Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    02 Oct '11 16:23 / 1 edit
    I half saw something on BBC or CNN earlier about Mexico when I was looking for rugby to watch. So here's the proposal:

    Divorces are often messy. Time consuming. They clog up the courts.

    So, a marriage (in the eyes of the law) automatically times out and the chosen prenuptial agreement (if applicable) kicks in on a certain date. If you want to remain legally married, just send a letter to the tax office/whatever office extending it. It'd free up the courts. Opting in always trumps opting out in the freedom stakes. No?

    Thoughts?
  2. 02 Oct '11 16:26
    I think many people would oppose such a measure on emotional/religious grounds.

    What they should do is make it easier to get divorced. And also limit the amount of alimony people can receive to reasonable amounts.
  3. Standard member yo its me
    watch the acid...
    02 Oct '11 22:12
    I think if marriage isn't intended to be forever then it's lost it's meaning.
    It's not devorce that needs to be easier but staying together! Where generations don't stay in comtact as well as they used to it's become harder to know how to get over the relationship bumps becasue the knowlage isn't passed on.
  4. 03 Oct '11 08:00
    I don't believe in any general rule. Usually marriages result in children - do what is best for them!
  5. 03 Oct '11 10:13
    Originally posted by FMF
    I half saw something on BBC or CNN earlier about Mexico when I was looking for rugby to watch. So here's the proposal:

    Divorces are often messy. Time consuming. They clog up the courts.

    So, a marriage (in the eyes of the law) automatically times out and the chosen prenuptial agreement (if applicable) kicks in on a certain date. If you want to remain legall ...[text shortened]... ree up the courts. Opting in always trumps opting out in the freedom stakes. No?

    Thoughts?
    I can't say I'm a fan of automatically expiring marriages, but I am in favor of other things that expire automatically. For starters, how about politicians? They can only serve one term and simply drop dead, no questions asked. Or how about taxes or even the entier progressive movement. Really, I thihk these things should just go bye bye without me as so much as raising a finger.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Oct '11 12:10
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    How about a range of prenuptial templates?

    I think legal responsibility as a guardian for children would be separate and in parallel to all this - and perhaps unaffected by the expiry date of the marriage?

    Back of an envelope policy making here.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Oct '11 12:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    ...I am in favor of other things that expire automatically. For starters, how about politicians? They can only serve one term and simply drop dead, no questions asked.
    I think this questions would certainly be asked about people's democratic right to choose who they want to represent them. Personally I don't think restricting choice is a good thing.
  8. 03 Oct '11 15:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think this questions would certainly be asked about people's democratic right to choose who they want to represent them. Personally I don't think restricting choice is a good thing.
    Restricting choice is bad? You mean like the choice of being able to stay married without having to fight bureaucracy red tape? In fact, why not give people the choice instead of treating us all like cattle? This would require a departure in thinking for the left. As such it is probably too much to ask.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Oct '11 15:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    Restricting choice is bad?
    Yeah. I mean, the thing we were talking about: I am against term limits.
  10. 03 Oct '11 18:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    I half saw something on BBC or CNN earlier about Mexico when I was looking for rugby to watch. So here's the proposal:

    Divorces are often messy. Time consuming. They clog up the courts.

    So, a marriage (in the eyes of the law) automatically times out and the chosen prenuptial agreement (if applicable) kicks in on a certain date. If you want to remain legall ree up the courts. Opting in always trumps opting out in the freedom stakes. No?

    Thoughts?
    It seems to me the proposal only clears up the issue of whether there are grounds for divorce. Many jurisdiction make it relatively easy to get a divorce so the proposal does not help that much.

    Even under the proposal we still have to split up assets and liabilities. Even just looking at one asset such as a house, there can be numerous arguments. For instance who gets the appreciation/ depreciation, who contributes to paying the morgage, who moves out, should there be a forced sale, what price to sell it at, how long a time period to get the best price. If people can't agree (and if they could, why would the get divorced)it sounds like litigation to me.
  11. 04 Oct '11 20:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Divorces are often messy. Time consuming. They clog up the courts.
    But that is because divorce is painful and both parties often want to hurt the other. Changing the legal side of it probably won't make a whole lot of difference to anyone but the lawyers wallet.

    Of course divorce doesn't need to involve courts that much at all if the two parties can agree on the terms.

    You are proposing agreeing terms prior to marriage when both parties agree with each other. It might work, but I suspect that by the time divorce comes along their views will have changed a lot.
  12. 04 Oct '11 20:35
    Originally posted by yo its me
    I think if marriage isn't intended to be forever then it's lost it's meaning.
    It's not devorce that needs to be easier but staying together! Where generations don't stay in comtact as well as they used to it's become harder to know how to get over the relationship bumps becasue the knowlage isn't passed on.
    I disagree. Many divorces are better for those involved than keeping the marriage going. I disagree that there is any merit in the old system of forcing couples to stick in an unhappy marriage for the rest of their lives. And there is no 'knowledge' to be passed on. The old system was for society to make it so much harder socially to live apart than in an unhappy marriage. How anyone except embarrassed relations and religious nuts can justify such a stance is beyond me.
  13. Standard member yo its me
    watch the acid...
    04 Oct '11 20:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I disagree. Many divorces are better for those involved than keeping the marriage going. I disagree that there is any merit in the old system of forcing couples to stick in an unhappy marriage for the rest of their lives. And there is no 'knowledge' to be passed on. The old system was for society to make it so much harder socially to live apart than in an ...[text shortened]... anyone except embarrassed relations and religious nuts can justify such a stance is beyond me.
    I know it's true. People forget how importanat it is to talk. There's so many ways to switch off and not think about the marriage, let things fester and soon enough a small problem has become all one of the partners can think about. I'm not talking about staying in an unhappy marriage- there can't be anyone in the world who would think that is a good idea. But how many people find they are happier appart and how many wish they'd sorted things out years ago? If couples work at their marriage then it is a good marriage but where the generations don't stay in contact the importance of all that isn't past on and good marriages fall away through lack of just time togeather, time that was spend togeather for their ancestors because they spent time togeather doing stuff that just isn't done these days. Therea re lots of families who eat dinner infrount of the tv and come home from work to play on their playstation instead of telling their partner how their day was naff adn the connection gets lost.
  14. 05 Oct '11 00:53
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yeah. I mean, the thing we were talking about: I am against term limits.
    Robert Byrd should have been tossed out 10 years before he left.. guy couldn't string a sentence together..?
  15. 05 Oct '11 00:54
    No, I'd keep marriage the way it is..... but some people are prone to quitting when there is a slightest sign of trouble...