If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politics UK)   No-fault divorce makes splitting up too easy say judges, who want to hang a critical "bad-thinking" clause on at least one half of the couples and shame them for it   (politics.co.uk) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, Tory MPs, couples, Westminster Hall  
•       •       •

7017 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 10:09 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-15 10:11:41 AM
11 votes:
Ironic, considering that their state religion was founded on the concept of divorce.
2014-01-15 10:50:28 AM
5 votes:

wildcardjack: I should have sued my mother-inlaw for failing to disclose that my (now ex) wife required psychiatric medicine and had been institutionalized in her teens.

So, get married, no meds, suddenly she's MY burden! fark that shiat, I ditched that crazy redhead. And I do mean craaazy. Delusional, pathological liar that got brutally violent when you picked at her lies.

She'd be great on Fox News.


So the woman you "loved" enough to marry is suddenly a "burden" when you discover she has mental health issues.  I really really hope you didn't mean that to sound the way it does.  Because if you did,  you are a HUGE a#$hole.
2014-01-15 08:33:51 AM
5 votes:
This brave MP defending the social importance of committed relationships was the same one vigorously opposing the marriage equality bill earlier this year.
2014-01-15 11:37:38 AM
4 votes:

mister aj: Actually real, I speak from experience. 10 miserable years before I found out that better women can be found outside of the country.


So you picked a bad one, then picked a good one, and extrapolated that to million of women in two different countries? Logic isn't your strong point, is it?

I married a really, really bad one, but I don't think every man in America is a psychotic bi-sexual stalker. Because I take responsibility for my part in picking his psycho ass.
2014-01-15 10:59:58 AM
4 votes:

The Muthaship: lennavan: If you don't want to split your assets should you end up splitting up with your partner and you don't trust pre-nups, then don't get married.

I'm for fairness in the split is all.  Regardless of who it favors.


If you decide to get married, then you are treated as equal members in the relationship sharing everything.  That means when you split, it is 50/50.  If you don't like that, get a pre-nup.  If you don't like that and you don't trust the pre-nup, then don't get married.  Because when you enter a marriage, it is with the understanding that you are going to be equal members in the relationship.  No one is forcing you to get married.

wildcardjack: I should have sued my mother-inlaw for failing to disclose that my (now ex) wife required psychiatric medicine and had been institutionalized in her teens.

So, get married, no meds, suddenly she's MY burden! fark that shiat, I ditched that crazy redhead. And I do mean craaazy. Delusional, pathological liar that got brutally violent when you picked at her lies.


I like to date girls long enough to know whether or not they are on psychiatric medicine to suppress their delusions, pathological lies and brutal violence before I ask them to marry me.  Seems like a smart idea.
2014-01-15 10:14:36 AM
4 votes:
Just another reason why government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
2014-01-15 09:02:14 AM
4 votes:
How about requiring them to sign a legitimate contract that is legally binding and can be dissolved if one party reneges on their part?
Then all the other voo doo mumbo jumbo they do can be moot, which it is.
2014-01-15 11:05:27 AM
3 votes:

thurstonxhowell: urbangirl: So the woman you "loved" enough to marry is suddenly a "burden" when you discover she has mental health issues. I really really hope you didn't mean that to sound the way it does. Because if you did, you are a HUGE a#$hole.

If you don't disclose your mental health issues to a long-term partner, you're a terrible person. If you don't disclose them until after the wedding, you are an asshole of almost inconceivable magnitude. That level of deceit is completely inexcusable.

That said, a person who does that is not a burden. One carries a burden. Once found out, a person like that is a memory.


one of the symptoms of depression (as an example of a mental health problem) is unwillingness to talk about it. Lord J was depressed and it was months before he told me. When you feel shiat 24/7 about everything about yourself, you don't imagine that your stupid feelings are worth talking about, and a depressed person is also afraid how other people will respond. It doesnt make you a terrible person or an asshole. Have some compassion.
2014-01-15 10:49:55 AM
3 votes:

Slartibartfaster: Wait, I missed that bit on the contract I signed, Can you point out this clause ?


What exactly do you think marriage is?  Just like any contract you sign, I highly suggest you NOT get married until you read what is on that contract.  Just as any other contract, saying "I missed that bit" doesn't hold up in court.  No one is forcing you to sign the contract, no one is forcing you to get married.

The Muthaship: Oh yeah.  Those things are bulletproof!


If you don't want to split your assets should you end up splitting up with your partner and you don't trust pre-nups, then don't get married.
2014-01-15 10:41:50 AM
3 votes:

Mentalpatient87: pkellmey: Consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Just admit it, you want to watch people suffer. You're a sadist without a whip. A hastily built facade of Morality only serves to make you look like a sociopath AND a busybody.


This. Why should people that decided they can't stand to be together have to listen to some useless fellow in a poncy wig telling them they should, because *reasons*
2014-01-15 10:32:18 AM
3 votes:
Just don't get married. It's an antiquated ritual anyway.
2014-01-15 10:30:16 AM
3 votes:
If I were still married to my ex, I would have killed myself by now.

