[Panasonic]

Are you okay with divorce?

[Fasces]

[Rich]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x9v3awkuG0&ab_channel=ShepBostin

No happy marriage has ever ended in divorce? That struck me as an odd thing to say. A happy marriage ending in divorce is an essential part of the plot of the BBC / HBO Rome series. Now the marriage in question is actually fictional, but I'm sure there were numerous real marriages that were ended due to political pressure, rather than internal unhappiness. What about the geezer who came after Augustus, I've forgotten his name, was it Tiberius? What about his first marriage?

I'm sure through out ancient, medieval and modern times, there have been numerous happy marriages that have ended in annulment or divorce for various reasons. What about Prince Andrew and Fergie? Some say that was a perfectly happy if unconventional marriage, till that low life brother of his, stuck his nose into their business.

[Fasces]

1. You're using fictional marriages and monarchs to discredit 2: a comedy show.

[Godstud]

No. I am 100% against Divorce. I don't believe you should be able to except in extreme circumstances. That doesn't mean you can't separate, however.

I think that a lot more thought would be put into marriages if there was no divorce possible(aside from exceptions involving crimes). It seems like insanity to me that people aren't willing to marry, but will take on an 18 commitment to have a child.

I think people are too quick to take the easy way out and divorce rather then try to make a marriage work. Marriages are hard work. Anything worth having takes hard work, however.

Another reason is that men get the short end of the stick, most of the time, in divorces, where women get child custody 90% of the time, and most men end up paying child support for kids they hardly get to see. Consider that between 80-90% of marriages are initiated by women, and it makes you wonder why. There is incentivization at play. There is also bias in law.

[pugsville]

Staying in bad marriage is good for nobody. Not the children Not the couple themselves. Leads to more bad things.

[Godstud]

Do you know what's worse for kids than parents in a bad marriage? Not having both parents around. If the parents aren't selfish assholes, they'll manage things and make the kids a priority. Usually the parents choose selfishness and get a divorce.

[skinster]

As a divorcee, I suppose I have to be okay with divorce.

I don't see what the big deal is. Sure, work at relationships if they're worth working for, but if not, why stay in something that's making you miserable? I find a lot of people remain in what appear to be miserable relationships to avoid being alone and I don't get that noise at all.

I'm with @pugsville, staying in a bad marriage would be worse for all involved. As a kid myself, I wanted my parents to divorce because they were clearly unhappy with each other and I didn't want to be around that misery. They eventually did, and then my dad died. Hmm, maybe the moral of the story is to not get divorced?

[MistyTiger]

I am okay with divorce.

The decision depends on the persons involved.

I have seen happy couples and I have also seen unhappy marriages. Children can tell if a marriage is happy or not. And what they witness affects their views on marriage and relationships.

My parents are not the happiest couple. What I saw growing up has led me to believe that marriage might not be for me. If the people are miserable, it's like being confined to a prison cell. Each person plays a crucial role in the happiness of the other person and overall it shows the success or failures of each person.

I applaud those who make it work. Those who cannot make it work, I sympathize and I wonder if I could ever be so patient. I'm not sure.

[Saeko]

You ever wonder why you don't hear about mysterious poisonings in the household anymore?

[late]

You ever wonder why you don't hear about mysterious poisonings in the household anymore?

Chemistry..

[Pants-of-dog]

You ever wonder why you don't hear about mysterious poisonings in the household anymore?

While I am familiar with the hypothesis (i.e. women no longer poison and kill abusive husbands as much because divorce is legal now), I have never found empirical evidence to support the claim. It may actually have increased murder rates depending on how the money is divvied up in a divorce.

——————

@Godstud

As for the claim that divorce favours the woman due to child custody, this seems incorrect. Most divorce settlements try to maintain the child raising situation as much as possible. So, most of the time, women get custody because they are the ones who were doing most of the child parenting before the divorce. The only common exception is when one parent moves away at the time of the divorce, making it impossible to share custody.

[MLK Jr]

Most people confuse a marriage with an affair: when a man can and sexually gratifies more than a woman (e.g. a woman and a boy).

Only in this sense divorce is casual.

[Fasces]

Godstud's been listening too much to Stephen Crowder whine.

[Godstud]

As for the claim that divorce favours the woman due to child custody, this seems incorrect. Most divorce settlements try to maintain the child raising situation as much as possible. So, most of the time, women get custody because they are the ones who were doing most of the child parenting before the divorce. The only common exception is when one parent moves away at the time of the divorce, making it impossible to share custody.

Statistics show that women win child custody rights a staggering 90% of the time, even though fathers play an important role in their children's lives pre and post-divorce.
https://familylawattorneymesaaz.net/div ... %2Ddivorce.

You might feel that it's incorrect, but the reality shows otherwise. Sabotaging a man in family custody court is appallingly easy. A simple asking of a restraining order against a father cause calamity, whether that is justified, or not.

Father's parental rights groups exist now for a reason.

If women do the majority of the child-rearing before the divorce is irrelevant. Divorce should seek 50% custody of children from the start, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Canada IS better than most, but still has problems due to an inherent bias(traditionalism).

