Should No-Fault Divorce Even Exist?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- Matt Walsh and divorce lawyer James J. Sexton discuss their differing views on no-fault divorce.
Become a DailyWire+ member and watch the full show: bit.ly/3xI9PZL
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. ruclips.net/user/MattWalsh?s...
Watch the full interview here: bit.ly/3JR4Egc
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at bit.ly/3lSGpWa
Watch my hit documentary, “What Is A Woman?” here: utm.io/ueSdV
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch: tinyurl.com/y5dscrmm
#MattWalsh #TheMattWalshShow #News #Politics #DailyWire #WhatIsAWoman
The idea of a flawless marriage or relationship is unrealistic. There's no set formula for success; what works for one couple may not work for another. Nevertheless, I've learned that solutions exist for every problem. Five years ago, my wife and I faced the brink of divorce due to challenges in our marriage. Fortunately, we managed to reconcile. It was a tough phase, but we made it through
The wisdom in your words strikes a chord within me, and I genuinely desire that my sentiments align with yours. Despite our separation at present, I cannot conceive of my existence without her; my love for her knows no bounds. I yearn for her return, and I'm committed to doing whatever it takes to achieve reconciliation. We've pursued different avenues, including therapy, in our journey to bridge the gap
Parting ways with someone you deeply care about is never easy, but in my particular circumstance, I was aided by a spiritual mentor who averted the collapse of my marriage. Her name is Suzanne Ann Walters.
You definitely should
The idea of a flawless union is maximum compatibility of the two. This way they both gravitate back to each other despite their flaws. They accommodate each other's flaws perfectly because the qualities they value in each other by far overwhelm the little flaws.
I'm not signing a contract she is paid to leave. No one has the balls to get rid of alimony.
If a woman has a high paying job, the guy has a lower paying or non-career job or takes care of the kids more, he’s getting alimony. They typically look at the lifestyle of the marriage and the attempt is to keep a big money maker from dumping someone on the curb without a way to pay their bills.
Dont be silly. The setup you described is like 0.0001% of marriages. Women are only attracted to and will marry men that earn more than them so it will always be the man that ends up paying. Women pay nothing. The men have to pay for the lifestyle of the women that she was accustomed to in the marriage. This is BS. @katydid2877
@@katydid2877You can talk until you are blue in the face about how things are "supposed" to work, but the fact remains that 97% of people receiving alimony are women.
@@katydid2877that’s the exception not the rule
It took a Supreme Court ruling to overturn laws that said only men had to pay alimony, and the ruling was only 6-3!
Zero reason to have the state sanction a relationship.
Other than K1 visas for foreign spouses, I agree.
@@tqs3 or to enforce adultery laws, which unfortunately need to be stricter in the U.S.
It doesn't. The state only gets involved after divorce or separation.
Removing financial incentives for divorce would certainly make people take the decision to marry more seriously.
I really love Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Jordan Peterson... but their views on marriage are so absurd they do not seem genuine. They blatantly defy logic to indulge their religious fan bases.
Not sure how anyone can love Shapiro or Crowder at this point... but in any case, Crowder is the last person to promote marriage right now. He is exactly part of the problem as well: a self-righteous, immature, fool who believes that his own wants outweigh the needs of his family. And yes, his wife isn't blameless: no one ever is.
Marriage is hard. Even Peterson has spoken about struggles in his marriage, yet they found a way because that's what reasonable people do. If your relationship is falling apart, you work it out like nothing else matters until you get it right. Unfortunately, so many people these days lack the self-reflectiveness to properly recognize, analyze, and amend their faults, that the proposition of giving yourself to another is either impossible due to your own narcissism or ostensibly a self-sacrifice.
So what's the solution? Be better. Look for people who are better. There are so many "horror stories" out there, yet all of them are avoidable with proper perspective. People are hard to understand, but not impossible. People blind themselves with what they want to see in people. Stop it. Be truthful to yourself about those you connect with and don't ever settle. If you really want a happy marriage, you can have it, though it's far from free.
You can't lay this at the feet of religious ppl, OP. Back when humanity feared the divine, we had a more stable society. It's secularism that paved the road we're all stuck on
Yes, they won't stop pushing their claim that everyone is obliged to marry.
@@DavidZ4-gg3dm ideally, everyone should. But the uncomfortable reality is that without major change, it's in no man's best self interest to do so
@@s0urcl0ut alöso people never left the village..... In bigger citys there was a lot of instability....
