Should no-fault divorce be legally allowed?

The arguments in favor of it don't seem to justify the harm it's done to society.

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-more-likely-than-men-to-initiate-divorces-but-not-breakups-study-finds_us_55d61f03e4b0ab468da049bb
live.washingtonpost.com/onlove-pitfalls-of-cohabitation.html
npr.org/2016/09/04/487825901/no-you-re-not-in-a-common-law-marriage-after-7-years-of-dating
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yeah, no need to keep people trapped in an unhappy relationship if they both want out.

Yes. I mean if they are getting divorced there is always something at fault.

>Should no-fault divorce be legally allowed?
No.

Marriage is supposed to be once and for life.

The only reasons for divorce should be 1) One spouse cheating on the other or 2) One spouse abusing the other.

If you're concerned about getting into a relationship that you'll be stuck in, don't get married to that person until you're certain.

It wouldn't matter. If it were illegal people would just create a "fault" that would grant them their divorce.

Since marriage and divorce has a whole lot of legal consequences, it really should be treated as a contract. The person that wants out of the contract should be able to demonstrate that the other partner hasn't hold up their end of the agreement, otherwise the one initiating the divorce should be seen as at fault for breaching it. Don't enter marriages lightly and don't break them lightly.

Absolutely not. Sex should be illegal outside of marriage and marriage should be indissoluble aside from excessive physical violence or cheating.

>this fixes everything

girls are hot though

The chick in the middle makes me think there's no way in hell men should be monogamous

I've been living with my sister for the last 7 years and in my state living with someone for 3 years or more means you're legally married so I'm in THE weirdest predicament right now.

Divorce should be allowed for any reason. However, alimony and child support should be completely eliminated.

After all, we live in a progressive society now where women have high paying jobs as well. No need for alimony or child support.

does it actually change anything for you or is it just some formal thing no one gives a fuck about?

youre right its not like single parent children are more likely to end up fucked over.

this

this is the exact reason most US states changed to No-Fault divorce in the 80's.

just google the history of the no-fault divorce

also the history of the tender years doctrine

Any kind of divorce should be illegal.

You make the fucking oaths

2, 3, 1

Yeah, sure, as long as she expects no gain from it. Fuck off and stay fucked off, don't touch my money and sure.

Ok but the real question is: are you fucking her?

Yeah, parents who are forced to stay together even though they hate each other surely will not raise fucked up children.

fpbp
Growing up in a dysfunctional household is more damaging.

a lot of states are getting rid of common law marriages, even Ga. did.

fyi, if it's illegal to marry your sibbling in your state, then you are not common law spouses.

Yes. If people really want to split they will just make up a reason anyway.
Although I also think that not proving a legitimate fault should also guarantee that pre-marital assets are retained without being divided up.

Don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. However if you decide to divorce someone for shits and giggles the other party should obviously be the one who's entitle to keep the potential kids if they so choose and get alimony and child support payments.

No one's trapped. They could always pay damages.

Why is the girl on the left trying to hide her footpussy?

dude, all of this already happened and was discused. the results, the solution to how fucked up divorces were becomming was the no-fault divorce.

as far as alimony and child support, lets say you're a stay at home dad, your wife makes 90k/yr.
If she doesnt pay alimony and child support, who do you think ends up paying?...society. the citizenry of the state you're in. reverse the genders and the samething.

Absolutely not, having a family should be a life long commitment that is taken seriously by families, communities and the nation. These values should be reflected in the law. That our societies currently value marriage so little as to dilute it with gays and to legally denigrate fathers are just further symptoms of the West's decline.

But without a mother taking care of a child and giving it full attention we are gonna end up with a shitload of attention seeking faggots. Just look at Tumblr. So you want this to get worse?

Whoa, slow down there med pack. Where did I say a mother would never be involved? It would be 50/50 custody either doing every other week, or every other month.

No.

Mothers leeching off the state and their ex husbands while not working and often having a revolving door of boyfriends sets an incredibly poor example for their kids and is likely half the reason that children of single mothers do so terribly. Better to have a good role model even if she isn't there half the time

Though better yet, just stop these situations from happening to begin with

...

Men are not even expected to be monogamous.

