Iowa Republican wants to get rid of no-fault divorce so grandaughter won't be a slut

[ace99]

In that case I hate every traditional institution.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

As long as you don't hate peanut butter, we're square.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I'm wondering if there are any traditional institutions that you folks approve of?

I kinda like... um... well, I'm sure there's something... ah...

I guess the tradition of teaching your children how to change oil and a tire, no matter their gender? That's a family tradition for my family.

 

[MobBoss]

Divorce is a terrible thing; but getting married without taking it seriously is almost as bad.

If I had my way, I'd do away with no-fault divorce and make pre-marriage couples counseling a prerequisite for getting married.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Is it worth the expense for the government to become an official matchmaker?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well yes, because the government needs to stay out of our lives in all areas except the areas that enforce cultural norms that makes older white people comfortable.

 

[civver_764]

If people stopped getting married there'd be no divorces.

 

[MobBoss]

Is it worth the expense for the government to become an official matchmaker?

Well, I think longer, healthier marriages and less divorce are good for the nation as a whole.

And i'm not sure there has to be any government expense in requiring that. Let those desiring to be married pay for it. I dont mind making it harder to get married if it does indeed result in longer and healthier marriages.

If people stopped getting married there'd be no divorces.

Odd fact, less people are getting married and the divorce rate is indeed declining. In other words, those that are getting married seem to be taking it at least a bit more serious and are getting divorced less. Nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[ace99]

Harder for poor people to get married. Specifically.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Blue states = scandinavia, red states = central America, Iowa = Iran.

Well, Iran if gay marriage was legal.

 

[MobBoss]

Harder for poor people to get married. Specifically.

Couple of points. The cost doesnt need to be expensive nor unobtainable. Poor people still have to pay for a variety of other licensed priviledges so why should marriage be any different? Its harder for poor people to own a car, own a home, etc. etc. etc.

I would think trying to develop a longer, healthy marriage would help poor people be less poor to be honest; since good marriages result in people that are more productive.

Dont you think such a benefit would outweigh a minimal cost?

Well yes, because the government needs to stay out of our lives in all areas except the areas that enforce cultural norms that makes older white people comfortable.

Ok, can you try to see past your own bias and actually listen to me for once?

Dont you think it would be worth it if it did result in longer and healthier marriages?

I mean, the benefits would far, far outweight the cost. People in a healthy marriage are more productive; live longer; have fewer health issues, provide a good environment to raise kids in.

There is literally no downside to trying to promote healthy long-lasting marriages.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I dont know that longer marriages necessarily are healthy nor am I sure that longer and/or healthier marriages are actually better for the state. I also don't think it's the government's business to get involved after issuing the marriage license up until it may have to issue the divorce certificate.


For clarification: do you support same sex marriage?

If not, it reinforces my larger point about older white people trying to enforce their cultursl values while many of them simultaneously demand a hands-off approach from the government in every other area.

 

[ace99]

I would think trying to develop a longer, healthy marriage would help poor people be less poor to be honest; since good marriages result in people that are more productive.

Dont you think such a benefit would outweigh a minimal cost?

As it happens single mothers, unmarried couples and other such demographics tend to congregate in a certain socio-economic place. Since I've heard a lot of people decry the practice of the unwed single mother (not the father though) I hardly think putting up economic costs to marriage unless it's purely nominal would be helpful.

I mean, the benefits would far, far outweight the cost. People in a healthy marriage are more productive; live longer; have fewer health issues, provide a good environment to raise kids in.

Not gays though. They don't deserve to be more productive, live longer, have fewer health issues or a better environment to raise kids in. Let them die earlier be less productive and have crappy childhood environments!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ok, can you try to see past your own bias and actually listen to me for once?

Odd that you completely ignore me when I agree with you but whine when I don't.

 

[Core Imposter]

If I understand this right you folks want government out of the bedroom but welcome it in your wallet.

?

I think we can agree on that; I will be on Social Security long before most of you.

 

[Silurian]

I dont know that longer marriages necessarily are healthy nor am I sure that longer and/or healthier marriages are actually better for the state. I also don't think it's the government's business to get involved after issuing the marriage license up until it may have to issue the divorce certificate.

Mobboss is correct, People in a healthy marriage are more productive; live longer; have fewer health issues, provide a good environment to raise children in.

But no fault divorce should be allowed if people change etc. but they should not be able to wake up one morning and decide to get divorced. There should be a period of time to cool off.

Advocating counselling before marriage would be before the government issues the marriage licence. Not sure how much it would cost if you had to pay for it, maybe $100 to $200.
.

 

[Core Imposter]

<MisterCooper looking for a Free Pony with training wheels>

Wheeeeeee.................

 

[warpus]

I'm wondering if there are any traditional institutions that you folks approve of?

The ministry of silly walks?

 

[mrt144]

We have seen what destruction no fault divorce has on society.

less husbands beating and raping wives.

 

[MobBoss]

I dont know that longer marriages necessarily are healthy nor am I sure that longer and/or healthier marriages are actually better for the state.

Perhaps you should look this up. I'm not lieing about it. Married people tend to live longer and be more healthy and productive over their course of their life. I dont see how you can argue that's not good for the state.

I also don't think it's the government's business to get involved after issuing the marriage license up until it may have to issue the divorce certificate.

What about issues like domestic violence? Anyway, thats an entirely different subject all-together.

For clarification: do you support same sex marriage?

Nope, but if it is going to be legal, then the same requirements should apply equally.

If not, it reinforces my larger point about older white people trying to enforce their cultursl values while many of them simultaneously demand a hands-off approach from the government in every other area.

The issue of same sex marriage is simply a red herring to my point regarding marriage et al. I'm not the one bringing that into the mix; you are.

The benefits of good marriages has been studied fairly well and are well documented. Action to support that isnt a bad thing at all.

As it happens single mothers, unmarried couples and other such demographics tend to congregate in a certain socio-economic place. Since I've heard a lot of people decry the practice of the unwed single mother (not the father though) I hardly think putting up economic costs to marriage unless it's purely nominal would be helpful.

Then make them pretty nominal.

Hell, I had to go through more counseling to get my vasectomy than I did in order to get married. I think thats kind of out of whack considering what a bad marriage can do to people, not to mention their kids if they have them. I would see such a move promoting more healthy families; not as a bad thing.

Odd that you completely ignore me when I agree with you but whine when I don't.

Rofl, you never agree with me.