- #181
Frame Dragger
- 1,507
- 1
DanP said:
Now you asked the right question. I might add my own, which is, "quantify and qualify the effect, BOTH."
No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?
- Context: News
- Thread starter DanP
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Fault
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the implications of no-fault divorce laws and their impact on marriage, particularly in light of a high-profile divorce case. Participants explore the fairness of spousal support, the nature of marriage as a civil contract versus a religious sacrament, and the societal effects of current family laws.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants argue that no-fault divorce laws discourage marriage by allowing one spouse to benefit financially from the other's earnings without accountability.
- Others propose that marriage should be viewed as a civil contract, suggesting that spousal support laws are outdated and contribute to the reluctance to marry.
- There is a contention regarding the purpose of marriage, with some asserting it is a religious sacrament, while others argue it has evolved into a civil union.
- A few participants express skepticism about the necessity of alimony, questioning why one should support an ex-spouse post-divorce.
- Some suggest that the solution could involve making marriage licenses renewable, similar to other types of licenses.
- Participants discuss the importance of understanding the implications of marriage before entering into it, emphasizing the need for clear agreements like prenuptial contracts.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the nature of marriage or the fairness of current divorce laws. Disagreement persists regarding the relevance of religious perspectives in contemporary discussions about marriage.
Contextual Notes
Some arguments rely on assumptions about the nature of marriage and the motivations behind entering into it. The discussion reflects a variety of personal beliefs and societal observations, with no clear resolution on the effectiveness or morality of existing laws.