I thank my lucky stars every day for quick and easy divorce.
2014-01-15 10:13:22 AM
3 votes:
When one person totally sabotages the relationship and contributes way less than the other person, why should there be no difference in equity at the separation?
2014-01-15 01:34:03 PM
2 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: I refer to them as marriages because they were marriages. You making a distinction with no real difference.

You don't see the difference between the word marriage and relationship.  Meanwhile I'm arguing the word marriage is being devalued.  Thank you for making my point much more effectively than I think I ever could.


If my divorce "devalues" the word marriage for you then the problem is yours not mine.
2014-01-15 01:33:26 PM
2 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: I refer to them as marriages because they were marriages. You making a distinction with no real difference.

You don't see the difference between the word marriage and relationship.  Meanwhile I'm arguing the word marriage is being devalued.  Thank you for making my point much more effectively than I think I ever could.


How is it being devalued? You haven't made any coherent argument as to why divorce "devalues" marriage.
2014-01-15 12:44:12 PM
2 votes:
We must defend the sanctity of marriage by forcing unhappy people to remain together past their breaking points. This action will have no ill consequence.
2014-01-15 12:08:12 PM
2 votes:

mister aj: The ten years I speak of wasn't ten years of dating; if only. Ten years of marriage. I stuck around for the sake of young children, and for the sake of not losing half of my hard-earned wealth. After ten years of disrespect and piling on the pounds though, I just couldn't take it any more. Fortunately, Russian women have less hang-ups about sex and more respect for their body and their partner.


Yeah, still blanket statementing, dude.  10 years with 1 woman isn't the same as knowing all the women in a single nation, and you may have just gotten lucky with your current wife.  Getting married for citizenship isn't a new thing.

Less hangups about sex? The fark have you been going to meet women? I know plenty personally who have no problems with one night stands, kink, threesomes, etc, but who are also decent people who, when they find a good match, stick with that person.

You seem far more concerned with saving your money.  People who stay together "for the kids" end up doing more harm to those kids.  If you are suffering 10 years of unhappiness, and your kids see you and your wife going through it, who's teaching these kids what a real relationship looks like? They are learning by watching you.

/you should have quit after your Boobies, and just let us all think you were only being a troll.  That'd have ended better for you.
2014-01-15 12:06:53 PM
2 votes:

Laobaojun: miss diminutive: GBB: My current wife was iffy about the whole situation until I asked her, "If, after you and I are together for 11 years, you decide that you want to move on, would you want me to get upset and all possessive with you and do spiteful things toward you, or would you want me to accept it and deal with it like an adult?"

This sounds like my parents. Together for 24 years and just grew apart. They're still friends and my dad stops by to fix things at my mom's place because he's handy like that. Neither of them speak ill of the other and they just live their own lives.

Ah!  The real traditional approach.
Seriously, the European and Latin tradition of mistresses has a lot to do with not divorcing even though the passion and romance are out of the marriage.  Wifey has perpetual headache, hubby doesn't, no need for violence or the courts.  Amazing what adults can sort out if they are rational about it.


Yeah it's nice till the mistress gets pregnant so the mistress needs money now to take care of Daddy's little secret.
2014-01-15 12:00:14 PM
2 votes:

MBooda: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Oh, I see. So people should stay together forever? Despite humans changing/growing/coming to opposing ideals?

Depends on the institution under which they were married. Personally I'd say yes except it's insufficient punishment.


"Punishment"? Because they want to end their marriage, they deserve judicial "punishment", even just a reprimand?

// anyone who's ever had to deal with divorce lawyers, that's punishment enough
// brother is currently divorcing his lawyer (soon-to-be-ex) wife, and both she and her lawyer seem to think this entitles her to everything she wants (to say nothing of their collective, and my brother's individually, negative net worth)
// judge awarded my brother the custody he asked for, essentially agreeing with him that she doesn't quite have the capacity to care for one kid, let alone 3 (under 5 years old, all; thank the gods her parents help)
2014-01-15 11:53:40 AM
2 votes:

mister aj: urbangirl: mister aj: This is only a problem if you marry American women. Entitled, biatchy, withhold sex and pork up once they're 'securely' married. My current wife grew up in Russia, where it seems they don't raise little girls to be whores.


1.5/10

Too obvious.  I think it was the "whore" part that sent it over the top.

Actually real, I speak from experience. 10 miserable years before I found out that better women can be found outside of the country.


You sound like a pretty weak individual that can't handle adversity. Your current wife married you in exchange for getting out of her country, that sounds like whoring to me.
2014-01-15 11:51:35 AM
2 votes:

MBooda: if you got married, you engaged in a spiritual ritual.


This is true of none of the last 3 weddings I've been to.
2014-01-15 11:17:26 AM
2 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: I do not want the 'State' involved in any facet of my life. Period.


Then since you will never get married, what happens during divorce is a non issue for you.
2014-01-15 10:34:32 AM
2 votes:
Never mind his divorce rant his anti feminist "the women are out to get us" rant is even better.

/and when I say better I mean equally nonsensical
//accidentially read the article
///sorry
2014-01-15 10:26:06 AM
2 votes:

pkellmey: Consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing.


Just admit it, you want to watch people suffer. You're a sadist without a whip. A hastily built facade of Morality only serves to make you look like a sociopath AND a busybody.
2014-01-15 10:20:49 AM
2 votes:

pheelix: Theaetetus: Ironic, considering that their state religion was founded on the concept of divorce.