I’m in the U.K. just divorced after 25 years. It was no blame and I think it helped us to keep things amicable. I’m deeply hurt by the reason for the divorce but moving forward I want us both and our daughters to still feel we can come together as a family for important moments. ❤
If you’re hurt then there is blame . Sounds like you didn’t actually want a divorce
@@Kwildcat13 I didn't but the trust was gone and I chose to divorce and try and move on, what's done is done.
@@SimplySheilaB how can their be "no blame" & the trust was also gone? That's functionally impossible
Basically you've been cheated on, which contradicts marriage itself, hence why you're hurt but you're okay with "no blame"?
Yeah that really doesn't make sense at all.
@@etlimenemen
So blaming would help him how? Help his kids how?
Yeah, lets create more animosity.
Let go, move forward with positive goals, leave her behind as a wife (who cares she cheated?), keep working as co-parents. From this moment on, it should be irrelevant what she did, does, or will do with her personal life. Just be a good mom. Mom is a very different concept than wife. The two do not mix.
A fantastic mom can be a terrible cheater wife, and a horrible mom can be a perfectly faithful wife. etc./ Same for men.
Parenting and "spousing" are two different worlds.
This is actually a good discussion. We are so reactive as a species; we like to fix things once they are broken. It's the same with abortion, all this effort into what to do with the unwanted kid which could have been put into preventing the unwanted pregnancy. An ounce of prevention and all that. But no, we got to let people do whatever they think is best without question.
Having listened to Mr. Sexton’s defense of no-fault divorce, it reminded me of the awful divorce I had where my ex husband tried to claim I was a bad mother so he could take custody from me. Mind you, it was frivolous, he lost, and he had to pay my attorneys fees, but it was an expensive battle that was unimaginably stressful.
Imagine having everyone you know being interviewed about whatever it is seems interesting to the other, imagine having people willing to lie about you, and having to pay lawyers and private investigators to get to the truth.
To all the advocates of fault divorce, all you are pushing is a lawyer enrichment scheme.
So, so true. Fault-divorce is peak control.
Give them what they want and they'll take it even further, as they used to, historically. In many cases, even with evidence of basic faults (abuse, infidelity, marital rape) divorce was still not granted. This is de facto slavery. You block exit, refusing the freedom of a human being. Grave s*it.
The solution is simple, just take your vows seriously. And whichever party breaks the vows through abuse, cheating or initiating the divorce without there being infidelity or abuse, should be the one to lose everything and give everything up to the other spouse.
Completely agree!
Unfortunately that isn’t how it is in the United States.
Exactly, this way they won't rush into marriage unless they are 100% commited on being together for the rest of their lives, just as you promise on your wedding day.
@@JediShoalinVigilanteyes, it's very unfortunate. People make vows and promises that they have absolutely no intention of keeping
We allowed Shaprio type Lawyers to make the divorce laws, so, too late for that.
Our grandfathers sold us out.
Umm, I gotta say that not being able to get a divorce is actually a very good barrier to entry...am I wrong?
The tens of thousands of lawyers and the government institutions that make bank off the divorce industry don't want to hear it. Neither do modern women who are half of the constitutes. Remember, women want it all, they want it both ways, they want things they don't even know they want.
The modern woman wants wants wants and is never satisfied.
They're not happy with rock stars, elite world class athletes, millionaires, billionaires, nothing, absolutely nothing is ever good enough and you know what?
"She's just not happy"
Yes, you're wrong.
More like, remove the incentives for toxic divorce like alimony & no-fault. You still want good ppl to have the power to leave a bad situation. Ending the all consuming bureaucracy governing marriage would go a long way
@@s0urcl0ut Exactly, the government shouldn't be so involved in marriage in the first place. Where is the seperation of church and state? Marriage is basically a religious ceremony, even if your not religious its still a ceremony uniting two people spiritually. Why is the government so involved? It corrupts everything.
@@travisadams6279 Marriage ceremonies are religious but publicly it is a government directed contract with obligations, rights and responsibilities guided by law and social history.
Someone please explain to me how is it selfish to stay single?
Never has been and never will be.
It's not
Who says that?
It isn't, I think remaining single is a good choice, your own money your own life, do what you want when you want
@@katydid2877 the guy in the video? And just about anyone who's married.