Just do your shit in such a way that your wife/gf doesnt find out and do whatever you can to avoid emotions getting involved.

Its the base of any strong marriage.

but what about for people who don't believe in retarded magic like "love is for life"?

just dont marry? easiest solution lol.

Medpack, mate, you fucking genius, tumblr has been caused by a lack of a male figure in their lives. It's the depth of women's insanity in that they truly believe their voices should be heard despite the fucking insane shit they're trying to say.

Child support isn't for the woman, it's for the child. That's why they call it that.

Love can be for life.

Love and having urges to fuck other women is not the same though.

everyone falls out of love. it's natural.

Yes, because I'm sure that money is NEVER spent on the mother and then the father is expected to buy clothes and other things for the child.

If custody is split 50/50 then there is no need for child support.

>motherSpendsMoneyOnShoes.jpg

oh wait

>a leaf

I shouldn't have even responded seriously.

this

>the only way to win is not to play

>Yes, because I'm sure that money is NEVER spent on the mother and then the father is expected to buy clothes and other things for the child.

So you really think a parent shouldn't pay to raise their kid because sometimes the money is misspent? Wow.

There's a difference between being in love and having the butterfly bullshit and genuinely loving someone.

Nah man I think you're just desperate and inexperienced.

Marriage should be abolished entirely.

>implying this is what I said
>implying you're actually here for discussion and not to shit up the thread
>implying the day of the rake will never come

Is this Miami or Venezuela?

I've been in my relationship for 12 years and I'm still waiting. I don't know where you put the treshold on calling someone experienced.

I love my girlfriend to bits but that doesn't mean I can't fall in love with someone else and not act on those feelings. That's the difference.

It's exactly what you said, friend. Sorry the truth hurts you so much.

So, sounds like you're desperate and clingy. Got it.

What is the sauce of this pic?

>The societal institution meant for encouraging monogamy, incentivizing childbirth and providing the best possible environment for child rearing should be abolished

Just kys you fucking sub-ape. If you want society to collapse, do us all a favor and start by removing yourself from it

It's called "irreconcilable differences".

I'm trying to follow your logic but I don't really get what you're trying to point out. So because I still love my girlfriend after 12 years I'm desperate?

t. cuck

Women can still sue for child support if they are not married, so getting married seems pointless. And parents can still separate without getting officially divorced.

Women initiate the majority of divorces. huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-more-likely-than-men-to-initiate-divorces-but-not-breakups-study-finds_us_55d61f03e4b0ab468da049bb

No fault divorces seem to be abused by further "liberalization" of women.

people watch too many love movies and they beliveve in soul mates .there is 7 billino people on the planet there is going to be thousand s of people who are a good matches for you

Love is something that can be maintained. But it's something that takes time and effort. Divorce is easy and tempting because it's incentivized for women. Most people take the easy way out. Those that don't usually end up resolving their differences and end up much happier than they would alone. Simple as that

10 years here, still insanely in love

cheat, do it now. force yourself if you have to. dont get caught. dont get fat, stay fit and desirable to women.
i swear you'll thank me later.

Neither of these are arguments for the abolition of marriage, especially not when marriage has been proven to have the best outcome for children. Even children of unmarried but otherwise committed parents somehow suffer more instances of child abuse than children of married parents

Marriage is absolutely in need of reform to mean what it meant 70 years ago, but it should not be abolished

>Even children of unmarried but otherwise committed parents somehow suffer more instances of child abuse than children of married parents
Sauce? Also
>implying correlation implies causation

t. child of divorce who suffers cognitive dissonance at the concept of staying married for life

live.washingtonpost.com/onlove-pitfalls-of-cohabitation.html

Even WaPo reports this, which should be telling enough. There were other links I could post, but I'm on mobile right now

>Le correlation is not le causation
Not a bloody argument. Correlation does not disprove causation either. We can only go off the data we have. Is it so unreasonable to assume that parental marital status and child outcomes are related? Come now

women have some sort of hormonal change in their 30's.
Men have a decrease in testosterone after a year in a relationship. By design, this is because the male is no longer looking for a mate.
This imbalance coupled with the current social environment makes divorce or infidelity almost inevitable when wife reaches her 30's.

