Mike Johnson - Speaker of the House

[jross]

That's a common opinion, unfortunately.

I have 9 nieces and nephews that disagree with you.

[mspart]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:44 PM, GreatWhiteNorth said:

He would not have been my personal 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 200th choice.

 

Well, he was the 5th choice, so he was no one's first, second, or third choice. 

mspart

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, jross said:

I always appreciate the great research and sources that you utilize /s, like proving your point that no-fault divorces have been overwhelmingly good things...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/there-is-no-republican-plot-to-end-no-fault-divorce-but-there-should-be

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/13/when-divorce-is-a-family-affair

You just cited the same person twice, who is apparently complaining that her husband divorced her against her will which started her whole crusade.  The idea that people should be forced to stay in unhappy marriages is dumb, treats the person who wants out as property, and is ripe for abuse of the party seeking to end the marriage.  We live in an allegedly free society.  People should not be forced to stay in relationships they do not want to be in.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

You just cited the same person twice, who is apparently complaining that her husband divorced her against her will which started her whole crusade.  The idea that people should be forced to stay in unhappy marriages is dumb, treats the person who wants out as property, and is ripe for abuse of the party seeking to end the marriage.  We live in an allegedly free society.  People should not be forced to stay in relationships they do not want to be in.

and some would suggest lets just have civil unions and give them all the tax etc benefits of current marriage.  Is anything wrong with that in a free civil society?

[Plasmodium]

26 minutes ago, ionel said:

and some would suggest lets just have civil unions and give them all the tax etc benefits of current marriage.  Is anything wrong with that in a free civil society?

What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I would guess a civilization can define a civil union as whatever they want but I have not recently stayed a a HIx so ...  

[Plasmodium]

17 minutes ago, ionel said:

I would guess a civilization can define a civil union as whatever they want but I have not recently stayed a a HIx so ...  

We don't need any new definitions.  They are legal terms not club speak.

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Compelling people to remain married is an absurd intrusion on free choice so eliminating that is overwhelmingly good no matter the effects elsewhere.

These people want to live in Saudi Arabia so bad

[jross]

Married parents with kids should never be trapped in a (sustained) unhappy or harmful relationship. But what about other reasons for unhappiness like boredom or financial stress? It's not selfish to seek happiness, but it's important to consider your children's well-being. Choose daily to commit to your spouse and prioritize your children. Unhappiness is temporary; it too shall pass.  Emotional damage to children may never pass.

To walk out on one's spouse and children because you 'feel like it?'   Selfish and damaging.

[jross]

Both my sisters no-fault divorced their husbands of around 14 years because they were unhappy.  One had 4, and the other had 5 minor children.  The 'hell' these children (and spouses) have gone through...

It is fair to the spouse and children to have the parents go through counseling over some period before the divorce goes through.  The counseling might teach the impact of divorce to adults and children.  It might teach them how to have crucial conversations and maintain their relationship.

It might save a family.

Studies show that family is good.

...not interested in the exceptions (see statement on 'not trapped' in harmful).

Edited October 31, 2023 by jross

[Plasmodium]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

Married parents with kids should never be trapped in a (sustained) unhappy or harmful relationship. But what about other reasons for unhappiness like boredom or financial stress? It's not selfish to seek happiness, but it's important to consider your children's well-being. Choose daily to commit to your spouse and prioritize your children. Unhappiness is temporary; it too shall pass.  Emotional damage to children may never pass.

To walk out on one's spouse and children because you 'feel like it?'   Selfish and damaging.

Obviously no disagreement.

[Plasmodium]

Every situation is different.  The only way any of it works is for the people involved to make their own decisions for their own reasons.

[jross]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Obviously no disagreement.

Disagreement might come about this proposal.  What alternatives are there to reduce unnecessary divorce for the parent-of-minor scenario?

https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Parental-Divorce-Reduction-Act-PDF.pdf

for the children...

https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DR_talkingPoints1.pdf

Edited October 31, 2023 by jross

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, jross said:

Disagreement might come about this proposal.  What alternatives are there to reduce unnecessary divorce for the parent-of-minor scenario?

https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Parental-Divorce-Reduction-Act-PDF.pdf

for the children...

https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DR_talkingPoints1.pdf

Divorce is necessary if and only if one or both of the spouses decides it is.  It is nobody else's business.  It is very simple.

[jross]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Divorce is necessary if and only if one or both of the spouses decides it is.  It is nobody else's business.  It is very simple.

Is it also the children's business, where two parents have equal accountability for their upbringing?  Allowing a spouse some time to mend their family, if they choose, is fair.

[jross]

Mikey J. would never go for this... but it seems like a good secular idea.

Do you know what should come with marriage? 

Prenup education and boilerplate agreement on the commons: children, inheritance, assets, alimony, debts, etc.  Two people work out the high-level details when the relationship is delightful to avoid the shitshow if it becomes dreadful.

