Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[chequita guevara]

Don't quote Ben!

[Ben Kenobi]

You think divorce should require mutual consent because marriage requires mutual consent.

Yes. It's a simple issue of respect. If I respect my wife, I am going to do whatever possible to obtain her consent before proceeding.

This is a logical impossibility, since unilateral removal of consent means there is no longer mutual consent.

Then marriage is simply meaningless, and represents nothing more then the current mood of both partners. This is one of the reasons we see so many divorces. Whether the feelings are there now are irrelevant. You gave your consent at the beginning when you promised until death do you part. Your feelings cannot change the promises you made on that day.

Therefore the marriage, which requires mutual consent, can necessarily be destroyed by unilateral withdrawal.

Actually, that's not what happens. The marriage bond cannot be undone that way. People may think so, but the truth is that marriage cannot be undone when done properly the first time. This is what marriage as a sacramental means.

To allow the marriage to continue when one party no longer consented to it would be to allow one spouse to force another spouse to stay in the marriage without consenting to be married.

Actually, it means that the initial promise you made supercedes your feelings now. You've consented to the marriage, and must live with the consequences thereof.

They can't possibly both require mutual consent. Every time you say you don't have a problem with one party filing for divorce, but think the other party should get paid, you disaffirm your original assertion.

Yes I do. I think it's eminently reasaonable considering that they system now states that the one divorcing gets a payday which is bull****.

Now, it does not matter to the question of consent what you think should happen pursuant to a divorce. You could say anyone filing for divorce must undergo the amputation of two limbs and turn over all earthly property to the other spouse. Divorce would still require only unilateral action. This is where the original question ends. The rest is me correcting largely unrelated misconceptions you've brought into the conversation.

Which means what? Just because the system now is flawed doesn't mean that it ought not change, which is what we are discussing.

It's not a matter of legalese, either. Damages are emphatically not just penalties by another name. There are substantive differences between the two, as I've tried to point out. Damages are based on the duties the breaching party has undertaken with respect to the non-breaching party, and either the actual damages suffered or the parties' best estimate of those damages beforehand, in the case of contracts with liquidated damage clauses. Penalties would be simply based on the fact of the breach, with no necessary connection to damages suffered.

Fine, so what's your argument that the divorcing party should not have to provide some form of compensation to their spouse prior to divorcing in the situation where there has not been abuse? I don't really care how they do it and I'm wording it to avoid the legalese which you keep throwing into this discussion.

On the child support issue, again, it has nothing to do with the relationship between the parents, and who you have sympathy for doesn't matter one bit. By bringing a child into the world, you assume certain duties that you owe to the child.

Fair enough. I acknowledged this, outright. I don't believe the courts have any cause to intervene wrt to a non-custodial parent who did not intiate the breach in the first place.

When you're married to the other parent, you can fulfill those duties without writing a check to the other parent, by doing things like buying clothes, paying rent, paying the light bill, etc. Child support simply ensures that you keep fulfilling your duty to the child when you're no longer part of the same household.

I can see the argument for child support payments against the party who initiated the divorcie. They should have to pay. For the party who did not want to get divorced, it amounts to a reward for faithlessness. Why should they have to pay a burden they did not want? They wanted to take care of their child, in the home, which is why they refused the divorce. Why should we reward taking the child out of their life as well as the initial breach?

I don't believe the courts should intervene in this situaiton, and should permit the non-custodial parent to make arrangements as they see fit.

Why do you want the courts to punish the children for something that was out of their hands?

Why do you want the courts to punish the spouse for something that was out of their hands?

Unilateral divorce, even under a no-fault regime, does not allow you to just "skip out." Whether you can file divorce to begin with and what the fallout is after you do are two independent questions. A mutual consent requirement goes to the former. No-fault goes to the former. Everything you've been trying to argue goes to the latter.

Yes, it does. You can file for divorce, take the kids with you in the time that your spouse is away at work, and they don't find out until they get home. That's bull****, and I've seen it done.

