5 ms·

> What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can mainta

by wtbob 11y ago

> What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can maintain their own love life? I'll counter with a different question: what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext at all? And why is 'maintaining [one's] own love life' worth destroying a family? > The toll it takes on a family is often irrevocable. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. The only good thing I can see about no-fault divorce is that it's reduced the number of spousal murders. I agree with you that the marriage laws no longer make any sort of rational sense, and that civil marriage should be a civil contract, although from a different angle: the sacrament which united my parents together has absolutely no resemblance to the legal fiction abused by, say, Kim Kardashian. > stating clearly what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is fairly dissolved Seems to me that 'til death do us part' is a pretty big item in most marriage ceremonies…

icebraining 11y ago
If the marriage is only holding due to a contract, the family has already been destroyed. Your next phrase actually shows this: murders of passion are the peaks in a curve of harm that people do to each other. For each one, there is an order of magnitude more couples harming themselves. I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. And people stopped realizing because? Unless you have a good reason beyond "people were just more sensible in the good old days", I find your argument unpersuasive. What was more terrible were the conditions for divorced women, who struggled to earn any kind of decent income. State laws granting sole control of marital property to the husband were only struck down by the SCOTUS in 1981.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? > And people stopped realizing because? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Do you really not see the difference between being friends and living as a family? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses in the other room.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I've seen from the inside what happens to families when spouses get divorced, and I've seen from the inside what happens when spouses are incompatible but stay together to preserve the family. Neither one is pretty, but the divorce is by far the better option.
nitrogen 11y ago
I found this saying insightful: "No happy marriage ever ends in divorce."
humanrebar 11y ago
> ... what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext ... The kind that likes to pretend that family stability isn't itself a good thing. It's tragic when families are torn or broken apart, but minimizing the consequences doesn't make the effects go away. Across all demographics, children do better when they live in stable homes with two parents. The data backs this up 100%. We can talk philosphically about whether the costs are worth it to achieve various goals (equality, freedom, etc.) but it's irrational to act like there are no downsides to avoiding or leaving marriage. The data even indicates that it's a net negative, on average. Maybe not for the people who hang out on HN, but certainly for poorer people with fewer opportunities. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-am...
- kazagistar 11y ago
  It seems like the causal link on those statistics might be wrong. Sure, happy families might do better then divorced single parents. But how do unhappy couples forced to stay togather compare to single parents?
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    That's an interesting hypothesis. How would you do a longitudinal study on which couples are forced to stay together? I think we skipped some empirical work and jumped straight to a narrative in the way we reformed family structure over the decades. Ironically, women and children (especially boys) seem to be the hardest hit, at least statistically. This is distressing since they were supposed to be the reason we started rethinking family structure in the first place. Regardless, the census statistics are for all single households versus all married households. The never-married are also included in the statistics, so trapped-in-a-relationship certainly doesn't always apply. Here's an LA Times column breaking down a few more studies: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-fam...

by wtbob 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

If the marriage is only holding due to a contract, the family has already been destroyed. Your next phrase actually shows this: murders of passion are the peaks in a curve of harm that people do to each other. For each one, there is an order of magnitude more couples harming themselves. I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. And people stopped realizing because? Unless you have a good reason beyond "people were just more sensible in the good old days", I find your argument unpersuasive. What was more terrible were the conditions for divorced women, who struggled to earn any kind of decent income. State laws granting sole control of marital property to the husband were only struck down by the SCOTUS in 1981.

wtbob 11y ago
> I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? > And people stopped realizing because? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others.
- icebraining 11y ago
  If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Do you really not see the difference between being friends and living as a family? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses in the other room.
mikeash 11y ago
I've seen from the inside what happens to families when spouses get divorced, and I've seen from the inside what happens when spouses are incompatible but stay together to preserve the family. Neither one is pretty, but the divorce is by far the better option.

nitrogen 11y ago

I found this saying insightful: "No happy marriage ever ends in divorce."

humanrebar 11y ago

> ... what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext ... The kind that likes to pretend that family stability isn't itself a good thing. It's tragic when families are torn or broken apart, but minimizing the consequences doesn't make the effects go away. Across all demographics, children do better when they live in stable homes with two parents. The data backs this up 100%. We can talk philosphically about whether the costs are worth it to achieve various goals (equality, freedom, etc.) but it's irrational to act like there are no downsides to avoiding or leaving marriage. The data even indicates that it's a net negative, on average. Maybe not for the people who hang out on HN, but certainly for poorer people with fewer opportunities. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-america-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/marriage-am...

kazagistar 11y ago
It seems like the causal link on those statistics might be wrong. Sure, happy families might do better then divorced single parents. But how do unhappy couples forced to stay togather compare to single parents?
- humanrebar 11y ago
  That's an interesting hypothesis. How would you do a longitudinal study on which couples are forced to stay together? I think we skipped some empirical work and jumped straight to a narrative in the way we reformed family structure over the decades. Ironically, women and children (especially boys) seem to be the hardest hit, at least statistically. This is distressing since they were supposed to be the reason we started rethinking family structure in the first place. Regardless, the census statistics are for all single households versus all married households. The never-married are also included in the statistics, so trapped-in-a-relationship certainly doesn't always apply. Here's an LA Times column breaking down a few more studies: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-fam...