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

[Schneibster]

Having children obligates a person to care for children, not to sign a marriage contract.

[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.

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.

Sorry you're having trouble with reality. Good luck with 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.

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.

I would not disagree in any particular. The main problem in empowering government to regulate child-rearing is the classic problem of government, which is concisely stated as "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." But that doesn't mean that government is not necessary, merely that it has to be very, very carefully controlled and kept on a short leash, lest it slip the leash and turn on its masters.

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.

I was merely expressing my ire at one particularly notorious category of bad parents. This should not be read as an exclusive condemnation.

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.

Why not? Children have rights, and government is the appropriate monitor and defender of those rights when the parents are the ones who are violating them. Who else do you propose is available to protect the rights of minor children than the state?

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.

Less able than whom? You appear to be implying that parents should be the ultimate and sole determiners of what is best for their children. You are aware that there are some really bad parents out there who think that what is best for their children is to be incest sex-slaves, right? Who do you see as protecting the children against the malefactions of their parents? Santa Claus?

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.

Not really, given the societal cost, not to mention the cost to the rights of a child of being raised by incompetent or malicious parents, or not being raised by one parent to the child's detriment and society's. It's far worse than harboring a vicious animal and government has every authority to regulate that.

When you create a child, you give up your personal autonomy and freedom to a great degree, and society has every right to force you to stand up and accept your responsibilities, which include being in the home to parent the child properly. If you can be forced to pay child support, then you can be forced to participate in the child's upbringing, and if you can be forced to participate in the child's upbringing, even if you don't want to (and you can) then the government has authority to dictate the specific circumstances of that participation, and there's no reason to conclude it's beyond government authority to require you to live in the family home so that your participation can be full and complete.

Whether that is a good idea in a particular situation is a matter for a judge to decide, but I see no inherent obstruction to such orders in the Constitution.

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.

Sure it does. It provides a more appropriate, useful and stable home in which the child is raised. It provides object lessons in acceptance of consequences and assumption of societal duties even when it's unpleasant or undesirable. And just to pre-rebut the inevitable "it's not good for the kid if the parents fight all the time" canard, orders of this sort can also specify the behavior of the individual parents in the family home and prohibit actions harmful to the child or the stability of the home, on pain of criminal prosecution. Just as street thugs can be required to behave in a socially-appropriate manner, parents can be forced to do the same thing when in the presence of the children.

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.

So? All that is required is to make abandonment of parental responsibility or conduct detrimental to the interests of a minor child a crime. That's a matter of legislative prerogative, there's no constitutional impediment to such a law.

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.

Not really. The theory is the same. Rape, incest, mayhem and theft are all crimes against public order and the individual, and so is abandonment of parental responsibility or conduct detrimental to the best interests of a child. It only requires legislative action to make the latter a crime.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. But it does promote proper child-rearing and protect them against the evils and harm caused by parental abandonment and abdication of parental responsibility.

Taking action when there is evidence that a crime has been committed is a completely different animal.

Not really. It's no different than a prospective law like "you have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk." It's a requirement of society that you refrain from or take some specific action to avoid harming someone. The law is filled with such prospective laws regulating individual behavior, particularly when it comes to interactions with children.

Child abuse is one of those crimes that can be committed by omission, and it can be committed by ANY PERSON, not just the parents or guardians of the child. If you are driving along the street and see a two-year-old toddler wandering in traffic, YOU are legally required to stop and take the child to safety, and you can be prosecuted for child abuse and neglect if you fail to act. The same principle of law applies to a legal requirement that parents participate properly in the raising of their children, even if they don't want to do so.

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.

Sure it does. It says to those who are contemplating marriage and making babies that they cannot do so lightly or frivolously, and that society will hold them to account, and force them to own up to their responsibilities if they have sex and a child results.

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.

We disagree. Let's enact one and let it play out.

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.

As I said, it's a statement of public policy intended not just to support children but to dissuade hedonistic sexual incontinence.

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.

Sure there is: The best interests of the children, and the social policy stating that oaths and promises are to be kept on pain of punishment and being forced to abide by them.

[Schneibster]

It's probably pointless, but I have to point out at this juncture that it's my opinion Seth is lying, specifically by gaming the system, by limiting his discussion to the quoted material and ignoring its surroundings. The surroundings are that he is opposed to divorce, so his statement is at minimum a deliberate attempt to mislead and change the subject, and at worst a lie. I chose to assume the worst because Seth is constantly using such arguments as do you, Coitus.

It's lying. Why are you so afraid of my opinion that you have to run away, or try to game the system to shut me up?

Just askin'.

