.

It isn't even efficient for that. It doesn't do anything. People taking care of their responsibilities does that.

There is no reason for the government to decline to dissolve a marriage contract where one of the parties does not wish to remain married.

[Schneibster]

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

That's not an imposition on free association. It's paying for the situation you helped create. Libertardians are a bit hazy on the whole social responsibility thing.

Er, that's exactly what I just said.

First lie. You're against divorce.

[Coito ergo sum]

Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty.

^This.

Not if you sign away that right by entering a marriage contract it isn't.

I won't enter into a marriage contract that signs away that right. I think you'll find a majority of the population agrees with me.

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

Society has fuck-all authority over me. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada.

Government has some authority.

Government can declare any contract unconscionable if the legislature writes a law that is within its power under its constitution and which so declares.

Courts can declare a contract unconscionable under specific equitable principles.

Society can declare whatever it wants, but it doesn't mean diddly.

We have deadbeat parent laws because a legislature passed them and enacted them into law.

That's the thing, you see, it's not just two people entering a marriage contract, it's also a contract with society, and especially with children, if they come along, so you don't necessarily get the choice.

It is not a contract with society. Society can't enter into contracts.

Having children obligates a person to care for children, not to sign a marriage contract. And, nothing in the marriage contract requires one to stay married forever or until kids grow up. That may be what you would want, but it has never been the case.

[Coito ergo sum]

Society has authority to declare such a contract as "unconscionable" if it poses an undue hazard to society or is deemed unfair to the innocent parties, like the children, and it can impose and enforce it's own social contract without your permission. That's why we have "deadbeat parent" laws.

That's not an imposition on free association. It's paying for the situation you helped create. Libertardians are a bit hazy on the whole social responsibility thing.

Er, that's exactly what I just said.

First lie. You're against divorce.

You know what -- fucking stop it already with this nonsense. I know you're responding to Seth and not me, but for fucks sake. Grow the fuck up. Your puerile, insipid, nonsense is sickening. This "first lie" stupidity. Christ on a bicycle. He didn't lie. I don't agree with Seth on much, but your idiotic casting about of the word "lie" is beyond tiresome. Seth always argues civilly, even when we are in strong disagreement - but you? No, of course not. You have to resort to the ad hominem attack every chance you get.

The blurb you commented on by Seth wasn't a lie. It's his position on the topic. If you need clarification, ask him. But, FFS, STOP MAKING SHIT UP!

I'm out. If you continue with this bullshit, I'll just put you on ignore and you can scamper about posting "First lie First lie First lie First lie" to your little hearts content. Enjoy.