Why would anyone today get married in the first place?
More than half end in divorce. Those few that don't, also don't look happy. And, if you're a Man, you lose your kids, your house, your "friends" and at least half of your bank account.
What's the "up-side" supposed to be?
Bliss afterwards
My marriage has not ended in divorce, I am living a peaceful life with my wife, enjoy my grandkids, still own both of my houses. Sure we've had some bumpy spots but we worked through them. I know plenty of families just like mine.
About 2/3 of 1st marriages work out. 1/2 of 2nd marriages so, even with no fault divorce, most actually are working out. In today's society under today's laws though? While marriage brings about a lot of good things, they are things that you can get outside of marriage (sex, companionship) I think the thing marriage does is improve the likelihood that you will sire and raise your own children with an opposite sex partner.
@@danielwessel9884 Good for you.
But, your experiences mean nothing to others. They do not change the fact that yours is the exception, not the rule.
The idea that, since you made a ridiculous gamble and won, everyone else will, too, is beyond absurd.
@@weldsj8847 First, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from... But, they are very different from the ones that I have seen.
Second, raising your own children, in the same home is, of course, the most desirable possibility. However, if one partner is legally capable of having the other removed from the home and restricting their access to said children, on a whim... Again, I don't see the point in taking that gamble.
Abolish no-fault or abolish alimony
Also make it illegal for single moms to cohabitate with a new dude if there’s a child living with her. I’d elaborate why, but YT will eat it
I already know why. I was a deputy, and a city cop later.
I've probably had 200 or so cases pertaining to what you are talking about.
A solid 85% of the time, the perpetrator is mom's boyfriend.
Not just SA but kidnappings as well. God knows how many amber alerts are just bitter custody battles
Alimony is to help stay-at-home-moms be financially able to divorce. It's supposed to help women and give men incentive/punishment to not be abu$ive or they pay up. But if you're DINKS, there should be no alimony. Though I don't know ANYONE getting alimony. That's rich people nonsense. Whereas real life women get nothing but peace of mind away from their broke azz ex. And maybe their children get child support but that's not about divorce really, you father it, you pay for it, married or not.
Yes, the crime risk?is too high. Either get married to someone who will stick by or forget it.
Stop listening to those guys!!!!!! Avoid marriage at all cost
True.
Personally, I would argue that it’s immoral to force someone to remain in a relationship that they don’t want to be in anymore.
I agree with your comment. The result is unhealthy and debilitating unless both parties dedicate
themselves to "working" on the relationship. That takes time, effort and money.
@@julia190 And even then, some people simply aren't meant to get along.
Isn't it a barrier to getting married if the marriage is difficult to get out of? Doesn't that require you to consider the permanency of your decision?
Indeed it incentiveses people to not be haste in their decisions
That's the whole point. Too many people get married with the idea that it will all be roses and sunshine.
Lol yes, I'm sure if you make it harder for women to get divorces, they totally won't sleep around all over, rack up the credit card, trash your home, and make your life a living hell until you beg to get out.
@wingsoffreedom3589 the problem is most people are totally incapable of thinking ahead that far, especially in a romantic relationship.
@@maxwellschneiter that's what aranged marriages are for
You guys are simply shifting the litigation point. With no falut divorce, the litigation is at the child custody stage. If you have a "for fault" system, the litigation shifts to the divorce stage. Just get government out of marriage.
The game of sham marriages and rampant divorce will end overnight if activists are removed from positions of authority and sensible people enforce the law using common sense…”ma’am, you don’t want to be your husband’s wife anymore, perfect! 👍🏾…Now leave with what’s yours and he keeps what’s his, the children are the responsibility of both of you equally, ok we’re done here!”
In the Philippines, you can only marry without parental consent after 25 years old. You are also required to attend a seminar which involves religious counseling, financial and family planning. It's not foolproof but atleast you are not going into it blind. There is no divorce as well. It is also very hard for a single parent to get married if they were not married with the previous partner because best believe that the family of the new partner would be hesitant to consider the single parent and that is to putting it lightly. There is little social value in divorcing or separating so unless you are physically abused or the other person has cheated, it is very rare for couples to separate.
The wedding ceremonies that are shown on American TV shows have "vows" that aren't vows at all. Marriage should be a legally binding contract because it is a massive commitment for the person who takes time out of his or her employment to provide child care.
