Make divorce harder...

@wildgrass said
You wrote earlier that eliminating the "financial windfall for women" was the only way to reduce the rate of divorce.

But in the opposite situations where the woman is the breadwinner and therefore more likely to give up some cash, property, pay child support etc., she is MORE likely to be the one filing for divorce.

It can't be the woman's fault in both instances.

I should have more correctly said "it is one way".

@wildgrass said
You made assumptions that divorce makes people safer, that no-fault divorce proceedings lead to less murder, that at-fault divorce could only be granted with hard proof of abuse, that I was somehow afraid of divorces that were granted for no particular reason, and that divorce was required for protection, physically separating two people in a relationship.

Marriage is a ...[text shortened]... bating these facts. It is the conditions upon which those contracts can be voided that is debatable.

"You made assumptions that divorce makes people safer,"
in the case where one is abusive, ofc it does. stay in the same house as your abuser or move out, i wonder which is safer

"that at-fault divorce could only be granted with hard proof of abuse"
you're the one trying to make it harder to divorce someone.


"Marriage is a financial contract signed with the state"
no it's not where do you get that notion. you're not marrying the government you're marrying an individual. an individual that changes over the years. the state is at best an interested party that might offer incentives for married couples

"I don't think it should be voided if one party starts feeling unhappy and blames the person they're currently eating dinner with."
that's exactly why it should be voided. the premise of the contract is no longer fulfilled. one no longer wishes to share a living. one's needs are no longer met.

What freaky cult marriage are you thinking of? Where does it state a marriage is supposed to last until one is dead. Where does it state one can keep the other in a marriage even though only the former's needs are met (and even that would be debatable). What do you want, to effectively keep a human being prisoner?

@spruce112358 said
The state does not enforce the terms of the marriage 'contract.' 😆

No one does - that's the problem. Bad behavior (usually one partner is worse) goes unpunished unless religion or friends and family intervene. [NB. Marriage counselors are by-and-large useless since if they say something the "bad" partner doesn't want to hear, that partner just refuses to attend.]

...[text shortened]... they are right and everyone can make it on their own, marriage becomes something of an anachronism.

you're missing the point. the "punishment" for why a marriage ended is not the issue here. sign a prenup, don't get married, whatever.

the issue here is the ludicrous notion to keep another human being in a vague contract .

@wildgrass said
You made assumptions that divorce makes people safer, that no-fault divorce proceedings lead to less murder, that at-fault divorce could only be granted with hard proof of abuse, that I was somehow afraid of divorces that were granted for no particular reason, and that divorce was required for protection, physically separating two people in a relationship.

Marriage is a ...[text shortened]... bating these facts. It is the conditions upon which those contracts can be voided that is debatable.

yes, you're trying to get a plumber to sign an exclusive contract with you, where he can't work for anyone else but you unless you abuse him (which is a vague notion a judge might or might not agree) or he catches you with another plumber.

@wildgrass said
You made assumptions that divorce makes people safer, that no-fault divorce proceedings lead to less murder, that at-fault divorce could only be granted with hard proof of abuse, that I was somehow afraid of divorces that were granted for no particular reason, and that divorce was required for protection, physically separating two people in a relationship.

Marriage is a ...[text shortened]... bating these facts. It is the conditions upon which those contracts can be voided that is debatable.

humor me please. your spouse comes to you and tells you they want a divorce. How do you imagine the situation develops in the world you imagined (divorce is harder)


i am curious how long until this thought exercise makes you look like a victorian villain

@Zahlanzi said
you're missing the point. the "punishment" for why a marriage ended is not the issue here. sign a prenup, don't get married, whatever.

the issue here is the ludicrous notion to keep another human being in a vague contract .

Yeah, my point from earlier. You just don't like marriage. That's fine, but it seems like you're awfully passionate to nit pick the rules of a game that you don't enjoy playing or watching.

Maybe just bow out.

@Zahlanzi said
"You made assumptions that divorce makes people safer,"
in the case where one is abusive, ofc it does. stay in the same house as your abuser or move out, i wonder which is safer

"that at-fault divorce could only be granted with hard proof of abuse"
you're the one trying to make it harder to divorce someone.


"Marriage is a financial contract signed with the state" ...[text shortened]... et (and even that would be debatable). What do you want, to effectively keep a human being prisoner?

Right, this is why all the false assumptions in a single post are hard to follow. Do you want me to individually address each point in a single post, or should there be multiple posts. Your assumptions are overwhelming.

@Zahlanzi said
yes, you're trying to get a plumber to sign an exclusive contract with you, where he can't work for anyone else but you unless you abuse him (which is a vague notion a judge might or might not agree) or he catches you with another plumber.

Obviously the terms of your "relationship" with a plumber would be different. I don't understand how you obsess on the abuse angle.

In your analogy, no fault voiding of a contract in which only one party just wasn't happy anymore would be silly. Sir, I fixed your toilet.

@Rajk999 said
I should have more correctly said "it is one way".

The intertwining of finances is a huge part of the process. I don't know how you would solve this problem.

@wildgrass said
Now here's a Republican idea I can get behind. Divorce should be harder.

Irreconcilable differences is an oxymoron. It should not be considered a legitimate reason to end a marriage. A 10 year old knows this.

Abandonment, abuse, adultery. OK, those are real things.

https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/02/13/is-oklahoma-considering-a-bill-that-could-make-it-harder-for-some-couples-to-get-divorced/

Yeah, maybe a woman should be able to lease a man for 5 or 10 years, see how he rides, whether he's reliable.

@wildgrass said
Obviously the terms of your "relationship" with a plumber would be different. don't understand how you obsess on the abuse angle.

In your analogy, no fault voiding of a contract in which only one party just wasn't happy anymore would be silly. Sir, I fixed your toilet.

yeah, a set of rules and morals that only apply in a very specific case...

you can't keep someone in an agreement against their wishes but you can if you call it marriage.

"don't understand how you obsess on the abuse angle."
Because it is a very real problem in marriages and it is often hard or impossible to prove? Because you want to get rid of the no-fault divorce effectively trapping a human being or even two in an association they no longer wish to be a part of?
hard to understand?

@wildgrass said
Right, this is why all the false assumptions in a single post are hard to follow. Do you want me to individually address each point in a single post, or should there be multiple posts. Your assumptions are overwhelming.

false?


"Your assumptions are overwhelming."
They aren't that overwhelming once you removed the duplicates you made to have a better list and the strawmen you invented


if it is easier for you, just boil it down to "don't deprive another human being of freedom"

@wildgrass said
Yeah, my point from earlier. You just don't like marriage. That's fine, but it seems like you're awfully passionate to nit pick the rules of a game that you don't enjoy playing or watching.

Maybe just bow out.

i said sign a prenup and don't keep another human in a contract they no longer wish to be a part of and you go straight to "you do not like marriage"

you're right I don't like your idea of marriage. I find it repulsive. It has been obvious for quite some time that what you enjoy most about marriage is not the life sharing part with a person you love but the financial benefits you get from the government and you're scared crapless about losing half your crap.

You must be very proud to be aligned with the most illustrious Steven Crowder and other weaklings who need the government to keep their wives from leaving them

@ManDelaMaza said
People don't get married anymore. The courts favour the women.
And they wonder why birth rates are low among whites.

Also, crap is too expensive.

Anyone getting married in today's world is a fool.

Anyone worrying about the white birth rate is a fool.

@Suzianne said
Anyone worrying about the white birth rate is a fool.

Caucasians are less than 8 percent of the global population.
Are you some kind of race traitor?

Or maybe white guys don't look at you anymore?
Or maybe they never did? 🤭