Anyways, we're getting off topic. The thread isn't about custody of children, but divorce.

@Fasces Casting aspersions because I don't agree with you? You're usually the victim of that.

I don't watch nor listen to Crowder. I watch/listen to people across the spectrum, to get a wider perspective.

[Fasces]

As do I, which is why I know Crowder is getting divorced and has been whining about how unjust it is that a husband can decide to leave without the consent of her husband.

You can't ban divorce in an environment where domestic abuse is as high as it is. Asking a woman to 'tough it out' when she gets regularly beaten or emotionally abused (or vice versa) is cruel. Solve the issue of domestic abuse, then maybe we can have a discussion about divorce being 'too easy'. Until then its just putting the cart before the horse.

[Godstud]

I'm not actually for BANNING divorce. I am for making it a great deal more difficult to obtain, and make re-marrying, after a divorce, exceptionally hard.

As I already said, I made the exception in cases where crimes are involved(eg. domestic abuse). I didn't think I'd have to actually spell it out. Crimes against a spouse should allow an annulment.

[Pants-of-dog]

Statistics show that women win child custody rights a staggering 90% of the time, even though fathers play an important role in their children's lives pre and post-divorce.
https://familylawattorneymesaaz.net/div ... %2Ddivorce.

This does not contradict my claim at all.

Instead, it simply means that women still do about 90% of the child rearing.

You might feel that it's incorrect, but the reality shows otherwise. Sabotaging a man in family custody court is appallingly easy. A simple asking of a restraining order against a father cause calamity, whether that is justified, or not.

This is a new argument.

It also seems incorrect. Getting a restraining order in Alberta is a multi-step process requiring paperwork, presenting your case before a judge, and does not seem easy at all.

Father's parental rights groups exist now for a reason.

What is that reason?

If women do the majority of the child-rearing before the divorce is irrelevant. Divorce should seek 50% custody of children from the start, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Canada IS better than most, but still has problems due to an inherent bias(traditionalism).

No.

What should be done is what is best for the children.

What normally is done is to keep the lives of the children as stable as possible.

Arbitrarily deciding fifty percent for no reason than some unrealistic demand of equality is not going to help the kids.

Anyways, we're getting off topic. The thread isn't about custody of children, but divorce.

You brought child custody into the discussion.

[Fasces]

I am for making it a great deal more difficult to obtain, and make re-marrying, after a divorce, exceptionally hard.

And again, I think you need to solve issues like grooming, child marriages, and widespread domestic abuse before you go about trying to make 'divorce' more rigid. You're trying to fix the wrong issue first. Trapping people into marriages of abuse and punishing them for escaping seems to be having your priorities mixed up.

Even if you're for 'common sense' solutions of 'well of course abused people can divorce and remarry!"... a lot of abuse leaves little concrete evidence (how is a person going to prove to a court that they're verbally and emotionally abused, or that a spouse is overly controlling), and you're forcing a victim to justify themselves to a third party, who has their own biases or preconceptions or conflicts of interest.

Take a simple, run of the mill hypothetical. A person comes home and rapes their partner. There's little physical evidence, and rape cases are ambiguous as it is with a notoriously low conviction rate. What's this person to do? Wait until they get raped again - but try to have more evidence, this time?

I know you said separation should still be easy - what does that look like? A person leaves their abusive spouse, but the spouse can still use their insurance? They still file taxes together, necessitating an annual get together with their old abuser? The person gets hit by a car and sent to a hospital and wakes up to their abuser in the room? The abuser opens a credit card in the name of the abused, as married partners can? The abused spouse tries to get a loan but needs to get their abuser to sign off on it? If the married partner can't do any of these things, then isn't this 'separation' just divorce by another name?

And for what? What's the benefit of all this? The word marriage 'means'... something "more"? It's better for "the children"? Only around half of married couples have children in the US.

Some vague notion that divorce is unfair for men and women initiate them, so the only way to "make it fair" is to make divorce harder - and if a few people get trapped in abusive situations, well so be it?

[Godstud]

And again, I think you need to solve issues like grooming, child marriages, and widespread domestic abuse before you go about trying to make 'divorce' more rigid. You're trying to fix the wrong issue first. Trapping people into marriages of abuse and punishing them for escaping seems to be having your priorities mixed up.

FFS... You talk about exceptions. These do not make the rule. I took into account criminal behavior( I addressed it as an exception), but you seem to have ignored that. I did not talk about trapping people in abusive marriages. You are making a Strawman.

People who are married CAN work on the children's behalf, even if their marriage is failing. There are things like putting the children ahead of your own happiness and needs, that works in many cases. There is also marriage counselling and other options which most people ignore.

Women do initiate divorce over 70% of the time. That's a statistical fact. Pretending that is due to abuse is a fallacy, however. That is, AGAIN, an exception.

I am FOR divorce/annulment in the case of domestic abuse/sexual assault, etc.

What should be done is what is best for the children.

Having two parents(male/female) involved in raising a child is what is best for children. This is a statistical fact.