3 ms·

A marriage should end when either of the parties want it to end, or else it's no longer consensual. I don't believe in forcing people to stay married. But divor

A marriage should end when either of the parties want it to end, or else it's no longer consensual. I don't believe in forcing people to stay married. But divorce still needs to mean splitting the finances so nobody is left destitute and without skills for employment. Alimony was invented for a reason. Before it existed, divorce was immensely cruel. (Contrast: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/tini-owens-trapped-loveless-marriage-judges-refuse-divorce https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/24/tini-ow... )

AvenueIngres 10y ago
Doesn't the US has something like a 51% divorce rate? if you accept the premise that the nuclear family is a cornerstone of western civilization I can see why you would not be ecstatic at the idea of making marriage a trivial thing. Should we allow the individual to have every one of its desires in reach of fulfillment? Though I concede that there is a point in allowing unhappy marriages to part away, after all, why live unhappy when someone else just for the sake of conforming. However, if appealing on the surface; I wonder if that could be in fact a local optimum that negatively affects society on the long term. I'm genuinely curious to know what do you think?
- chongli 10y ago
  Should we allow the individual to have every one of its desires in reach of fulfillment? Our modern society is founded on the supreme principle of individual rights. If you want to live in a collectivist society with arranged marriages and a general distrust for individual freedoms, you can choose to do so. There are several available to choose from. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time making the argument here. Too many people enjoy individual rights so much they are willing to leave their lives and livelihoods behind in order to come here. At the very minimum it's encumbant upon us to continue to preserve these rights for everyone.
  - AvenueIngres 10y ago
    I was not trying to argue whether that's the case or not. As you said so well, it is clearly the case. Rather, I am trying to wage whether that's a good thing or not. Is there a balance to strike? >If you want to live in a collectivist society with arranged marriages and a general distrust for individual freedoms, you can choose to do so. There are several available to choose from. I think you're putting words in my mouth. Words that you would like me to say perhaps.
    - chongli 10y ago
      The balance point will always be a matter for debate. I think it's pretty clear, however, that no fault divorce is absolutely the right thing to do. Keeping individuals out of toxic, unhappy, even abusive marriages is far more important than maintaining a low divorce statistic. I'd even go so far as to say preserving the individual happiness of all people is more important than any statistic. I think you're putting words in my mouth That comment was half in reference to the article, which is focused on India.
- ucaetano 10y ago
  "if you accept the premise that the nuclear family is a cornerstone of western civilization" Individual rights are the cornerstone of modern western civilization, not the nuclear family.
  - AvenueIngres 10y ago
    >Individual rights are the cornerstone of modern western civilization, not the nuclear family. Sure. Individual rights are the cornerstone of modernism. Western civilization predates the French Revolution.
    - ucaetano 10y ago
      Yep, that's why there's a "modern" in there.
- mcbits 10y ago
  The nuclear family is a myth born in the mid-20th century and spread by television, so I can't accept that premise, although the attempt and failure of most families to emulate Leave it to Beaver and Donna Reed might be a source of some of the psychological problems plaguing modern western civilization.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  I feel that extended family, rather than nuclear family, is the cornerstone (of sensible living anywhere, not particularly of western living). And I think, divorce doesn't have to separate extended families, people have their own relationships which either work or don't regardless of what the couple feel about each other. But I don't think that making marriage consensual makes it trivial. On the contrary, I think that making marriage nonconsensual makes it a mockery. In what sense are people who despise each other married at all? And the main threat to both extended families and marriage in the west is capitalism, of the particular, late, people-as-replaceable-cogs globalized variety. Who these days can afford to live where they grew up? Fix that, and you will see families reuniting. As for the case in the original link, it's discriminatory that men have unequal power to end the marriage, but it's far more important, IMO, that marriages which end don't seem to carry the obligations they ought, of extended support and support for the children. This is the real discrimination, since it allows husbands to hold over wives the threat of destitution - or to carry it out.
candiodari 10y ago
The point is, of course, that the muslim/sharia rule about ending marriage is discriminatory. Only the man can end the marriage at all. If a man abuses the woman, in an islamic marriage, there is no possibility of divorce (disregarding minority rules, like Shi'a islam, and even there, only if specified in the prenup). Secondly, a man can end a marriage without any consequences in Sunni islam, instantly. No alimony, not even care for the kids if he doesn't want to. He can just kick the woman out from one day to another. The woman described in the article experienced both sides of this. She was not allowed a divorce when she wanted one, even when it was obvious her husband was beating her (apparently because she had a daughter instead of a son), and she got no financial support from the man, and neither did her child. She had to shoulder the entire financial burden. In most muslim nations there are activists demanding changes to the islamic marriage rules. Sometimes along the lines here, but also along other lines, that ending a marriage by the woman becomes possible to end situations of abuse. There's history behind this. There was a campaign a while back by muslim women to ask that Christian rules be allowed to regulate muslim marriage, because firstly they're not discriminatory towards women, and secondly they demand people take some responsibility for their family. So you may want to rethink your comment. This is a struggle for equality first. And of course, there is profound unfairness in islamic marriage. Women, especially when confronted with alternatives, want better. This is not wrong. This is progress. Islam's rules are discriminatory on many fronts, to the point that there are clear differences in legal status amongst many enforced classes in society, which are not equal before the law. That is one reason islam and sharia are such disasters. The classes in islam are: muslims, non-muslim oppressed Christians and Jews, slaves, and kuffar. Slaves and kuffar can be murdered without punishment (slaves only by their owner). All of these classes are further split between men and women, with the men on top. "Somehow" things like this never seem to come up in discussions of what is and isn't tolerant.