Henry VIII introduced the concept of the disposable wife.  Divorce was merely one of many options he made available to him.  It's good to be king.


No, not really.  Plenty of English kings executed/divorced wives they didn't like in history.  Henry 8 was different in that he was married to a woman he couldn't kill without starting a war, and whose family had too many friends in the Vatican to divorce.  Then he married a woman he could behead, being an English noble, and then he did.
2014-01-15 10:19:16 AM
2 votes:
Consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing.
2014-01-15 10:14:52 AM
2 votes:

The Muthaship: When one person totally sabotages the relationship and contributes way less than the other person, why should there be no difference in equity at the separation?


Because you signed the contract stating such.
2014-01-15 10:13:02 AM
2 votes:
Easy: Divorce tax.  The State gets half.
2014-01-15 10:11:35 AM
2 votes:
Christ.  They're like Republicans, but whinier.
2014-01-15 10:03:43 AM
2 votes:
Dear Tories.

Kindly fark off and die in a fire.
2014-01-16 12:41:07 AM
1 votes:
Time to face the facts: the occupation of judge attracts as many judgmental people as you'd think it would. Most of them should probably be removed from the bench just as soon as the sticks up their asses can be unscrewed from it.
2014-01-15 03:45:34 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: Well, if it does work out forever (as is the hope for most people I assume) then there are plenty of legal benefits that married couples enjoy.

I'm all for non-married couples being allowed to enjoy those benefits a la carte.

jst3p: For you that is great. If Brittany Spears gets married then divorced in the same weekend how has that affected you at all?

It devalues the word marriage.  If people pick and choose what marriage means, then it means nothing.  Right now, when my wife is in the hospital and I show up and say "I'm her husband" the doctor knows that means I have made a legal obligation to care for her in many ways including financially for the rest of my life.  Because of that, the doctor will share her information with me and allow me to make medical decisions for her.  If marriage becomes meaningless, then those societal "perks" will begin to erode.

I don't care what you do or what you want to do.  Here, I am arguing words have meaning, the word marriage has a meaning and if you too would like to utilize that word to describe yourself, then you need to follow the minimum requirements of that meaning.  By all means, if you don't like it, do as you please but you don't get to change the meaning of words.


Marriage has a meaning. Look up your local statutes and/or case history.

And divorce is part of that.

And divorce doesn't necessarily remove those onligations you speak of. Even if a person gets divorced who financially supported their spouse, they will continue to support the spouse through alimony.
2014-01-15 03:33:25 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: jcb274: jst3p: lennavan: Marriage is an equal sharing of everything in the relationship.  If that's not you, then don't get married.

It seems to many people marriage is a promise "as long as things are still good, we'll split things equally and stick together."  What an earth shattering promise.  That's called "having a girlfriend."  Marriage is a promise "if shiat hits the fan, we'll still work it out."

Maybe marriage means different things to different people and you should let them decide for themselves what they want it to be. So long as the two people who are getting married have similar expectations it's all good, right?

This sounds fine in principle.  But what, exactly, is the difference between dating and marriage if they are both such loose commitments?

Well, if it does work out forever (as is the hope for most people I assume) then there are plenty of legal benefits that married couples enjoy. And it isn't a "loose" commitment. Divorce is "easy", but it often isn't simple. The idea that two people should stay together even if both are unhappy is an unhealthy one in my opinion.


As a child whose parents stayed togetherfor years "for the kids" I can support that statement.

Do you think it is good for a kid to wake up at 3 am only to listen to his mother crying on a regular basis? I know the damage it did to my parents, and my mother never recovered. And there was no abuse in the relationship, no questions in the divorce, and they got along well after (though have had little contact as the kids grew up).

I have nothing but contempt for people that want to force me through that for years longer.

As for comparing it to an informal relationship, it may have the same requirements to end, but a divorce is never simple and I don't know anyone who took it as an easy decision.
2014-01-15 03:09:28 PM
1 votes:

alice_600: adults should know what marriage means and what's beyond the wedding day


Adults should also know marriage and wedding are two completely different words with two completely different meanings and that it's fully possible to have a marriage without a wedding.
2014-01-15 03:09:26 PM
1 votes:
Meh - my wife and I will be getting divorced because it makes the taxman happier and it will limit our debt liability.

Legal marriage is signing a piece of paper.
Legal divorce is signing a different piece of paper.

Don't confuse either for love or a good relationship.
2014-01-15 02:13:28 PM
1 votes:

MBooda: thurstonxhowell: MBooda: if you got married, you engaged in a spiritual ritual.

This is true of none of the last 3 weddings I've been to.

So you attended them for purely legal/economic reasons?


Marriages serve a social purpose even when you strip religion away. I attended them for social reasons.
2014-01-15 01:42:13 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: The My Little Pony Killer: /and quit trying to tell us how anybody else should live their lives
 

I imagine there are a number of people in the country who would have appreciated a good kick in the pants and a "think twice" when they were thinking about getting married to the crazy biatch they did.  See for instance, this thread.


Can't help but notice that it's automatically the woman's fault in your example. You sound bitter in your marriage, but it's a good thing laws have loopholes and divorce is an option.