No. what should be legally binding is the co-parents' responsibility towards the children, married or not, divorced or not.
It's not the marriage that should be irrevocable and legally binding. That's slavery.
@@roses6564 No. If a woman gives a man her loyalty when she is young and she is at her most attractive to other men, she is entitled to his loyalty when all the men that she might have married, have married other people and all her career opportunities are gone.
That isn't slavery, it is justice and without that commitment, and guarantee, it is dangerous for women to have children.
@@chriswatson1698 Marriage is not mere transaction.
You are speaking absurd hypotheticals - that woman, no matter how gorge, could only have picked one man, not "all the man she might have married." What the Heck is that even?
Those theoretical alternatives mean nothing. That doesn't entitle her to loyalty from a husband if she later turns into the partner from H*ll for him.
What you are proposing is marriage as leveraging, control and manipulation.
The only thing that entitles spouses to each other's loyalty is their continued love for each other. Period.
Everything else is failure anyway, divorce or not. After all, the man with the bad partner who demands loyalty bc she married him long ago when she could have married another (????) - can always go cheat if she forces him to stay married on such petty grounds.
Your argument wants to be lofty but fails miserably.
After being married for 20 years, I agree with this man 💯. I personally think before receiving a marriage license you should be required to go through premarital counseling and a counselor sign off that you completed the work.
Fascinating point about raising the barrier to entry. In Australia they changed the law over 10 years ago, so that de-facto couples living together for 18 months are basically regarded the same as a married couple. This effectively lowered the barrier to entry for committed relationships in terms of finance. This means me and my partner have to pay for a prenup (BFA) even though we're not married and have completely separate finances. At the time it was celebrated as achieve in rights for gay couples. All it did was increase the costs and legal risks for dating.
I like James Sexton because he's intensely rational. He talks well. He lives in a 'real' world, a world full of trouble.
Such ghastly tattoos.
Marriage licenses should be like vehicle license renewals: both parties need to renew every period of time (2 years, 3 years, 5 years, etc). If any one party chooses not to renew, the marriage automatically ends. Also, no marriage license is granted until a prenuptial agreement is drafted and signed by both parties with both parties lawyers present, should one party chooses not to renew the license.
Interesting, but it’s not about no-fault divorce. It’s barely mentioned.
Everything you said, is spot-on. What a speaker!
You two should team up, and have your own talk show.
Wow I love this guy he puts it in such a great way, very understanding on multiple levels
Hmmmm. I want more people to marry and less people to divorce. So, barriers to marriage, less marriage. Easy divorce? Per capita more divorcing. Think the guy is on the wrong track.
You need to explain why you just want more people to marry, especially when most marriages are toxic and fail. If the majority of them were successful and healthy Id absolutely agree with you, but as things stand it would just be more marriage, more divorce. Theres deeper problem with the culture unfortunately.
It was way over your head good try tho!
@@travisadams6279 Yes, there is a problem with the culture: it has no fault divorce. With no fault divorce, a couple with even very modest, "low conflict" relationships today can just divorce. But studies show such marriages (low conflict) that stick it out? After 5 years they self describe as happy relationships. Before no fault divorce, low conflict relationships pretty much always had to stick it out and I think them better off for it. Of course a confounding factor: people in 1900 had a life expectancy of about 50.
It could mean that the fewer marriages are mostly really good ones. It might do a better job of weeding out future divorces.
@@skylinefever That suggests a rationality not in my experience when 2 young'uns want to marry but your logic follows.
ha-ha-ha - more rules for the government to pass? I don't think so. Having gone thru pre-Cana 40+ years ago, I do not think anyone of us (friends and family) took it seriously - it was something that had to get done in order to get married by the RC church and we had to pay for it. I went through a divorce a few years later - a no fault - hahaha - it cost me $2K and I had to wait 18 months for it...for what to see if he grew up? I made a clear mistake in my choice of partner. And then I got an annulment from the RC church - another hand in my pocket. IMO, I think people need to wait, grow up, finish school, work, travel, and then marry when all the kinks in your life are pretty much ironed out and you are certain who you are and who the other person is - and to make sure you come from similar cloth.
Women plan their divorce before they are married. "I'm not happy" is the new standard.
This doesn't need to be quantified in any way, simply perceived happy fun time has apparently somehow ended.
Now, it's time for random Tinder boyfriends and girlfriends to be around the kids.