AvenueIngres 10y ago

Doesn't the US has something like a 51% divorce rate? if you accept the premise that the nuclear family is a cornerstone of western civilization I can see why you would not be ecstatic at the idea of making marriage a trivial thing. Should we allow the individual to have every one of its desires in reach of fulfillment? Though I concede that there is a point in allowing unhappy marriages to part away, after all, why live unhappy when someone else just for the sake of conforming. However, if appealing on the surface; I wonder if that could be in fact a local optimum that negatively affects society on the long term. I'm genuinely curious to know what do you think?

chongli 10y ago
Should we allow the individual to have every one of its desires in reach of fulfillment? Our modern society is founded on the supreme principle of individual rights. If you want to live in a collectivist society with arranged marriages and a general distrust for individual freedoms, you can choose to do so. There are several available to choose from. Otherwise you're going to have a hard time making the argument here. Too many people enjoy individual rights so much they are willing to leave their lives and livelihoods behind in order to come here. At the very minimum it's encumbant upon us to continue to preserve these rights for everyone.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  I was not trying to argue whether that's the case or not. As you said so well, it is clearly the case. Rather, I am trying to wage whether that's a good thing or not. Is there a balance to strike? >If you want to live in a collectivist society with arranged marriages and a general distrust for individual freedoms, you can choose to do so. There are several available to choose from. I think you're putting words in my mouth. Words that you would like me to say perhaps.
  - chongli 10y ago
    The balance point will always be a matter for debate. I think it's pretty clear, however, that no fault divorce is absolutely the right thing to do. Keeping individuals out of toxic, unhappy, even abusive marriages is far more important than maintaining a low divorce statistic. I'd even go so far as to say preserving the individual happiness of all people is more important than any statistic. I think you're putting words in my mouth That comment was half in reference to the article, which is focused on India.
ucaetano 10y ago
"if you accept the premise that the nuclear family is a cornerstone of western civilization" Individual rights are the cornerstone of modern western civilization, not the nuclear family.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  >Individual rights are the cornerstone of modern western civilization, not the nuclear family. Sure. Individual rights are the cornerstone of modernism. Western civilization predates the French Revolution.
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    Yep, that's why there's a "modern" in there.
mcbits 10y ago
The nuclear family is a myth born in the mid-20th century and spread by television, so I can't accept that premise, although the attempt and failure of most families to emulate Leave it to Beaver and Donna Reed might be a source of some of the psychological problems plaguing modern western civilization.
JulianMorrison 10y ago
I feel that extended family, rather than nuclear family, is the cornerstone (of sensible living anywhere, not particularly of western living). And I think, divorce doesn't have to separate extended families, people have their own relationships which either work or don't regardless of what the couple feel about each other. But I don't think that making marriage consensual makes it trivial. On the contrary, I think that making marriage nonconsensual makes it a mockery. In what sense are people who despise each other married at all? And the main threat to both extended families and marriage in the west is capitalism, of the particular, late, people-as-replaceable-cogs globalized variety. Who these days can afford to live where they grew up? Fix that, and you will see families reuniting. As for the case in the original link, it's discriminatory that men have unequal power to end the marriage, but it's far more important, IMO, that marriages which end don't seem to carry the obligations they ought, of extended support and support for the children. This is the real discrimination, since it allows husbands to hold over wives the threat of destitution - or to carry it out.

candiodari 10y ago

The point is, of course, that the muslim/sharia rule about ending marriage is discriminatory. Only the man can end the marriage at all. If a man abuses the woman, in an islamic marriage, there is no possibility of divorce (disregarding minority rules, like Shi'a islam, and even there, only if specified in the prenup). Secondly, a man can end a marriage without any consequences in Sunni islam, instantly. No alimony, not even care for the kids if he doesn't want to. He can just kick the woman out from one day to another. The woman described in the article experienced both sides of this. She was not allowed a divorce when she wanted one, even when it was obvious her husband was beating her (apparently because she had a daughter instead of a son), and she got no financial support from the man, and neither did her child. She had to shoulder the entire financial burden. In most muslim nations there are activists demanding changes to the islamic marriage rules. Sometimes along the lines here, but also along other lines, that ending a marriage by the woman becomes possible to end situations of abuse. There's history behind this. There was a campaign a while back by muslim women to ask that Christian rules be allowed to regulate muslim marriage, because firstly they're not discriminatory towards women, and secondly they demand people take some responsibility for their family. So you may want to rethink your comment. This is a struggle for equality first. And of course, there is profound unfairness in islamic marriage. Women, especially when confronted with alternatives, want better. This is not wrong. This is progress. Islam's rules are discriminatory on many fronts, to the point that there are clear differences in legal status amongst many enforced classes in society, which are not equal before the law. That is one reason islam and sharia are such disasters. The classes in islam are: muslims, non-muslim oppressed Christians and Jews, slaves, and kuffar. Slaves and kuffar can be murdered without punishment (slaves only by their owner). All of these classes are further split between men and women, with the men on top. "Somehow" things like this never seem to come up in discussions of what is and isn't tolerant.