Jump to content

Divorce


Static

Recommended Posts

Before one can begin to consider divorce, one much consider marriage in general. And when that is considered, it becomes clear that we must disjoin the religious institution of marriage from the legal institution.

 

Divorce in the religious institution of marriage is completely up to the church. Divorce in the leal institution of marriage seems perfectly acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Divorce is becoming a more acceptable part of society, seeing as 60% of all unions end in separation or divorce. Outlawing it is clearly out of the question, because it is sometimes necessary(for example, a wife has to get out of the relationship with her abusive husband).

 

People can make their own decisions. If it goes against your religious/moral beliefs, then don't get one. However, that is not a reason for people to believe that no one should be able to divorce.

 

"Marriage" in general has also changed, and less people think of it as a life long commitment than in the past. Because of this, less people have moral issues getting a divorce. Changes in society and politics shift the way people view things, and marriage is one of them. As our society takes a decisive move away from religion, so to do people's "moral obligations".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It obviously varies from person to person. Some people have a moral issue against divorce, some don't. Not unlike abortion.

 

I think (with the exception of such cases as an abusive or unfaithful spouse) that restrictions need to be raised for couples with young children.

 

...if you're getting a divorce when you have a 5 year old just because you don't like the other person, youse a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage needs to be a legal transaction and nothing else. If you wish to add extra ceremonies or practices due to your religion or personal choices, than you need to do that on your own time and not get the government involved. That being said, divorce also needs to become a legal transaction and not interfered with by any religious or special interest groups. As a legal transaction, it should be your choice to make, restricted only by your personal choices.

 

On the other hand, I do believe that divorce should not be seen as a respectable option, especially if children are involved. When you agree to form a union, you should be ready to accept any responsibilities that show up along the way. It isn't fair to a child to be forced to live through the seperation of his or her parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, since all of us are in agreement upon the concept of the religious marriage vs legal marriage, let us make an assumption.

 

This debate disregards any sort of religious ceremonies. The concept of marriage that we are arguing is the governmental "Domestic Partnership," the financial and child custodial (and anything else that gets legally involved) parts of the "Marriage."

 

We are all in agreement upon the idea that divorce should not be prohibited.

 

So the questions remain:

 

Should divorces, in the sense that we are arguing, be made easier to obtain or harder to obtain, and what "out of the ordinary" circumstances should cause the rules (of divorce) to differ from the norm (what you think should normally occur, how hard it would normally be to get one)?

 

 

I think they should be harder to obtain due to financial issues, and that a lot of financial laws regarding the marriage should be fixed. For example, the "wife gets half husband gets half" concept is bull because if there is a heavy imbalance between the wife and husbands entering, and earned assets during the marriage, they should walk out with about as much as they worked for, end of story. No one should be cheated out of what they have worked for and saved.

 

That aside, in the cases of abuse (and the like), there ought to be a few more legal options than just a divorce. In the case that the couple seeking divorce owns children, especially, younger ones, and there is no abuse or anything of the like, the divorce should be much more difficult to obtain. It simply is not ok for a parent to abandon a child, and it simply is not ok for a parent to prevent their child from spending time with the other parent because they no longer care for their spouse, or for the children to be the victims of two people who no longer care for each other. If it has to happen, then let it happen, but the law should try to prevent it at all costs.

 

That's what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Divorce should be hard for people with kids? why? thats why they have custody hearings. If for any reason a couple wants a divorce, let them have one. Then, give them joint custody. Neither will be allowed to leave the school district the kid attends unless their job requires it, or until the kid is living on their own, or some other drastic reason, such as medical reasons. either make it easier or leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to look at every case of divorce, as there are an infinite number of reasons why divorce would be required and/or wanted.

 

But Static hit my opinion spot-on with "In the case that the couple seeking divorce owns children, especially, younger ones, and there is no abuse or anything of the like, the divorce should be much more difficult to obtain."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the institution of marriage is that it is something that began as a religious institution, as part of the Catholic Church. But then, it was hijacked by the government, and became a legal institution, where due to the separation of Church and State, it became illegal to consider the original institution. Thus, Judeo-Christian morality, that the institution was originally founded on, and which does not condone divorce, became legally separated from consideration in the governmental institution of marriage.