Nevermind the kid's "happiness" right? What's important is that the tingles and the warm fuzzy happy-go-luckies continue in perpetuity by her perception, and survive the roller coaster that is a modern pill taking woman's emotions.
You can't win.
Gen Z, Gen Y, and Millennials, just don't.
I’m not sure too people who are hating each other in the same home is really a safe environment for kids though . I wouldn’t say people plan ruining their kids in general . I notice you solely blame women though which is interesting .. it takes 2 ..
Yeah, 85% of the spit is because women "just aren't happy"
Which has nothing to do with "hate" as you said.
So, you resorted to a strawman and an appeal to emotion argument all in your pathetic little response?
I don't expect a dimwit like you to acknowledge facts or statistics.
Interesting.
@@Kwildcat13 Check the stats on how many divorces are the result of infidelity on the part of the man, versus "irreconcilable differences". In a world where gender roles are erased and women can be independent, marriage shouldn't exist. Just cohabitate, keep finances separate, and negotiate child custody if there's a split. Otherwise, it's just a huge payday for women to betray their families.
@@Kwildcat13 the difference is, when men do wrong, everyone flames them, rightfully so. You don't even need to do anything to get flamed. When the woman does wrong, society hails them a hero & a "girlboss".
When one gender is allowed zero accountability, you end up with a gross, broken society. Doesn't matter which one
@@Kwildcat13 He wasnt talking about two people actually hating each other or any other worse case scenario. He was talking about women who treat marriage frivolously and how they are encouraged to do so with things like alimony and no-fault.. And the government and society actually give them incentive to be this way. Marriage is far far riskier for a man (in western culture) than it is for a women. They can easily take everything just by claiming they arent happy. No man can do that, nor do I want them to.
So like, prenup contracts become a requirement?
If the state required that it would be interesting to see how many could negotiate one and still want to get married.
Why do a prenup? If the marriage contract sucks then don't do it. its not hard. Wright your owe contract!! I did a little reading on marriage and divorce in the old days. The family often had to PAY a dowry to the MAN to take the woman. In divorce the man had to pay back the dowry. They often got to keep the kids too.
Things have been way out of balance for the last few hundred years not 50 years.
you breach your contract with me for no reason you give me half your net worth and lose the children.
I agree that there should be more steps to getting married so that you back out if it's not right or learn how to maintain it if it is.
But the same should be for divorce that it shouldn't be able to be used to blindside, betray or profit from your partner.
We could begin the education with making everyone preparing to marry watch this interview. Yes, tickets should be checked before you board, and you need a licence to drive.
In my opinion with the divorce laws the way they are, marriage should be called men slavery!
I believe that marriage shouldn't be a trap, but we must hold them accountable. Marriage shouldn't be taken lightly. Fault must be designated.
Saw James first on “Soft White Underbelly” excellent interview
Same here...
That last question was 70% plus for one side of marriage and the answer is, it’s what happens when you create financial incentives to leave along with social encouragement to end your marriages it becomes normal to think and act selfishly. So I believe there should be more barrier to get in but also more barriers and penalties for the one who wants out.
No. No-fault divorce should not be allowed and nor should alimony. Men should not get married until there are significant changes in the system. There should also be mandatory DNA testing at birth.
As a man I would never even consider getting married without a no-fault divorce option.
Totally agree
Interesting, the divorce attorney doesn’t understand why people should stay
married
Easy answer to the question. The one who files
So if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant with another man's child, you should just work it out?
@@tqs3 the question is about no fault divorce you're not very good at reading comprehension are you
Overthinking
Best thing to do is live together! Trial run. But catholism will not allow that. So don’t bitch about divorce
Very wise man.
Yes it should
Imagine if you could marry the way you get a driver's license. You can choose the "class" of license (cars only, 18 wheelers too, etc.). Class A marriage: no divorce. Annulment only. B: fault based divorce. C: No fault divorce. I wonder what people would choose and how it might change things.
If no fault was not an option, I simply would never marry. I'm not signing some arrangement where I'm trapped like a rat no matter what happens.
@@kenofken9458 Would option B, fault based divorce work for you? No fault one can walk away just cuz they feel like it. In what other contract do we allow one side to walk away if they feel like it? Fault used to be: substance addict, frigidity, adultery, physical abuse, non-support.