/you really, REALLY need to take care of your own house before taking offense at what others do in their own
//seriously
2014-01-15 01:38:00 PM
1 votes:
Somebody sounds really bitter, and it's not the people arguing for divorce.

/just sayin'
2014-01-15 01:36:08 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: The minimum requirements are going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper signed. I did that. Twice. I met your standard.

Was it just any random blank piece of paper?  Or perhaps are you being dishonest in your summary here?

jst3p: While I was married I was no less her husband than you are to your wife.

I'm not saying you were.

jst3p: Divorce doesn't make marriage meaningless.

A pretty decent definition of the word divorce would be "to render a marriage null/void/meaningless."  So uh, yeah it does.  Divorce doesn't make the relationship meaningless.


Somebody else getting divorced doesn't magically make your marriage null/void/meaningless. Stop trying to convince us that it does or that this is somehow a slippery slope we've only just found ourselves on.
2014-01-15 01:34:33 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: Gothnet: Sometimes people drift apart regardless of best intentions

It's really farking sad that you think marriage is about intentions rather than effort or actions.  Sorry, I totally intended to give a shiat about you, it just didn't happen.  Oh well.

Gothnet: forcing them to stay together

You dipshiat, I'm not for less people getting divorced, I'm for less people getting married.


Then don't get married to so many people, you dipshiat.

/and quit trying to tell us how anybody else should live their lives
2014-01-15 01:26:35 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: jst3p: My divorce doesn't even make my marriage meaningless. Like I said, I learned a lot that changed who I am today because of those marriage and divorces

You are conflating the word "marriage" with "relationship" again. You should stop.

I have marriage certificates and the marriages are a matter of public record. They were marriages.

And yet it was the relationship bit and the children that made you who you are today.  Not the fact that you were married.  Your ex didn't get pregnant when you signed the piece of paper.


I refer to them as marriages because they were marriages. You making a distinction with no real difference.
2014-01-15 01:22:21 PM
1 votes:

jcb274: Satan's Bunny Slippers: jcb274:
So a happy relationship that people entered into after a mature, mutual understanding of each other that serves as the foundation for a happy life is now as unlikely as "strawberry flavored unicorn piss?"  That illustrates my point exactly.  By and large, marriage has become a joke to the point where I get crap for suggesting that it shouldn't be a joke.

Further, I realize I'm commenting against the grain of "those crazy Tories," but I never said I supported the MP in the article.  Shaming people who get divorces is not a remedy for what I perceive as a lack of commitment when a couple is getting married.

No.  Who are you to say what constitutes an acceptable degree of "mature, mutual understanding"?

You are the one who says marriage has become a joke.  I am divorced. So then, how dare you devalue me and my decisions to marry? By what delineation am I a failure to you?

Show your work.

I don't know anything about you or your marriage.  So it's pretty presumptuous to accuse me of calling you a failure.  But, if you feel that, in hindsight, you didn't know your partner well enough to marry them, then by your own definition, you did not have that "mature, mutual understanding" that you should have had before you got married.   It's okay to admit that you regret one decision and wish you had made another, if that's the case.  It's also okay to want people to be as prepared as possible before making a decision that they may regret.  A lot of people are wholly unprepared to make that decision, and a lot of people are hurt because they, by their own definition, made the "wrong" one.  Is it wrong to want peopleto make decisions that lead to them being happy?


I'm glad you're so all knowing of what a marriage should be.  You are presumptuous in that you seem to think that you know what's best for all people considering marriage. Pompous, even.  And your seeming to think that people make conscious decisions that will eventually make them unhappy is even moreso.  You seem to be as uneducated about the human condition as anyone I know.

I was not young, unprepared or stupid when I married.  Why you think I would regret anything is funny.

Good luck to you, sir/madam.  I hope that no one ever judges and publicly shames you for your choices.
2014-01-15 01:20:12 PM
1 votes:

Dr Dreidel: Also, none of that has any bearing on why it should be OK - or mandatory - for a judge to reprimand people for daring to dissolve their union.


Seems to be just another example of conservatives of one stripe or another harkening back to a golden age that never existed. Whether it was through mistresses, milkmen, or any number of other ways and means, people have always managed to find a way to get the attention they desire if they're not getting it in their marriage. No fault divorce just made it easy to not have to stay in the miserable marriage in the first place.

But, it's not the actual marriages themselves that is concerning to these people. It's the appearance that matters. Making it more difficult to get divorced is probably likely to reduce the number of divorces simply due to some people not wanting to get slapped with a "reprimand" if they do so. That's the aim, even if it means those people have to stay in loveless marriages to make it happen.
2014-01-15 01:09:58 PM
1 votes:

alice_600: The classes are taught by a social worker who who works for "Lutheran Child and Family services," Someone comes to the church and teach how to make a lasting marriage. How to stay faithful to each other, solve disputes and argue fair.


Even though I've never tried to get married, church or not, I managed to learn some of those things on my own. It took several years of dating and cohabitation, but I learned. (And I've heard of such things before - they range from "here's what the Bible says about marriage: 'Be faithful; god's watching.' Now have fun, you crazy kids!" to "Leading relationship experts have the following 64,872 tips on how to nurture a successful, long-term relationship...")