[Seth]

It's probably pointless, but I have to point out at this juncture that it's my opinion Seth is lying, specifically by gaming the system, by limiting his discussion to the quoted material and ignoring its surroundings. The surroundings are that he is opposed to divorce, so his statement is at minimum a deliberate attempt to mislead and change the subject, and at worst a lie. I chose to assume the worst because Seth is constantly using such arguments as do you, Coitus.

It's lying. Why are you so afraid of my opinion that you have to run away, or try to game the system to shut me up?

Just askin'.

[Schneibster]

By the way, CES, here's video of your hero, shouting "you lie" at the President of the US in a joint session of Congress:

[Seth]

By the way, CES, here's video of your hero, shouting "you lie" at the President of the US in a joint session of Congress:

Hero indeed, given the fact that Obama was lying through his teeth to the American public without any shame whatsoever.

I'm just disappointed that the entire Republican gallery didn't join in heaping opprobrium and derision on Obama for standing there and bald-facedly lying to them.

[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.

I would not disagree in any particular. The main problem in empowering government to regulate child-rearing is the classic problem of government, which is concisely stated as "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." But that doesn't mean that government is not necessary, merely that it has to be very, very carefully controlled and kept on a short leash, lest it slip the leash and turn on its masters.

Sure, and one of the areas where government is least needed is in enforcing interpersonal relationships, such as marriage. By your logic, the State should be making laws requiring good cause to end friendships, and if you don't show good cause (betrayal, abuse, etc.), then you ought to be required to maintain the original friendship. Why not?

I was merely expressing my ire at one particularly notorious category of bad parents. This should not be read as an exclusive condemnation.

I would disagree with the ideas of narcissistic women being "particularly notorious." I hadn't heard much of such a category of women prior to your writings here.

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.

Why not? Children have rights, and government is the appropriate monitor and defender of those rights when the parents are the ones who are violating them. Who else do you propose is available to protect the rights of minor children than the state?[/quote]

You're not talking about the rights of the children. Parents remaining legally married is not a right of the children. The children have the right to support and care; marriage is not necessary for that, nor is it even demonstrable that unmarried parents make worse parents than married parents.

I don't mind the State protecting the right of the child not to be beaten or mistreated and the right of the child to be fed, cared for and supported. I don't support the power of the State compelling people to remain married when they don't want to. The latter is not the former.

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.

Less able than whom? You appear to be implying that parents should be the ultimate and sole determiners of what is best for their children. You are aware that there are some really bad parents out there who think that what is best for their children is to be incest sex-slaves, right? Who do you see as protecting the children against the malefactions of their parents? Santa Claus?

Parents should be the primary determiners of what is best for their children, within the criminal law - parents don't have the authority to say, neglect or abuse their child. But, you keep steering this to a discussion of what is best for the children. Being legally married has nothing at all to do with that.

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.

Not really, given the societal cost, not to mention the cost to the rights of a child of being raised by incompetent or malicious parents, or not being raised by one parent to the child's detriment and society's. It's far worse than harboring a vicious animal and government has every authority to regulate that.

Point of Fact: being unmarried does not mean - at all - that a child is going to be raised by only one parent.

When you create a child, you give up your personal autonomy and freedom to a great degree, and society has every right to force you to stand up and accept your responsibilities,

Being legally married is not one of them. Caring for your child is.

which include being in the home to parent the child properly.

Being married does not compel people to be in the home. If a court denies a divorce, people can just move into separate houses.

If you can be forced to pay child support, then you can be forced to participate in the child's upbringing,

The latter is far more difficult than the former, from an enforcement perspective. Plenty of fathers and mothers are nonparticipatory. They can ignore their children while being in the same home. Forcing people to stay "married" does not "force them to participate in the child's upbringing." You can do the latter without the former.

and if you can be forced to participate in the child's upbringing, even if you don't want to (and you can) then the government has authority to dictate the specific circumstances of that participation, and there's no reason to conclude it's beyond government authority to require you to live in the family home so that your participation can be full and complete.

There is a fundamental right of freedom of movement, and it would be beyond the power of government to force you to "live in the family home" because there isn't even a requirement that people live in "homes." You can live in teepees or you can have separate houses. Take the example of a Hollywood actor married to Broadway actor. They have two places to live, one in LA and the other in NYC. They have a child. The child lives in NYC, while the Hollywood actor lives in LA. They remain married, but see each other periodically. You think if a Court decided to try to force that Hollywood actor to "live in the family home" that there wouldn't be a constitutional defense? I submit to you that no order compelling a person to live in a particular house would ever be upheld.

And, if you couldn't do it in the case of a wealthy person with two houses, you couldn't do it to John and Jane Q Public who don't want to live together anymore and he moves to an apartment.

Whether that is a good idea in a particular situation is a matter for a judge to decide, but I see no inherent obstruction to such orders in the Constitution.