I've been pretty clear about the meanings of the terms I've been using. If you thought I meant that a couple had to periodically relive their ceremony to affirm consent, that's on you, as it's a ludicrous interpretation.

I think your interpretation wouldn't hold up in court whatsoever.

If you still want to defend the idea that divorce should require mutual consent, you need to do so in terms of consent, not in terms of the burden on one party or the other. Aside from being irrelevant to your consent point, those burdens will be different in each case. Sometimes the non-breaching party will wind up far better off as a result of the divorce. Sometimes the breaching party will wind up far worse off. You're using a cardboard stereotype of divorce that isn't a solid foundation for universal rules, which is why so many details of a divorce are handled on a case-by-case basis.

The default should be that the one initiating the divorce pays one way or another for the breach of contract. I agree that there can be extenuating circumstances, such as abuse which need be taken into consideration. I also believe that the divorcing spouse should not be entitled to alimony or child support. If you sincerely believe it's in the best interests of your child to be looked after by your spouse, then for the sake of your child, you should remain married to them.

[chequita guevara]

This message is hidden because Ben Kenobi is on your ignore list.

[Solomwi]

This message is hidden because Ben Kenobi is on your ignore list.

I'm about one more post from it.

[Dr Strangelove]

What's the chance that someone who abuses their spouse will consent to divorce?

[notyoueither]

How do you figure?

If you argue that consenting adults have a basic right to marry someone of their own gender, what logical reason is there to say that consenting adults don't also have a basic right to marry more than one partner? Traditional marriage is limited to two persons, but you can't use deference to the traditional definition of marriage as a reason for denying marriage rights to polygamous relationships if you've already tossed traditional marriage aside to allow gay marriage.

There are prospective people involved who have no say, ie children.

There are effects on spousal heirs.

As practiced, polygamy is abusive. These are not healthy relationships by and large.

There's a few of quick reasons.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's the chance that someone who abuses their spouse will consent to divorce?

I'll quote myself.

The default should be that the one initiating the divorce pays one way or another for the breach of contract. I agree that there can be extenuating circumstances, such as abuse which need be taken into consideration.

[Ben Kenobi]

As practiced, polygamy is abusive. These are not healthy relationships by and large.

Neither is homosexuality, as practiced.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm about one more post from it.

Solomwi, when someone says your terms need to be clarified, that's a sign that you need to step back. I honestly didn't have a clue where you are coming from, and I still don't.

You keep arguing about this mythical 'perpetual consent' which I keep telling you doesn't exist. Contract law asks one question, whether consent was given at the outset, and uses that to determine the breach. Divorce is a breach of contract and ought to be treated as such. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about my argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Straight men do not want to marry other straight men just as gay men (who accept that they are gay) do not want to marry women. This argument of yours relies on this ridiculous example

'Ridiculous', 'retarded'. BTW, how is totally destroying my argument going? It seems you failed.

The law doesn't care whether it conforms to your wants, desires, or needs. The law is the law, and treats everyone equal, even as it doesn't make everyone happy.

The reason that this example of yours does not make any sense, is because straight men are not attracted to other men, and gay men are not attracted to women.

Do they hook everyone who gets married up to an attraction gage and if the gage is too low they can't get married? Fail.

Straight men have the freedom to legally marry a consenting person THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO while gay men are denied this same freedom.

They deny themselves and demand special rights, and that the law change to accommodate them. Special rights!= equal rights.

[Drake Tungsten]

There are prospective people involved who have no say, ie children.

There are effects on spousal heirs.

As practiced, polygamy is abusive.

Not necessarily, in all three cases. Focusing only on the negatives in order to deny people the right to marry who they want...

[chequita guevara]

There are prospective people involved who have no say, ie children.

There are effects on spousal heirs.

As practiced, polygamy is abusive. These are not healthy relationships by and large.

There's a few of quick reasons.

All of those are easily addressed by the fact that polygamy is illegal. Legalize it and some of these problems go away.

