My solution to the gay marriage issue: stricter divorce laws

[rudeguy]

Yea...another night without sleep. House is clean so I figured I'd solve the world's problems.


The main, if not only, objection to gay marriage is from Christian Conservatives like myself. We don't have a real, actual objection to it other than our deep rooted morals. So it seems pretty simple that if we can solve a major issue by relenting on a minor issue, us Christians would be more than happy to give in on gay marriage.

The major issue would be divorce. I don't think anyone out there would disagree that divorce is a huge problem. Why not allow gay marriage but put stricter divorce laws in place? Divorce would only be legal if one person was shown to have committed adultery or physical abuse. The offending partner would be liable for 100% spousal and child support. No exceptions. This would add consequences where right now there are none. It may not stop someone from cheating or beating but it may stop people from marrying the wrong person.

Please critique my attempt at saving the world.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Divorce would only be legal if one person was shown to have committed adultery or physical abuse.

So if they become addicted to drugs or gambling and start hiding away large amounts of $$$ from the other, the other just has to put up with it?

Do you believe that marriage is inherently moral or that it serves some purpose to better support moral behavior in other ways?

 

[Ackmed]

The easier thing is, just don't let them marry. Problem solved, problem staying solved. AFT.

 

[rudeguy]

So if they become addicted to drugs or gambling and start hiding away large amounts of $$$ from the other, the other just has to put up with it?

Yep. For better or worse

Do you believe that marriage is inherently moral or that it serves some purpose to better support moral behavior in other ways?

Good fricking question! I had never even thought to evaluate it in that way. I believe that marriage joins the two people as one. If two people don't share moral beliefs, I don't see how they could be joined as one. So yes and no. Marriage is moral but it does not solve moral issues. As a matter of fact, it would magnify moral issues.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yep. For better or worse

Good fricking question! I had never even thought to evaluate it in that way. I believe that marriage joins the two people as one. If two people don't share moral beliefs, I don't see how they could be joined as one. So yes and no. Marriage is moral but it does not solve moral issues. As a matter of fact, it would magnify moral issues.

So in what way is marriage moral? Husbands have murdered ex-wives over child support; do you think spouses would hesitate to do the same in the event that they were forced to live together while another was effectively stealing from the family? What do you mean by "joined as one" such that it would be inconceivable for it to happen if they don't share moral beliefs (unless you're referring to a specific and/or extreme subset of moral beliefs)?

 

[rudeguy]

So in what way is marriage moral? Husbands have murdered ex-wives over child support; do you think spouses would hesitate to do the same in the event that they were forced to live together while another was effectively stealing from the family? What do you mean by "joined as one" such that it would be inconceivable for it to happen if they don't share moral beliefs (unless you're referring to a specific and/or extreme subset of moral beliefs)?

That's exactly what marriage is. Joining two people as one. If one person likes cats and one does not...it would be possible to put that aside. If one person likes to snort meth and the other does not, then that could not be put aside.

As for your other argument, it could be used to do away with life insurance. Are you opposed to life insurance?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's exactly what marriage is. Joining two people as one. If one person likes cats and one does not...it would be possible to put that aside. If one person likes to snort meth and the other does not, then that could not be put aside.

As for your other argument, it could be used to do away with life insurance. Are you opposed to life insurance?

But you already said that if a meth addict hides his/her addiction to their future wife/husband, that they would not be allowed to divorce.

Killing a spouse for financial gain is fairly different from killing a spouse to prevent financial loss.

 

[nehalem256]

End no fault divorce. If marriage is just a contract(the liberal argument for gay marriage) than one side should not be allowed unilaterally break without consequences(or even collect benefits) right?

 

[nehalem256]

So in what way is marriage moral? Husbands have murdered ex-wives over child support; do you think spouses would hesitate to do the same in the event that they were forced to live together while another was effectively stealing from the family? What do you mean by "joined as one" such that it would be inconceivable for it to happen if they don't share moral beliefs (unless you're referring to a specific and/or extreme subset of moral beliefs)?

The story I am familiar with that sounds similar to this was a man beating up his ex-wife literally in court.

The woman ran off with the man's kids and started living with another man. I wonder why he objected to paying child support

 

[JulesMaximus]

Yea...another night without sleep. House is clean so I figured I'd solve the world's problems.


The main, if not only, objection to gay marriage is from Christian Conservatives like myself. We don't have a real, actual objection to it other than our deep rooted morals. So it seems pretty simple that if we can solve a major issue by relenting on a minor issue, us Christians would be more than happy to give in on gay marriage.

The major issue would be divorce. I don't think anyone out there would disagree that divorce is a huge problem. Why not allow gay marriage but put stricter divorce laws in place? Divorce would only be legal if one person was shown to have committed adultery or physical abuse. The offending partner would be liable for 100% spousal and child support. No exceptions. This would add consequences where right now there are none. It may not stop someone from cheating or beating but it may stop people from marrying the wrong person.

Please critique my attempt at saving the world.

Sure, let's force people to be miserable...

 

[nehalem256]

Sure, let's force people to be miserable...

No one is forced to get married.

Why are you opposed to requiring people to honor their contract?

If you really think people should be able to leave you could put in an "out clause" where in the partner wishing to leave would be able to but would walk away with nothing or very litttle.

EDIT: You might be "miserable" when married. But lets see if you think you are still "miserable" when you don't get to walk away with 50% of marital assets and alimony.

 

[Moonbeam]

My critique is that you are not trying to solve the world's problem but one of your own that does not really exist. Your deep rooted morals aren't morals but bigotry. Get rid of your bigotry and poof, your moral problem disappears. Real knowledge isn't the acquisition of solutions to things, but awareness absence of insanity. I wish you well.