Also, none of that has any bearing on why it should be OK - or mandatory - for a judge to reprimand people for daring to dissolve their union.
2014-01-15 01:08:34 PM
1 votes:

Satan's Bunny Slippers: People get married and divorced.  Sometimes for reasons others don't agree with/approve of.  So farking what?  Since when is peer approval of a marriage or divorce required?

Whole lotta judgmental nellies ITT who think that whatever THEY believe is what the rest of the population should do.

Fark that.


THIS.
2014-01-15 01:07:51 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: A pretty decent definition of the word divorce would be "to render a marriage null/void/meaningless." So uh, yeah it does. Divorce doesn't make the relationship meaningless.


Meh. Marriage is a scoail construct and means what we want it to mean.

I'm sorry you're upset that we're moving to a time when it means what the two people in the marriage say it means instead of what's imposed on them by society,
2014-01-15 12:48:53 PM
1 votes:

MBooda: Satan's Bunny Slippers: MBooda:

So you don't care whether your marriage/divorce is enforced by the religious institution that controls it (and, except for some fundamentalist sects, lacks any economical or physical enforcement power), or by the state?

Well, since I never got married by a "religious institution", and don't subscribe to religion, yeah, I'm ok with the state.  I was married at the courthouse.

Oh man, you used the people's public courthouse to carry out your ritual?  I bet you put up a Festivus pole there too.

You can say you don't subscribe to religion, but if you got married, you engaged in a spiritual ritual. Unless it was conducted by your lawyer or accountant in his office. (A cow-orker of mine actually did this.)

You seem very argumentative.  I assure you I wasn't leading it that way.  I was merely interested in the background of your "not far enough" comment, which to me seemed to say "we need to shame all the divorcers!  SHAME THEM PUBLICLY AND FOREVER!"

And that just seems silly to me.

Nope, I just think that people who engage in a spiritual ritual like marriage should stick to their dogmas.  And not use my tax money to make or clean up their messes.


Marriage has nothing to do with religion unless you choose to have a religious marriage.

Marriage has been a civil contract longer than a religious custom. Sure, religion has influenced it over the centuries, but that is the same as every other aspect of society.

In all jurisdictions I am aware off, a religious ceremony is meaningless unless you file a signed marriage certificate with the sate. In this aspect, the priest (or other official presiding) is effectively a special notary.
2014-01-15 12:42:12 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: jst3p: lennavan: If my kid turned out to be a psychotic violent douchebag, or we "grew apart" or I no longer wanted to financially support my kid, I imagine you'd all think I was an asshole parent because I should love my kid no matter what.  That's what marriage is.

Not the same. You and another adult choose to be together. The child didn't choose to be born thus your obligation to support the child is stronger than your obligation to stay in a marriage.

I would think if you chose to be with someone, that would be a stronger obligation than if you did not choose to be with them.  Not that I disagree with your conclusion, I just think the reason is awkward.  Either way, after your kid turns 18, if you "grow apart" from your kid, I still think you're a shiatty parent.

I'm not against divorce, I just think marriage shouldn't be taken so lightly.  I think everyone who files for a no-fault divorce is basically admitting they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.


I wonder what the statistics on "no-fault" divorces are, for people who file that way because neither wants to publicly shame the ex, particularly when there are children caught in the mix?
2014-01-15 12:41:12 PM
1 votes:
People get married and divorced.  Sometimes for reasons others don't agree with/approve of.  So farking what?  Since when is peer approval of a marriage or divorce required?

Whole lotta judgmental nellies ITT who think that whatever THEY believe is what the rest of the population should do.

Fark that.
2014-01-15 12:40:35 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: I'm not against divorce, I just think marriage shouldn't be taken so lightly.  I think everyone who files for a no-fault divorce is basically admitting they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.


For you that is great. If Brittany Spears gets married then divorced in the same weekend how has that affected you at all? It is interesting how many people feel entitled to tell others how they should treat marriage.
2014-01-15 12:39:01 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: jcb274: jst3p: lennavan: If my kid turned out to be a psychotic violent douchebag, or we "grew apart" or I no longer wanted to financially support my kid, I imagine you'd all think I was an asshole parent because I should love my kid no matter what.  That's what marriage is.

Not the same. You and another adult choose to be together. The child didn't choose to be born thus your obligation to support the child is stronger than your obligation to stay in a marriage.

That's the point.  "Choosing" to be together unless things get sticky is dating.   Marriage is a commitment to stay together, to become family.

No matter what? What if my wife drowns my kid in the bathtub?


Sure. Ok. You can have your bathtub drowning exception.  Can we discuss the real prevalent issue: that people who don't know each other get married and divorced because marriage is not a commitment to them?
2014-01-15 12:37:50 PM
1 votes:

jcb274: jst3p: lennavan: Marriage is an equal sharing of everything in the relationship.  If that's not you, then don't get married.

It seems to many people marriage is a promise "as long as things are still good, we'll split things equally and stick together."  What an earth shattering promise.  That's called "having a girlfriend."  Marriage is a promise "if shiat hits the fan, we'll still work it out."

Maybe marriage means different things to different people and you should let them decide for themselves what they want it to be. So long as the two people who are getting married have similar expectations it's all good, right?