@@weldsj8847 Out clauses in contracts can be as strict or loose as the drafter and signers of the contract want.
I would never sign any contract which chained me to another human being without mutual consent.
I would have to be paid many millions of dollars to enter a Option B type marriage.
That's actually a good idea. Add a few more choices like the woman can't take the kids and the house and see the marriage rate increase. What I like about it is it might have a chance of becoming law. No chance of the laws ever changing now as it almost always hurts the man and it a GOLD mine for woman. Remember we gave them the right to vote and now are 32 trillion in the red. Marriage in modern times is really just a paycheck to woman and has been for 200 years.
@@ArizonaVideo99 I haven't known anyone to profit from divorce other than the attorneys. In every case I've seen, both parties are set back ten to 20 years financially and live in vastly reduced circumstances.
I'm sure when guys like Jeff Bezos get divorced, some real money is made, but I haven't seen it with regular middle class or working people.
A $5,000 nun refundable fee on both people
You mean a poverty tax? Only rich people can get married? That's a large sum on a low income but chump change on a high income.
Sleezy divorce lawyer who likes no fault divorce. Who would have thunk. Lol
Genetic fallacy
@@KevinSmile doesn't matter, we need to move past this BS and go to the argument of violence
Lawyers make more money from fault divorces since those require a trial.
As a lawyer who has gone through a divorce, I can assure you that a fault divorce trial would bankrupt the couple and enrich the lawyers. It is EXPENSIVE to divorce if there is the least bit of conflict.
No fault divorce doesn't make sense otherwise there wouldn't even be divorce in the first place
Sometimes you just grow apart and there's more happiness to be found by moving on. It doesn't have to be someone's fault. Telling others to "push through" is counterproductive once they've tried.
"Grown apart"
Translation: "I need constant stimulation, because I'm a modern new age person with zero perseverance or fortitude, and my word means nothing because I am controlled only by my whims and desires"
That's what it really means. "Grown apart"
Yeah, you've been growing apart from integrity and honor your entire pathetic hedonistic existence.
Definitely "growing apart" from God, or more likely a simple pagan, which would explain the hedonism.
If you pour into a "dead marriage " it can be fixed...the same way you pour into a plant and it recovers@blaketrent8548
@@blaketrent8548people need to focus on growing up the apart thing is silly heck you dont5 have to live together I know one married cpuple who are basically monogamous friends with benefits and their pwn lives instead of divorcing
@@blaketrent8548meh that’s pathetic . Everyone grows and changes all the time .. deal with and figure it out
Matt, you need to talk or debate Andrew Wilson.
Andrew is part of the problem. He married a woman 4 times divorced and is raising 4 other men's children. Chikdren who don't have his last name.
@kateruterbories2692 That's his choice, but the ideas he spouts aren't wrong. Marriage has been violated and is a scam for men.
Divorce is never going away, and why should it? The problem is that divorce has become a big business for greedy lawyers. This could be fixed in an instant: no more alimony, all joint assets get split down the middle, child custody is 50/50 by default, and privately held assets cannot be touched by the other party.
This would be a recipe for making a fool of any parent that is primary caretaker. It would also make one foolish enough to be that primary caretaker stuck in that relationship even though they want out for fear of loss of financial support. I wouldn't want a wife that stays with me for only that reason.
That is what we have in Arizona and I just got divorced a second time. It took years for me to cut a deal so I could save my house that I put my life savings to get and paid every bill for 9 years. The split should be simple. The boys go with the dad, the girls go with mom with some sharing and the house if paid for by the man stays with the man. Its always about the house BTW. Most woman in modern times spend all their money on crap and are horrible at saving. This in not just a few woman but more like 70 or 80% and if you find one who had her own money and is good with it she will want a millionaire.
We need to take away the greatest wealth transfer system ever created MARRIAGE!!
Wright your own contract. If they don't like the offer then say so so sorry and move on.
Marriage should be contractual for five years at a time. If things are great then you can just renew for another five years. If not, just wait for the contract to run out and walk away.
That's new and brave of you in your world.
we want more people to be married. marriage is a stabilizing force in a society. that means we need fewer barriers to entry and to make it much harder to exit. Abolish no-fault, abolish permanent alimony, father gets default custody of children unless proven incapable.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...
There is no government solution to this societal rot. Your proposal is laughable.
@@tqs3 wrong. my solution is perfect.