The abusive aspects of polygamy, especially regarding children, have more to do with the main group practicing it, whack job Mormons. Take religion out of the picture and those problems will disappear as well. In any event, the abusive aspect of polygamy also exists within monogamous marriage, including the marriage of children against their will.

[notyoueither]

Not necessarily, in all three cases. Focusing only on the negatives in order to deny people the right to marry who they want...

Why are private corporations limited in the number of shareholders they can have?

[Solomwi]

Ben, this is ridiculous. You want X and Y, and when you're shown that they are mutually exclusive, want to either change the nature of X to something it's never been or go off on some tangent. Starting at the top:

Once again, you want to create a universal rule based on your preferences. Contracts don't work that way.

Again, go learn what consent means, and has always meant. You've got this one backwards, anyway. Ongoing consent means both spouses need to continually work to make the other happy. Your view makes marriage meaningless. Under your view, it's a permanent reminder of a momentary feeling. Your view is a recipe for abuse, abandonment and misery. My view allows unhappy spouses to both seek happiness elsewhere.

Yes, it can. Of course, we're not talking about your bat****, boy-banging cult here, but the civil institution, which is the only one that matters to both of us.

Uh huh, and contracts don't work that way. Besides, what you still fail to acknowledge is that initiating a unilateral divorce, even under a no-fault system, still has consequences. The initiating spouse is still expected to fulfill his or her duties to both the other spouse and any children involved. You no longer consent to the marriage, but must still live with the consequences of having consented to it in the past.

Yes you do what? Disaffirm that divorce should require mutual consent? Also, WTFBen? How does the system state that the one divorcing gets a payday? The joke that divorce is so expensive because it's worth it has far more basis in reality than your portrayal of the system.

What that paragraph means is that you're conflating the issue of consent with the issue of consequences. The change you want on the former, the only one I'm arguing about, is a logical impossibility. I don't really care about your opinion on the latter, because you're not a party to my marriage, and thus have no say in it.

I'm not arguing that. The fact that you think I am suggests that you haven't understood a thing I've posted. If you think what I've used is "legalese," you should probably just avoid topics like contracts and marriage (you know, basic legal topics). That would be like me engaging Asher in a discussion of what's wrong with my computer, then chiding him for using "technical jargon" like "hard drive" and "monitor."

No, you didn't acknowledge that outright, and you continue not to do so when you claim non-custodial, non-breaching spouses shouldn't be liable for child support. Who breached simply doesn't matter on child support. Each parent owes a duty of support to the children. Each is held to that duty through the divorce. Your spouse leaving you is no reason for you to get to shirk your duty to your children.

Again, that parent has to pay the burden he took on when he brought the child into the world. It's completely independent of the marriage. Child support is not a reward to the custodial spouse.

Nor is it punishment to the non-custodial. Nobody's being punished by requiring child support, because it's simply a change in form of a burden the non-custodial parent was already carrying. Not requiring some form of child support from a non-custodial spouse punishes the children because it removes part of the support they had been relying on. Besides, the spouse had a hand in bringing the child into the world.

That's not skipping out without consequence, since the remaining spouse will be able to enforce whatever rights he has in the courts. You can do that in fault-only jurisdictions, too. And the only thing requiring mutual consent would change is that the spouse wouldn't bother filing for divorce. Your wife would take the kids and leave, and you wouldn't even have recourse to the courts to get visitation rights, etc., because your preferred rules have removed the divorce mechanism.


That's because you don't have the first fvcking clue what you're talking about here.

Again, none of that goes to the issue. We know, or can generally guess, your preferences, and by and large we don't care. But when you assert that divorce should be based on mutual consent, defend it on its own grounds. Don't use that as an excuse to go ahead and tell everybody what you think about a different aspect of divorce.

I've tried to be patient, but it's wearing thin. Either defend your statement in terms relevant to it or admit that you didn't understand what you were saying. If you continue to say, "Divorce should require mutual consent. I don't mind if one spouse files for divorce, but he should have to pay through the nose." and pretend those aren't contradictory, you'll hit my ignore list.

[Solomwi]

dp