• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should Western governments end no fault divorce?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.
Everyone believes their marriage is a good one.
But many find out later that it isn't.
You'd force them to stay together, Taliban style, eh.
After all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
Every promise is a lifelong bond to be enforced
by government, even if the parties involved want
to renegotiate, eh?
That sounds very fascist to me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I just think that divorce should be the last resort because of the suffering and hardship it causes children, regardless of how I feel about it spiritually.
You & your spouse are free to see it that way.
But to have government impose it upon the
unwilling is heinous.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Everyone believes their marriage is a good one.
But many find out later that it isn't.
You'd force them to stay together, Taliban style, eh.

Every promise is a lifelong bond to be enforced
by government, even if the parties involved want
to renegotiate, eh?
That sounds very fascist to me.

Not at all. No one is being forced to get married.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.

After all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
My marriage contract nor verbal oath said any such thing. And I reject adding Christian values to my marriage which deliberately did not have any bibles in sight.
Marriage is a way that my husband and I merged our material assets and decision making power in medical and legal matters. Our commitment isn't tied up in our marriage contract and I would never find reason to force my partner to stay if they were unhappy.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think you that's not being argued.
But you need to argue something
you can win, eh.

Well, if you're going to throw terms like "Taliban" and "fascist" at me, it seems that you're the one who is confused about what is or what isn't being argued.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My marriage contract nor verbal oath said any such thing. And I reject adding Christian values to my marriage which deliberately did not have any bibles in sight.
Marriage is a way that my husband and I merged our material assets and decision making power in medical and legal matters. Our commitment isn't tied up in our marriage contract and I would never find reason to force my partner to stay if they were unhappy.

And if it works for you and you're happy, then more power to you. I have no quarrel with that. I wasn't actually advocating that anyone be forced to remain married, but just pointing out a relevant fact. My observation is that there are many people who enter into such arrangements frivolously and recklessly, and can oftentimes cause a great deal of damage to other involved parties when things explode. Very often, society has to clean up the damage.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And if it works for you and you're happy, then more power to you. I have no quarrel with that. I wasn't actually advocating that anyone be forced to remain married, but just pointing out a relevant fact. My observation is that there are many people who enter into such arrangements frivolously and recklessly, and can oftentimes cause a great deal of damage to other involved parties when things explode. Very often, society has to clean up the damage.
Imo if we stopped pretending that getting married is the real way to show commitment and focused on better communication and emotional availability in relationships, that would do a lot more for curtailing reckless contract signing than at-fault divorce.

Part of the reason I deliberately kept everything about my wedding secular was because I think traditional ceremonies promote unhealthy attachment styles. But I would never try to mandate how much other people should try to save their marriage, which there is a lot of in this debate.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.

After all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
Yes, but it is sooo easy to get married (and have children).
If you let people marry who may not be able to see the consequences, you are complicit in the failure of the marriage.
So, before you make divorce more difficult, you should make marriage more difficult. The difficulty to exit a contract should be reflected in the difficulty to enter it.
Otherwise I call it entrapment.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How are kids being harmed by divorce not relevant?
Because at fault divorce is still divorce, so you are still getting the harm to the children of divorce.

The only difference between at fault divorce and no fault divorce is that at fault divorce incentivise people who no longer want their marriage to throw false accusations of fault at each other.

This does two things.

1. It fosters conflict which is harmful for the children.
2. It creates an obstacle to reconciliation of the marriage.

So since the outcome is the same (divorce), it makes sense to get there in the manner that is the least harmful to children and future reconciliation opportunities.

In my opinion.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes and we are stuck paying the bill for the breach of contract. Maybe stronger marge laws are the lesser of the evils?
Marriage micro-management by government
has appeal to fans of big government & big
religion. They seek security & social good by
telling us all what to do.
Unlike liberals, conservatives, & fundies, we
libertarians prefer to minimize governmental
control. Allow it only where really necessary.
Parents & kids survive divorce...quite well in
my observations.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Marriage micro-management by government
has appeal to fans of big government & big
religion. They seek security & social good by
telling us all what to do.
Unlike liberals, conservatives, & fundies, we
libertarians prefer to minimize governmental
control. Allow it only where really necessary.
Parents & kids survive divorce...quite well in
my observations.

very damaged according to research and I get the core Argument for minimal control I’m a fan of the concept. However given the high rates of dad not meeting obligations, the abuse the kids likely suffer and hand me down crimes etc that happen I think as a society we need to make a change. It could be done without government, but a zero pressure to care for kids mentality I don’t think can end well.
 
Top