This sounds fine in principle.  But what, exactly, is the difference between dating and marriage if they are both such loose commitments?


Well, if it does work out forever (as is the hope for most people I assume) then there are plenty of legal benefits that married couples enjoy. And it isn't a "loose" commitment. Divorce is "easy", but it often isn't simple. The idea that two people should stay together even if both are unhappy is an unhealthy one in my opinion.
2014-01-15 12:29:56 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: If my kid turned out to be a psychotic violent douchebag, or we "grew apart" or I no longer wanted to financially support my kid, I imagine you'd all think I was an asshole parent because I should love my kid no matter what.  That's what marriage is.


Not the same. You and another adult choose to be together. The child didn't choose to be born thus your obligation to support the child is stronger than your obligation to stay in a marriage.
2014-01-15 12:18:52 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: alice_600: Laobaojun: miss diminutive: GBB: My current wife was iffy about the whole situation until I asked her, "If, after you and I are together for 11 years, you decide that you want to move on, would you want me to get upset and all possessive with you and do spiteful things toward you, or would you want me to accept it and deal with it like an adult?"

This sounds like my parents. Together for 24 years and just grew apart. They're still friends and my dad stops by to fix things at my mom's place because he's handy like that. Neither of them speak ill of the other and they just live their own lives.

Ah!  The real traditional approach.
Seriously, the European and Latin tradition of mistresses has a lot to do with not divorcing even though the passion and romance are out of the marriage.  Wifey has perpetual headache, hubby doesn't, no need for violence or the courts.  Amazing what adults can sort out if they are rational about it.

Yeah it's nice till the mistress gets pregnant so the mistress needs money now to take care of Daddy's little secret.

Falling down the stairs is free.


Not the defence lawyer though.
2014-01-15 12:18:28 PM
1 votes:

mister aj: jst3p: vicioushobbit: mister aj: The ten years I speak of wasn't ten years of dating; if only. Ten years of marriage. I stuck around for the sake of young children, and for the sake of not losing half of my hard-earned wealth. After ten years of disrespect and piling on the pounds though, I just couldn't take it any more. Fortunately, Russian women have less hang-ups about sex and more respect for their body and their partner.

Yeah, still blanket statementing, dude.  10 years with 1 woman isn't the same as knowing all the women in a single nation, and you may have just gotten lucky with your current wife.  Getting married for citizenship isn't a new thing.

Less hangups about sex? The fark have you been going to meet women? I know plenty personally who have no problems with one night stands, kink, threesomes, etc, but who are also decent people who, when they find a good match, stick with that person.

You seem far more concerned with saving your money.  People who stay together "for the kids" end up doing more harm to those kids.  If you are suffering 10 years of unhappiness, and your kids see you and your wife going through it, who's teaching these kids what a real relationship looks like? They are learning by watching you.

/you should have quit after your Boobies, and just let us all think you were only being a troll.  That'd have ended better for you.

That's OK, after getting beat up here he can go home to his mail order bride and she can tell him what a smart man he really is.

Why talk when we can skip straight to sex? And, amazingly, sex without anybody insisting that the lights are off, or that I do the housework first, or any number of manipulative episodes of bullshiat.


Good for you if it works for you, I am just saying some of us have good relationships without having to buy them on the internet. I am not dissing you for being happy but your maligning an entire culture of women then use of the easy button says way more about you than it does American women.

And don't get me wrong, I am divorced (twice) so I know how it feels to make a crappy decision. I think the difference between me and you is that I focused on what led me to make the mistakes I made and adjust as I go along. I took ownership for my mistakes. You decided that it couldn't be you, it must be ALL American women, so fark it just buy one.

Good luck.
2014-01-15 12:15:29 PM
1 votes:

mister aj: jst3p: vicioushobbit: mister aj: The ten years I speak of wasn't ten years of dating; if only. Ten years of marriage. I stuck around for the sake of young children, and for the sake of not losing half of my hard-earned wealth. After ten years of disrespect and piling on the pounds though, I just couldn't take it any more. Fortunately, Russian women have less hang-ups about sex and more respect for their body and their partner.

Yeah, still blanket statementing, dude.  10 years with 1 woman isn't the same as knowing all the women in a single nation, and you may have just gotten lucky with your current wife.  Getting married for citizenship isn't a new thing.

Less hangups about sex? The fark have you been going to meet women? I know plenty personally who have no problems with one night stands, kink, threesomes, etc, but who are also decent people who, when they find a good match, stick with that person.

You seem far more concerned with saving your money.  People who stay together "for the kids" end up doing more harm to those kids.  If you are suffering 10 years of unhappiness, and your kids see you and your wife going through it, who's teaching these kids what a real relationship looks like? They are learning by watching you.

/you should have quit after your Boobies, and just let us all think you were only being a troll.  That'd have ended better for you.

That's OK, after getting beat up here he can go home to his mail order bride and she can tell him what a smart man he really is.

Why talk when we can skip straight to sex? And, amazingly, sex without anybody insisting that the lights are off, or that I do the housework first, or any number of manipulative episodes of bullshiat.


Aaaaand the reason you had to get a mail-order bride is clear.
Such a keeper.  Grats to your wife for landing you.
2014-01-15 12:10:35 PM
1 votes:
Yeah because we *really* need to force people who hate each other to stay married. That never used to result in domesatic violence, lives full of misery or anything bad at all.