@ArdentLion Your proposal is a feminist's wet dream because it would eliminate marriage once and for all. No woman would sign up to that arrangement.
Heh, we are seeing men get alimony now so of course the law, reflectively doing what is best for women, is starting to end permanent alimony (see for example singer Adele). Happened in Florida! Studies show kids are best off with mom up to age 6 so I could live with a rebuttable presumption kids under 6 should go to mom. After 6? Maybe we should presume they should go to dad. Keep sons out of jail, daughters out of clear high heels and off striper poles.
Omg those MW shirts are so absurdly hilarious and hideous.
Marriage does it mean anything really It's like christmas and bomb fire night birthdays easter it's all Money Money money
Yes, couples could research and stress test their relationship as two individuals who will inevitably want different things.
This all shouldn’t just come all as a surprise a year or two into a marriage. I can be disastrous.
“Abolish no-fault divorce” - psychos
Care to elaborate or just be a jerk
@@firstnamelastname2197 If someone wants a divorce, you think they should have to prove they have a good reason? That’s ridiculous and basically enslavement.
@@MoonshineH The idea is being proffered by men whose only hope of ever retaining a woman is if the state holds her with him by force.
Learner's Permit, that's an answer. Each person's parents interview the engaged couple quarterly. 1 year period. An Oral and Written test after a year. Must Pass Individually and pass a mock situation test conducted in a foreign country.
Lol ok buddy, how about men just stay single?
@@tqs3 That is a viable option.
Have to admit this comment really made me chuckle. Kind of agree to your concept except the bit
about conducted in a foreign country.
Marriage only works if God is in it and put first
People who are worried about the financial implications of divorce shouldn't get married. I am 100% certain that I made the right choice with my wife, and I'm not the kind of guy to be 100% sure of much.
The sad truth is that huge numbers of people are selfish, immature, and impatient (men and women). It's rarely one person's fault, even though so many deluded fools can't see how foolish they truly are, and refuse to accept the role they play in the destruction of their relationships.
Wait it out, and keep looking! If you never find the person you KNOW is right... then you're probably a part of that problem (sorry).
Thinking about divorce when one is getting married is usually the last thing on our minds.
And financial gains during a marriage may not have been forseen. I thought I was 100% certain I
had made the right choice with my husband. Boy was I wrong. He effectively hid substance use
for a starter then slowly has unveiled an abusive side that came out of the shadows. I had been waiting
it out for years and thought he was dependable, loving, and caring. I never even contemplated the
financial implications of divorce - he recently stated he knew he would be entitled to my
retirement when we married!!! Thirty years later these revelations have gutted me.
@@julia190
Did he get half of your retirement, or are you still married?
@julia190 I'm sorry that you are experiencing abuse; that is not acceptable, and you need to remedy your situation by any means necessary. That said, there is a 0% chance that there weren't any indicators of substance abuse or abusive behaviors when you got married. You were blinded to those realities because you wanted your husband to be someone he was not. It happens every day to people of all kinds.
People are very complex, even the simple ones. Substance abuse and physical abuse is a symptom of deeper psychological issues. The core of your husband's problem is one of past trauma, malignant narcissism, a philosophical disconnect to his sense of purpose, or a combination of all three. He is a damaged person, and he needs to be saved: but NOT at the cost of YOUR wellbeing. You are the most important person who can save him, but you should NOT sacrifice your own soul for him. There is only one sacrifice which is sufficient to save your husband, and you have probably guessed by now who that is: Jesus Christ. You and your husband may or may not be religious. You might go to church, but your husband might not truly believe. The truth is, if he can find Christ, he will be saved and your marriage will be saved. Period. It's easier said than done, but I would suggest that you speak with good pastor, ASAP.
God bless you and your family.
@@KevinDunne-et8tb no- we are still married - very complicated financial picture
@@sv650ftw4 THank you for your concern. I knew he smoked pot - but he truly hid it behind my back 99.9% of the time - it was the fact
that he used it several times daily he did not disclose. Big difference from an occasional or weekend use.
And no - I did not share this habit with him. As far as his abusive behaviors they surfaced when I confronted
him about his substance use. Not physical but subtle disengagement and lack of communication - then
more projection and lastly lots of control. And yes I definately turned a blind eye to his other signs of immaturity - hindsight is always 20-20. You are spot on about his own issues, I have friends, therapists
that share the same observations.