In my opinion, the governmental term for marriage should be changed, to create a legal separation between legislation on the religious institution of marriage and the governmental institution. Calling the governmental form "marriage", when it has fundamentally shifted away from the religious institution from which it was founded, is criminal, and creates a legal precedent that violates the separation of Church and State by saying that any laws focused on the governmental form of marriage have the same effects to the religious form. It is a way that the state can enforce secular marriage on the religious institution from which is all began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the institution of marriage is that it is something that began as a religious institution' date=' as part of the Catholic Church. But then, it was hijacked by the government, and became a legal institution, where due to the separation of Church and State, it became illegal to consider the original institution. Thus, Judeo-Christian morality, that the institution was originally founded on, and which does not condone divorce, became legally separated from consideration in the governmental institution of marriage.

In my opinion, the governmental term for marriage should be changed, to create a legal separation between legislation on the religious institution of marriage and the governmental institution. Calling the governmental form "marriage", when it has fundamentally shifted away from the religious institution from which it was founded, is criminal, and creates a legal precedent that violates the separation of Church and State by saying that any laws focused on the governmental form of marriage have the same effects to the religious form. It is a way that the state can enforce secular marriage on the religious institution from which is all began.

[/quote']

 

Well said.

 

see' date=' one thing I get annoyed by, is when people say something like "Divorce should be easy, just like a piece of cake" and then say nothing to back up their argument. This is a debate. In a debate, you won't win unless you TRY to back up your argument.

[/quote']

 

Yes, just like how you gave great supporting evidence for your point of view. I'm not even entirely sure what you were trying to say in your previous post, it was so poorly worded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is stupid. Let them have their divorce. See what I care. I'm not Christian' date=' I'm not pro-marriage. I think marriage should be like paper-clipping two people together. Easily reversible and a weak bond

[/quote']

 

Except when they have a kid, who ends up blaming themselves for their parent's divorce. You are a funking jerktard if you divorce when you have a young child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me see if I can clarify my argument:

I you are married with a kid, but then something happens where you want or need, or whatever, to get a divorce, then get one.

If you have a kid, and you get a divorce, you can either go through a Custody hearing or just agree to have joint custody.

If you have joint custody, then you neither party will be allowed to leave the school district the kid goes to, so that you don't mess with his/her education. Unless it is required by a job, it is health-related, some other drastic reason, or the kid has become old enough to live on their own.

either make divorce easier or just leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' let me see if I can clarify my argument:

I you are married with a kid, but then something happens where you want or need, or whatever, to get a divorce, then get one.

If you have a kid, and you get a divorce, you can either go through a Custody hearing or just agree to have joint custody.

If you have joint custody, then you neither party will be allowed to leave the school district the kid goes to, so that you don't mess with his/her education. Unless it is required by a job, it is health-related, some other drastic reason, or the kid has become old enough to live on their own.

either make divorce easier or just leave it alone.

[/quote']

 

Which still leaves the kid with excess guilt and commitment issues later on in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' let me see if I can clarify my argument:

I you are married with a kid, but then something happens where you want or need, or whatever, to get a divorce, then get one.

If you have a kid, and you get a divorce, you can either go through a Custody hearing or just agree to have joint custody.

If you have joint custody, then you neither party will be allowed to leave the school district the kid goes to, so that you don't mess with his/her education. Unless it is required by a job, it is health-related, some other drastic reason, or the kid has become old enough to live on their own.

either make divorce easier or just leave it alone.

[/quote']

 

So you're saying they should just send the kid off to an orphanage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Custody hearing: a judge will listen to each side explain why they should have full custody of the kid, and decide on who gets to keep him/her. this is full time, and the other person will have to pay child support.

 

joint custody: the kid stays with each parent part time, for one week, s/he will stay with mom, and the next, with dad.

 

where does an orphanage pop up in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think divorce is really stupid. If you really love someone, then you get married to them and stay married. But, if everything is good for the dating years, and you get married, but then your wife/husband turns crazy, that's the only time you should get a divorce. You should only get married if you really know the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...