Go fark yourself politician.
2014-01-15 12:04:01 PM
1 votes:

Dirkax2: "Speaking during a Westminster Hall debate, Gerald Howarth told fellow MPs that they were entitled to be "judgemental" about the public because the public were always judging politicians."

Does anybody else find this extremely childish?


That someone who put himself forward to be judged by the people would biatch that people would judge him and result it people judging him more?

I am torn between finding it to be retarded and funny.
2014-01-15 11:50:45 AM
1 votes:

pkellmey: Fano: Mentalpatient87: pkellmey: Consequences aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Just admit it, you want to watch people suffer. You're a sadist without a whip. A hastily built facade of Morality only serves to make you look like a sociopath AND a busybody.

This. Why should people that decided they can't stand to be together have to listen to some useless fellow in a poncy wig telling them they should, because *reasons*

It's not like they signed a legal contract or anything... Wait. Yes they did. If you don't like signing papers that bind you to anything, marriage is not your first option.


So when people dissolve a business or end any number of legal activities they need to hear a lecture?
2014-01-15 11:49:49 AM
1 votes:
Pretty sure the people of the UK (i.e. the sovereigns of the country) hired you to do a job mister MP. They have a right to be critical and judgmental about how well you do it. It is bad form for a public servant to criticize his masters.
2014-01-15 11:43:25 AM
1 votes:

mister aj: This is only a problem if you marry American women. Entitled, biatchy, withhold sex and pork up once they're 'securely' married. My current wife grew up in Russia, where it seems they don't raise little girls to be whores.


I've seen films that would appear to contradict your contention...
2014-01-15 11:37:38 AM
1 votes:

urbangirl: So the woman you "loved" enough to marry is suddenly a "burden" when you discover she has mental health issues.  I really really hope you didn't mean that to sound the way it does.  Because if you did,  you are a HUGE a#$hole.


lennavan: I like to date girls long enough to know whether or not they are on psychiatric medicine to suppress their delusions, pathological lies and brutal violence before I ask them to marry me.  Seems like a smart idea.


See, she wasn't the same person off her meds. No one disclosed that there were happy pills I was supposed to force her to take until after the restraining order and the 72 hour psychiatric hold. Oh, and once you've called the sheriff's deputies out to deal with a psych patient off her meds she's never going to like you again.

And I look back at it now and realize the signs. My "evil monster of a mother-inlaw" was mostly nice, hadn't meant to raise the craze, and my image of her had been distorted by her portrayal by my crazy redhead. She had imaginary country kin built from family VHS tapes she had found somewhere, and if she needed a tale she'd attribute something to them.

Now, for the "gods must be crazy" factor. After all that drama I moved to Tyler, Tx, to go to school and get away from everything. I ran into a taller, pudgier clone of her. Then I ran into a middle aged clone. Then I saw this cute blonde in the grocery store one day I realized was a half scandinavian version of her. I thought I was going mad. And then it was all settled one day when I saw five of them at once on a dune buggy half way between Tyler and Kilgore. There's a whole clan of her kin right there, possibly a bit inbred. After I graduated I thought about hiring a detective to inform her about her kin in Smith county, but I figured they hadn't done anything wrong to me so I shouldn't subject them to her.
2014-01-15 11:36:33 AM
1 votes:
The rise of feminist thought is scary and we should judge people even though we don't know what is going on in their lives? Wow.
2014-01-15 11:35:42 AM
1 votes:
"Speaking during a Westminster Hall debate, Gerald Howarth told fellow MPs that they were entitled to be "judgemental" about the public because the public were always judging politicians."

Does anybody else find this extremely childish?
2014-01-15 11:23:46 AM
1 votes:

mister aj: This is only a problem if you marry American women. Entitled, biatchy, withhold sex and pork up once they're 'securely' married. My current wife grew up in Russia, where it seems they don't raise little girls to be whores.



1.5/10

Too obvious.  I think it was the "whore" part that sent it over the top.
2014-01-15 11:14:55 AM
1 votes:

GORDON: He loved the fact that she wasn't crazy, and it turned out she was crazy and there was a concerted effort to lie to him.


Alternatively, he did not do his due diligence to find out what should have been obvious.
2014-01-15 11:10:05 AM
1 votes:
Sooo this is another "It shouldn't be easy because it makes me feel all icky inside" type law? I'm surprised they don't have one outlawing girls because the have cooties. It fits with their first-grader mentality.
2014-01-15 11:01:26 AM
1 votes:

urbangirl: wildcardjack: I should have sued my mother-inlaw for failing to disclose that my (now ex) wife required psychiatric medicine and had been institutionalized in her teens.

So, get married, no meds, suddenly she's MY burden! fark that shiat, I ditched that crazy redhead. And I do mean craaazy. Delusional, pathological liar that got brutally violent when you picked at her lies.

She'd be great on Fox News.

So the woman you "loved" enough to marry is suddenly a "burden" when you discover she has mental health issues.  I really really hope you didn't mean that to sound the way it does.  Because if you did,  you are a HUGE a#$hole.