Because you BOTH made a commitment, and people who break their commitments are bad people. I could understand an out maybe before children are involved, but not after. Work it out, children in adult bodies.
Yeah I'm sure women will get right on that, since you demanded it.
What about what Jesus said?
I love saying WWJD... To money changers.
No fault divorce makes marriage COMPLETELY POINTLESS. What the fuck difference is there between a married couple and an unmarried couple, other than that the divorced woman gets paid on the way out the door? How dumb and blind is everyone?
It affirms their love for each other.
@spongeintheshoe Yeah I know when I see a boyfriend/girlfriend, I think "They aren't in love" and then when I see a married couple, I think "they must really be in love." -- Oh wait, it's the exact opposite.
@@tqs3 Are you saying that married people shouldn’t love each other?
@@spongeintheshoe ...... are you saying children should be fed to dogs? No, I'm saying marriage doesn't prove any aspect of love. It's pointless. It's not a commitment, thanks to no fault divorce.
@@tqs3 So what’s the point of marriage _without_ no-fault divorce?
I feel sorry for you that you think the size of the dog determines the value . I am a big fan but that’s the way a woke insane liberal would think, using your feelings not facts and prescribing an opinion as truth . Still a fan just wanted you to know when your wrong .
Strawman argument. Opposing no-fault divorce has never meant forcing people to stay married. Obviously that would be stupid. Opposing no-fault divorce means fault must be assigned for the divorce. Maybe it's 50\50, or 40\60, or 5\95. Whatever it is, fault must be assigned. You can still get divorced for any reason you want, but if you're getting divorced for a stupid reason then you're probably going to be at fault and pay damaged to the other person.
Why would anyone male or female sign on to such an Orwellian nightmare?
Is “I don’t want to be in a relationship with this person anymore” not enough reason?
@@spongeintheshoe you are correct, it is not enough - unless you can provide a good answer as to why you don't want to be in a relationship with that person.
@@red_five3325 So you think it's ethical to force someone to remain in a relationship they don't want to be in?
@@spongeintheshoe if they are not married, then they should be able to walk out at any time.
If they are married, then you should be asking *WHY* that person would want to end the marriage. For example, is the other partner abusive? Unfaithful? Dishonest? Extremely careless? If s/he cannot provide a good reason to end the marriage, then s/he is not to be trusted because s/he cannot take his/her vows seriously.
I hate this idea of just being “done” with marriage. It’s absurd. There’s no such thing. You take a vow. Simply just don’t break that vow. Not to mention it’s mortally sinful and against God’s law to divorce. However if you separate marriage from God and religion I then can understand why people concoct concepts such as just being “done” with a marriage. Secular marriage is one step up from going steady. It’s not taken seriously at all. If you love God you’ll love your marriage and do everything morally permissible to make it flourish.
Your opinion is hopelessly naive and can easily be discarded. "Just don't divorce bro" lol what
@@tqs3 sounds like you’re saying that because you may gotten a divorce and now take offense to my comment. That’s not all I said is just don’t divorce. Further it’s not so hopelessly naive as that is how literally the vast majority of all married couples in the western world for the last two millennia lived. They understood marriage is a sacrament and you don’t break your marriage vow. That it’s against God’s law to do so. Could this be discarded as you say? Yes anything can be discarded as human beings continue to degenerate into irreverent, benighted degenerates. But it wasnt easily discarded for two thousand years. And if it was up to me I’d make laws abolishing no fault divorce. You actually sound like one of these guys who can’t fathom how men dont watch the prawn. Speak for yourself and not others. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Take care.
Marriage has a low success rate because couples do not take it seriously. It can be a lifelong source of great satisfaction and contentment, but not without the hard work and sacrifice that goes with it. Its why this generation could not understand a book like Jane Eyre, where a man felt obligated to take care of his mad and violent wife no matter what misery it caused him. Divorces skyrocketed because couples didn't really believe marriage only ends with death. Obviously there are cases where divorce is merited with abuse and infidelity, but most of the time it is a reflection of the weak and selfish values to which we have slid into as a society.
Yeah I'm sure a lot of women (who are bringing the vast majority of divorces) give the absolute slightest shit about what Jordan Petersen has to say about the subject. Especially when they want out and are paid to go through with it, with zero social consequence.
I don't give the slightest on what Petersen has to say either, and I'm a guy.