 

[CFP]

Wait, so you (speaking for Christian Conservatives) would be willing to soften your stance on gay marriage if divorce laws are made stricter?

How are the two even related? Why is it a trade-off?

e: or do you mean tighten up the divorce laws strictly for gay marriages?

(???)

 

[nehalem256]

Wait, so you (speaking for Christian Conservatives) would be willing to soften your stance on gay marriage if divorce laws are made stricter?

How are the two even related? Why is it a trade-off?

e: or do you mean tighten up the divorce laws strictly for gay marriages?

(???)

Marriage is fundamentally life-long relationship between a man and a woman.

If you make stricter divorce laws you are at least saying that the life-long part is true.

Each side gets something they wanted. It is called compromise.

It preserves some meaning for marriage and arguably the more important part. Instead of turning it into merely a circle-jerk to extort benefits from the government.

 

[CFP]

Marriage is fundamentally life-long relationship between a man and a woman.

If you make stricter divorce laws you are at least saying that the life-long part is true.

Each side gets something they wanted. It is called compromise.

It preserves some meaning for marriage and arguably the more important part. Instead of turning it into merely a circle-jerk to extort benefits from the government.

I see. A compromise

Whelp, I'm done on AT for another month. See ya'll in 30 days.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No one is forced to get married.

Why are you opposed to requiring people to honor their contract?

If you really think people should be able to leave you could put in an "out clause" where in the partner wishing to leave would be able to but would walk away with nothing or very litttle.

EDIT: You might be "miserable" when married. But lets see if you think you are still "miserable" when you don't get to walk away with 50% of marital assets and alimony.

Why do people get divorced?

I love the sanctity of marriage argument. Pretty tough to use that when the divorce rate is 50%. I'm sure none of the people arguing against gay marriage have ever been divorced.:whiste:

 

[shira]

This idea is just incredibly stupid. Whether a couple is divorced or not, both are responsible for the welfare of any offspring of the marriage. Whether a couple is divorced or not, if there's only one wage earner, that person is responsible financially for both the offspring AND the spouse/ex-spouse.

So the ONLY difference between our current no-fault divorce system and a stricter system would be that in the stricter system, the couple would be trapped forever in an unhappy relationship. That's BAD for the couple and bad for the children.

But leave it to religious fanatics to think this is a good idea.

 

[nehalem256]

This idea is just incredibly stupid. Whether a couple is divorced or not, both are responsible for the welfare of any offspring of the marriage. Whether a couple is divorced or not, if there's only one wage earner, that person is responsible financially for both the offspring AND the spouse/ex-spouse.

So the ONLY difference between our current no-fault divorce system and a stricter system would be that in the stricter system, the couple would be trapped forever in an unhappy relationship. That's BAD for the couple and bad for the children.

But leave it to religious fanatics to think this is a good idea.

No under the current system one spouse can decide they are "unhappy" and walk away with half the assets, the children, and alimony/CS.

Under what strange contract law can one side unilaterally break the contract and be rewarded?

I wonder how many people would decide the were perhaps less "unhappy" if they walked away with nothing or very little?

 

[shira]

No under the current system one spouse can decide they are "unhappy" and walk away with half the assets, the children, and alimony/CS.

Under what strange contract law can one side unilaterally break the contract and be rewarded?

I wonder how many people would decide the were perhaps less "unhappy" if they walked away with nothing or very little?

You think trapping the children in a household with two miserable, arguing people is a BETTER? As to the money, that walking spouse is the actual owner of half of the marital assets, so on what insane planet would he/she NOT be entitled to take what's rightfully his/hers?

You're fvcking nuts.

 

[zanejohnson]

I see. A compromise

Whelp, I'm done on AT for another month. See ya'll in 30 days.

lol got to real huh?

 

[nehalem256]

You think trapping the children in a household with two miserable, arguing people is a BETTER? As to the money, that walking spouse is the actual owner of half of the marital assets, so on what insane planet would he/she NOT be entitled to take what's rightfully his/hers?

You're fvcking nuts.

On what insane planet is one side allowed to unilaterally break a contract without consequences?

EDIT: On what insane planet is a person allowed to run off with another person's children and demand that person send them money?

 

[rudeguy]

On what insane planet is one side allowed to unilaterally break a contract without consequences?

EDIT: On what insane planet is a person allowed to run off with another person's children and demand that person send them money?

Our planet and our country. Happens thousands of times a day(week?)

To those opposed to my very well though out plan (while I was washing out my coffee pot at 4 am): What is your definition of marriage? If its not the joining of two people into one, then what is it?

 

[Thump553]

OP: Not to be insulting, but I'm betting a 95% chance you are under 35. What you are arguing for was basically the law in every state before no-fault divorce was enacted. As a practical, PROVEN matter your suggestion will not work primarily because it does nothing more than enrich divorce lawyers. Once no-fault divorce started it spread through all the states like wildfire because society doesn't really gain any benefit from the oodles of time and money spent proving divorce grounds. Don't believe me-talk to some 50+ year old attorney that ever had anything to do with divorces.

Plus marriage should not be a sentence for the unwilling, gay or straight.

 

[Nintendesert]

There would never have been an issue to begin with had people not enjoyed jerking off to pissing off Christians so much. All the gay union movement had to do was go with Civil Unions or Civil Partnerships instead of trying to call it Marriage and it would have removed the main basis for religious people to oppose it. Instead the movement started as a Gay Union/Piss off Christians and here we are.

 

[Smoblikat]

This will completely negate anyone wanting to get married.