You have to keep her fighting for you. Dont ever let her think she has you in her pocket. be desired by other women. always keep her competing. if you dont, youll be the one always competing.

>implying that marriage somehow makes people less likely to abuse their children
>implying it isn't that niggers are less likely to get married, and niggers are more likely to abuse their kids because they're niggers

>Not reading the link and seeing the studies control for race and economic status
>Niggers staying together after pregnancy
Many keks were had, thanks friend

And
3) spouse can no longer have children.

After all, the reason for marriage is to have children

Retard, do you think people stop raising the kids they've had after the mom hits menopause?

The only 3. I'd add is children being neglected

4) She doesn't give head.

>mfw degenerates on Sup Forums are justifying non-fault divorce.

No-fault divorce killed the West.

It made marriage weaker, thus resulting in single mothers. More single moms=boys who are wimpy at best or criminals at worst.

It made our birthrates plummet, making our countries bring in immigrants.

The fact it is exists in the first place means many people don't want to get married in the first place, thus destroying the Western family ie, the backbone of our civilization.

Well females are getting no fault divorce , not men.

Arguments against no-fault divorce

The National Organization for Women opposed the introduction of no-fault divorce in New York State because it would allow a party who actually is at fault to obtain a divorce in which "alimony, maintenance [and] property division" would be determined without the judge considering "the facts, behavior and circumstances that led to the break-up of the marriage".

A paper published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, written by Douglas Allen, on the economics of same-sex marriage, argues that the introduction of no-fault divorce led to a six-fold increase in just two years, after a century of rather stable divorce rates. Also, the law increased the rate at which women entered the workforce, increased the number of hours worked in a week, increased the feminization of poverty, and increased the age at which people married.

Stephen Baskerville, a political scientist at Howard University, argues that no-fault divorce rewards wrongdoers, reduces the need of marital binding agreement contracts at the public's expense, and helps women take custody of their children at the husbands' expense in many cases where the man has done nothing wrong. He also adds that a ban on divorce will not work, because people will separate themselves and be in a permanent state of adultery, or they will create a hostile

Advocates for eliminating the showing-of-fault requirements for divorce

Many American lawyers and judges objected to the legal fictions used to satisfy the requirements for divorce, which were effectively rendering oaths meaningless and threatening to wreck the integrity of the American justice system by making perjury into a commonplace occurrence. As early as the 1930s, a treatise on American family law complained:

In divorce litigation it is well known that the parties often seek to evade the statutory limitations and thus there is great danger of perjury, collusion, and fraud . . . . In many cases no defense is interposed, and often when the case is contested the contest is not waged with vigor or good faith.

In addition, advocates for no-fault divorce argued that the law should be changed to provide a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage, rather than forcing a couple who simply couldn't get along to choose between living together in "marital hell" or lying under oath in open court. The most prominent advocate of this position was feminist law professor Herma Hill Kay (who later became dean of UC Berkeley School of Law).

At its convention in 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) voted to draft and promote a bill that would embody the ideal of no-fault divorce and describes its efforts to promote the passage of no-fault divorce laws as "the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken."

Yeah, but that oath is broken when one spouse cheats and/or abuses the other.

No fault divorce should always come with an end to the "shared assets" default. Basically, you can marry and divorce at will, but any claim to your spouse's possessions ends when the marriage ends. You keep what you paid for, that's it.

So basically, the arguments against it are that it is harmful to everyone and the arguments for it are that not having it is inconvenient to lawyers

Good to know where our priorities lie

If you do not want to get fucked over do not marry.
Simples really.

thanks captain obvious

proving fault results in more billable hours for lawyers so its actually better for lawyers. its just bad for the legal system when you have everyone lying to get out of marriage.

either way, both are just pasta from the wikipedia article on no-fault divorces

Yes but the initiating partner forfeits everything to the other.

No, except for cases of infertility or sexual misconduct. That's what the bible says.

>1 post by this id
>picture of hot girls
>stupid ass fucking question

IT'S THE FUCKING SLIDE FORMULA

STOP REPLYING

That is so hot. Tell me more.

npr.org/2016/09/04/487825901/no-you-re-not-in-a-common-law-marriage-after-7-years-of-dating