[uncle bernard]

If you don't support no fault divorce, you don't support living in a free society. It's a pretty cut and dry issue. Either people get to exit personal relationships when they want or they don't.

Yes, this creates unfortunate situations. That's the cost of living in a free country.

[jross]

17 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

If you don't support no fault divorce, you don't support living in a free society. It's a pretty cut and dry issue. Either people get to exit personal relationships when they want or they don't.

Yes, this creates unfortunate situations. That's the cost of living in a free country.

 

Let's reframe.  Do you agree with this?

Quote

If you don't support the unrestricted and immediate possession of newly purchased assault rifles, you don't support living in a free society. It's a pretty cut-and-dry issue. Either people have a right to bear arms or they don't.

Yes, this creates unfortunate situations. That's the cost of living in a free country.

Edited October 31, 2023 by jross
removed vertical white space

[mspart]

For a free country to survive, there are duties and responsibilities we all share.   When we decide we want to be free of those duties and responsibilities, that is when the freedom of the country is diminished and the plight of those unfortunates caught in the middle is not good. 

You could say the same about taxes.   If someone decided they didn't want to be yoked by that, it does little harm.   But when it is typical of the citizenry, then it does great harm to the whole and the country is weakened.

A free country does not mean you can do whatever you want.   There are penalties for going outside the law.   These laws are there to enforce the duties and responsibilities we all have so that the freedom remains.   Freedom is not free, it is kept by vigilance to social  norms.     

Families operate similarly as there are duties and responsibilities on the part of the adults.   When one or both (normal family arrangement) decide they no longer want to be ruled by duties and responsibilities that they agreed to, the minor children suffer as a result.  It is pretty inevitable.   When you have a small number of broken families, the result is minor to society as a whole.   When it becomes a normal thing, society as a whole suffers.   But even if one child suffers, it is worth it to prevent that if possible right?

mspart

[Offthemat]

There have been divorces for a long time; what’s being questioned is the ‘no fault’ divorce.  

[jross]

21 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

If you don't support no fault divorce, you don't support living in a free society. It's a pretty cut and dry issue. Either people get to exit personal relationships when they want or they don't.

Yes, this creates unfortunate situations. That's the cost of living in a free country.

 

Ronald Reagan signed no-fault into California as governor in 1969 and is on record for regretting it.  He also said...  

• Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child – the child’s home, family, security and sense of being loved and protected – and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess. 

Hillary Clinton has been anti-free society on record since the '90s

• https://relayto.com/matt-politicano/2016-democrats-on-no-fault-divorce-4s6hppb2

• One example

  • As I say in my book, I think getting a divorce should be much harder when children are involved.

    For much of the 1970s and 1980s, many believed that a bad marriage was worse than a good divorce. Now, however, we know that children bear the brunt of failed marriages.

    . . . Most marriages dissolve because of far less desperate circumstances. Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes. Just look at our culture today: Good marriages are seldom celebrated, while every tiff or spat in a celebrity marriage becomes tabloid fodder.

    For too many people, “Till death do us part” means “Till the going gets rough.” With so many marriages failing — nearly half end in divorce in our country — we need to do more to encourage parents to work out their problems, stay together and strengthen their families. In cases where problems can’t be reconciled, parents ought to put the needs of their children first in working out the terms of divorce. They must understand that their parental responsibilities continue even after a marriage splits up.

    The good news is that attitudes about marriage and divorce seem to be changing. Some states are beginning to examine whether their divorce laws are too lax. Grass-roots campaigns to help preserve marriage are flourishing around the country.

    – Hillary Clinton, January 27, 1996

[VakAttack]

Truly unbelievable that we have people in here advocating that you should only be able to leave an unhappy relationship if some third party finds you have met some arbitrary standard for leaving.

[Plasmodium]

These guys are jumping the shark.  May as well go full evangelical and declare that what God has joined together let man not separate.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

17 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

These guys are jumping the shark.  May as well go full evangelical and declare that what God has joined together let man not separate.

Things change, life changes, sometimes it is better to go in separate ways.

If I were to make that choice on my own, it would be better than a halfwit like you making it for me.

... just to be clear. You're not god. You don't speak to god. And you certainly don't speak for god. You're just a halfwit who claims to have some special standing - but you don't. And I might be generous by calling you a halfwit.

Edited November 1, 2023 by GreatWhiteNorth

[Plasmodium]

39 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Things change, life changes, sometimes it is better to go in separate ways.

If I were to make that choice on my own, it would be better than a halfwit like you making it for me.

... just to be clear. You're not god. You don't speak to god. And you certainly don't speak for god. You're just a halfwit who claims to have some special standing - but you don't. And I might be generous by calling you a halfwit.

Ill tell you what I am.  I am rubber and you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.