The way it's written is like the guy paid a dowry for her then wanted a refund when he was sold bad goods.
2014-01-15 11:01:14 AM
1 votes:

urbangirl: So the woman you "loved" enough to marry is suddenly a "burden" when you discover she has mental health issues. I really really hope you didn't mean that to sound the way it does. Because if you did, you are a HUGE a#$hole.


If you don't disclose your mental health issues to a long-term partner, you're a terrible person. If you don't disclose them until after the wedding, you are an asshole of almost inconceivable magnitude. That level of deceit is completely inexcusable.

That said, a person who does that is not a burden. One carries a burden. Once found out, a person like that is a memory.
2014-01-15 10:54:03 AM
1 votes:

vudukungfu: How about requiring them to sign a legitimate contract that is legally binding and can be dissolved if one party reneges on their part?
Then all the other voo doo mumbo jumbo they do can be moot, which it is.


This.


Nebulous defined contracts whose terms are decided during dissolution is a farked up way to do marriage.

Stop state sponsored marriages. Let the state do what they do and enforce defined contracts. If you want a state licensed marriage, sign a contract with terms. This would solve so many of the issues in family courts.
GBB
2014-01-15 10:53:47 AM
1 votes:
Had a nice no-fault divorce several years ago.  We're still friends.  Even invited her to my wedding last year.  No one seems to understand the concept that it's possible for 2 people to drift apart and not get all homicidal about it.

My current wife was iffy about the whole situation until I asked her, "If, after you and I are together for 11 years, you decide that you want to move on, would you want me to get upset and all possessive with you and do spiteful things toward you, or would you want me to accept it and deal with it like an adult?"
2014-01-15 10:44:20 AM
1 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: DubyaHater: Just don't get married. It's an antiquated ritual anyway.

It's a contract that the state recognizes giving the two partners special status towards each others medical treatment, inheritance, property, and any children they have together. In the United States it also gives them welfare in the form of tax breaks.


As long as you stay married. And 50% of marriages end in divorce. What advantages have you gained at that point?
2014-01-15 10:39:40 AM
1 votes:
Shame can be good when someone's done a bad thing. But divorce? Are we gonna start covering our women too? Maybe a little pillory in the public square?
2014-01-15 10:35:15 AM
1 votes:

DubyaHater: Just don't get married. It's an antiquated ritual anyway.


It's a contract that the state recognizes giving the two partners special status towards each others medical treatment, inheritance, property, and any children they have together. In the United States it also gives them welfare in the form of tax breaks.
2014-01-15 10:33:23 AM
1 votes:

GORDON: Easy: Divorce tax.  The State gets half.


Why do you hate men? I mean if the State gets half, and the biatch gets half, why in the hell would a man ever get married?
2014-01-15 10:27:53 AM
1 votes:
I gave my former wife a choice.  A) I file on grounds of adultery, force her and the dude she farked to appear in court,  and seek spousal support (she was an officer in the Navy and was making bank with BAH/BAS). B) I file on grounds of irreconcilable differences, and she signs the separation agreement stating that I get both the dogs, and am absolved of her credit card  and student loan debt.

She chose wisely for once in her life.

She later dragged that moron to California with her, married him in vegas, got deployed to Afghanistan six months later, and subsequently cheated on him during the year she was over there, and now she is getting divorced again.

/CSB
/whore
2014-01-15 10:25:16 AM
1 votes:
I should have sued my mother-inlaw for failing to disclose that my (now ex) wife required psychiatric medicine and had been institutionalized in her teens.

So, get married, no meds, suddenly she's MY burden! fark that shiat, I ditched that crazy redhead. And I do mean craaazy. Delusional, pathological liar that got brutally violent when you picked at her lies.

She'd be great on Fox News.
2014-01-15 10:25:12 AM
1 votes:

vudukungfu: How about requiring them to sign a legitimate contract that is legally binding and can be dissolved if one party reneges on their part?
Then all the other voo doo mumbo jumbo they do can be moot, which it is.


Wouldn't work. In order to dissolve a contract, one party has to prove the other was ... at fault.
2014-01-15 10:24:26 AM
1 votes:

The Muthaship: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Because you signed the contract stating such

That was foolish of me.

Was it negotiable?


Yes, that's what a pre-nup is for.
2014-01-15 10:18:44 AM
1 votes:
Can we please give the Tories and Repubitards their own country - maybe call it "Derptopia" - and just GET FARKING RID OF THEM!

I know the Conservative MPs aren't yet displaying even a shadow of the derpitude their big brothers in the GOP have, but I think they aspire to it. Out with them all! They clearly hate living in civilization anyway.
2014-01-15 10:16:34 AM
1 votes:
"For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about members of parliament."

That's because their lives are affected by the decisions you make, and they're prefer those decisions to not be farking stupid.
2014-01-15 10:14:33 AM
1 votes:

Laobaojun: Makes more sense than the "My actions shouldn't have consequences!  How dare you 'shame' me for being stupid?" crowd.

If you don't like getting shamed, don't be farking stupid.


Your strawman is fat.
2014-01-15 10:12:17 AM
1 votes:
Makes more sense than the "My actions shouldn't have consequences!  How dare you 'shame' me for being stupid?" crowd.

If you don't like getting shamed, don't be farking stupid.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report