Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:28:22 +0100

I just think people give up too easy, that is all.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:26:14 +0100

Here is a question. Lets say the marriage is going perfect. The couple gets along well, no significant issues, no abuse. Then one day say the husband wakes up and for what ever reason (another woman, just likes to live alone, or no reason at all) desides that he wnats out. Should he be forced to stay?

I say no? I actually dont see what ground you can use to make the argument for yes, but if someone disagrees with me i would love to hear it.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:55:12 +0100

What is it with Americans? Free speech. Free markets. Free to bare arms. Oops, but you are not free to walk away from a marriage.

CC

Not all marriages can be made to work. A quarter of all marriages involve some form of abuse, either physical or psychological. It is reasonable that a quarter of marriages should fail for the welfare of one or other party. No one should be forced to live in a situation where they are unsafe.

RO

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:50:05 +0100

CC are you saying that people should be forced to stay dogather despite their wishes? Is a forced marriage a marriage at all? Now i agree that people should not rush into it, in fact i would say dont get married at all. But passing laws that forse people to staty togather againsttheir wishes, or making timeprames for marriage is nothing short of opression. Interacial mariges have a lower sucess rate, should we forbit people of diferent races to marry? Same with political afiliation, should we forbid democrats and republicans to marrey to ensure the sucess of marriages. Forsing people is not the answer, it is their life if they want out thy dont need a reason.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Sun, 25 May 2008 17:30:34 +0100

Good job New York! It's high time someone said (in a way) to get your ass back to your spouse and figure it out, instead of quitting. I think giving up has become way too easy...or maybe getting married was too easy to begin with...maybe if you have to prove a problem to get divorced, you should have to prove your love to get married. Maybe that would decrease the number or marriages so there wouldn't have to be so many divorces. Maybe living together for a year would be a good requirement at the beginning of the relationship instead of requiring it at the end. An idea anyway, but I still say kudos to that New York judge!

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:49:47 +0100

pokoj

You should give it a try one day. It is an excellent excuse for a party, and a tried and true method for the young and indigent to accumulate consumer durabales.

RO

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 22 May 2008 06:19:52 +0100

chalk up another reason never to be legally wed...

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Fri, 16 May 2008 06:03:58 +0100

Under the Australian Family Law Act (1974), twelve month separation is the only requirement for divorce. The Child Support Agency rules on and enforce maintenance. Property settlements are formula driven. You only go to court if you are stupid enough to want a fight. (In that case only the lawyers win.) 90% of cases are settled by mutual agreement or mediation.

The divorce itself is so much paperwork.

Give it a try Govenor Patterson.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:33:36 +0100

SS
The divorse rate is only half the story. Heres some stats from my psych class. 50% of marriages end in divorce, 15% end in long term seperation, and of those who stay in the same house 65% report being unhappy in their marriage. So basically thers about a 10% chance of sucess.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:18:36 +0100

I would have to read the article to give a comment, but I think the whole business of divorce is a sad statement in the U.S. The rate is way up in the last few decades. Not a whole lot of real commitment felt anymore. Not much thought done beforehand for whatever reason, either, I suppose. Then again, is it really a necessity in modern society these days?
I did a trial period with a test run! One of the happiest times in my life!

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:53:21 +0100

well....would the normal turms of divorce apply? I dont think she can leave and take half his money, it would be horrible precedent. The terms of the divorce would have to favor him in such a situation, if they dont I think the court was correct in not permitting it.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:09:34 +0100

God said THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY but Govenor Patterson says you have to, and you you have to have proof as well.

Maybe I need another glass of red.

Comment on: Right to Divorce

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:14:45 +0100

What a bad result in any language? a court should never force two people together in a bad marriage when plainly one wants out... we have a no fault divorce law here, but I think you have to be apart for a year before you get it granted? not sure..
either way, the court has no place in standing in the way. Sounds like a carry over from a patriarchial, chauvinist set of laws.