Freedom of movement. A right thought so fundamental as to not require enumeration - Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823).
Freedom of association - NAACP v. Alabama

People can't be forced to associate with each other, and are permit to move about the country as they see fit. To require a person to live in a particular house with a particular person violates both of those fundamental rights.

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.

Sure it does. It provides a more appropriate, useful and stable home in which the child is raised. [/quote]

No, it doesn't. Forcing people to get married provides a marriage license. It does not compel people to live together, to love each other, to like each other, or to be good parents, or to be stable, or to have an appropriate home.

It provides object lessons in acceptance of consequences and assumption of societal duties even when it's unpleasant or undesirable. And just to pre-rebut the inevitable "it's not good for the kid if the parents fight all the time" canard,

That's not a canard. It may be raised often by some, but it's not a canard.

But, that wouldn't have been my rebuttal anyway.

orders of this sort can also specify the behavior of the individual parents in the family home and prohibit actions harmful to the child or the stability of the home, on pain of criminal prosecution. Just as street thugs can be required to behave in a socially-appropriate manner, parents can be forced to do the same thing when in the presence of the children.

A court order may technically say whatever anyone can write, that is true.

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.

So? All that is required is to make abandonment of parental responsibility or conduct detrimental to the interests of a minor child a crime. That's a matter of legislative prerogative, there's no constitutional impediment to such a law.

[/quote]

Those are already crimes. You are conflating, "forcing people to get or stay married" with "parental responsibility and conduct in the interests of the minor child." Those aren't the same things.

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.

Not really. The theory is the same. Rape, incest, mayhem and theft are all crimes against public order and the individual, and so is abandonment of parental responsibility or conduct detrimental to the best interests of a child. It only requires legislative action to make the latter a crime.

Being married is not a parental responsibility, and being unmarried is not conduct detrimental to the child.

[

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.

Maybe, maybe not. But it does promote proper child-rearing and protect them against the evils and harm caused by parental abandonment and abdication of parental responsibility.

It does not promote proper child rearing. It seems to me that most people don't raise their children properly, even when they are married. And, again, being unmarried is not abandonment or abdication.

Taking action when there is evidence that a crime has been committed is a completely different animal.

Not really. It's no different than a prospective law like "you have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk." It's a requirement of society that you refrain from or take some specific action to avoid harming someone.

You keep mixing apples and oranges. Being unmarried doesn't harm anyone.

The law is filled with such prospective laws regulating individual behavior, particularly when it comes to interactions with children.

Conduct, sure. But, not compelled marriage.

Child abuse is one of those crimes that can be committed by omission, and it can be committed by ANY PERSON, not just the parents or guardians of the child. If you are driving along the street and see a two-year-old toddler wandering in traffic, YOU are legally required to stop and take the child to safety, and you can be prosecuted for child abuse and neglect if you fail to act. The same principle of law applies to a legal requirement that parents participate properly in the raising of their children, even if they don't want to do so.

Child abuse is not the same thing as being unmarried. And, not wanting to be married is not the same things as not participating properly in the raising of one's children.

Moreover, you aren't legally required to save a toddler wandering in traffic. No person is required to put themselves in danger to save another. Where did you get that?

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? [/quote]

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.

Sure it does. It says to those who are contemplating marriage and making babies that they cannot do so lightly or frivolously, and that society will hold them to account, and force them to own up to their responsibilities if they have sex and a child results.

Being married does not compel anyone to own up to their responsibilities, unless mere "being married" is a responsibility. Being married, however, doesn't mean one is gong to care for 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.

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

We disagree. Let's enact one and let it play out.

[/quote]

I don't support the enactment of unconstitutional laws, particularly ones that are draconian and stupid.

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.

As I said, it's a statement of public policy intended not just to support children but to dissuade hedonistic sexual incontinence.[/quote]

Ah, so your problem is with people having sex too frivolously...

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.

Sure there is: The best interests of the children, and the social policy stating that oaths and promises are to be kept on pain of punishment and being forced to abide by them.[/quote][/quote]

It's not in the best interest of the children for people who don't want to be married to be forced to remain married.

Then why would you allow people to break oaths based on verbal abuse? If they made an oath to stay together, and didn't say "except if she verbally abuses me..." then he should be forced to abide by his oath, right? They should have known to put their causes for divorce in their oath....

[Pappa]

Schneibster, several of your recent posts directed at Coito amount to harassment (as per our "Play Nice" rule). This is a warning that further posts of this nature will result in a short suspension of your account.

[Pappa]

[Tyrannical]

Maybe the government should get out of the bedroom

[Svartalf]

Frack, if I had a wife and sshe consented not to discharge her conjugal duties, I'd boot her out and sue the skin off her back.

[camoguard]

I agree with the ruling. I think marriage was understood to include conjugal opportunities at some point between consenting spouses.