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

[gozpel]

In what way are the blue states like Scandinavia?

Iowa I understand. I was there 16 years ago and the ppl I met was lovely. But they didn't want the same laws as the neighbouring states or something, was a big hullaballah.

Still, what does Scandinavia have to do with this? Are all states in the blue sectors promiscious?

In Scandinavia we root as we want or are allowed to, but we don't put it on Facebook, it's a way of living in the cold.

 

[ace99]

"Where do whores go?" asked Tyrion

The fat man looked astonished. "China." he replied popping a fat black buttered mushroom into his mouth and chewing nosily.

Chinese couples are rushing to divorce before a new tax on home sales hits after the government cracked down on property speculation, the Shanghai Daily newspaper has reported.

Shanghai's marriage registrars, - who also handle divorces - saw scores of couples rush in to untie the knot after China's central government announced a 20 percent tax on the profit from house sales on Friday.

A loophoole in the law allows couples with two properties who divorce and put each house into one person's name to then sell them tax-free under certain conditions, after which they can remarry.

An exemption from the tax applies to those who are selling their main home and have owned it for more than five
years.

The registration centre in Zhabei District said had seen a record 53 divorces on Tuesday.

"We have never seen so many couples seeking a divorce in a single day, and by 2pm the number had already surpassed the previous high of 42 couples," its director, whose surname is Yin, told the state-backed paper.

Shanghai's civil affairs bureau confirmed the planned tax had triggered a rise in the number of divorces, but declined to give a total for cases across the city, the newspaper said.

He Zhanbiao, the administration's director, warned that some people might be taking a risk.

"Some men might trick their wives into getting a divorce using the tax as an excuse. But they might have a mistress and truly want a divorce," he said.

Estate agents across the city also witnessed long queues of people eager to sell.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/03/201336103350409570.html

 

[Leonel]

It's as the Meat Loaf song says; Good whores go to heaven but the bad whores go everywhere!

 

[schlaufuchs]

Iowa I understand. I was there 16 years ago and the ppl I met was lovely. But they didn't want the same laws as the neighbouring states or something, was a big hullaballah.

Again, it should be noted that gay marriage is legal in Iowa and that Iowa has one of the best public education systems in the country.

 

[Core Imposter]

Again, it should be noted that gay marriage is legal in Iowa and that Iowa has one of the best public education systems in the country.

Then why did Captain Kirk leave?

 

[kulade]

Indeed. It destroys many unhappy marriages.

How about you stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives, and just leave them alone?

At risk of sounding like a backwards Appalachian man I think it's reasonable to say that marriage as a cultural institution doesn't exist entirely for the narrow pleasure of those married. Whether we're talking about traditional marriage to unite two families financially or culturally or Leave-it-to-Beaver marriage to care for children, marriage has not until recently been understood as a more hedonistic fling for the two participants' narcissistic whims.

I think one of the problems with our modern conception of marriage is (1) it's associated with love (HA!), but more importantly (2) it's viewed as a kind of hyper-dating, nothing more than an advanced, but still potentially fickle romantic allegiance to a person. If marriages don't last as permanent financial or child-rearing bonds, they become useless pretty quick, and accordingly a lot of Americans (overwhelmingly the poor who would plausibly benefit most from the arrangement) have been ignoring the institution.

Granted I don't think that law should be passed to constrain marriage, but I think it's strange a lot of people gang up on people who even DARE to recommend "conservative family values." That recommendation doesn't imply legal coercion; sometimes it's just advice.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then why did Captain Kirk leave?

Because ENTERPRISE! Duh! But I'm sure gay marriage was legal throughout the Federation at that point

At risk of sounding like a backwards Appalachian man I think it's reasonable to say that marriage as a cultural institution doesn't exist entirely for the narrow pleasure of those married. Whether we're talking about traditional marriage to unite two families financially or culturally or Leave-it-to-Beaver marriage to care for children, marriage has not until recently been understood as a more hedonistic fling for the two participants' narcissistic whims.

I think one of the problems with our modern conception of marriage is (1) it's associated with love (HA!), but more importantly (2) it's viewed as a kind of hyper-dating, nothing more than an advanced, but still potentially fickle romantic allegiance to a person. If marriages don't last as permanent financial or child-rearing bonds, they become useless pretty quick, and accordingly a lot of Americans (overwhelmingly the poor who would plausibly benefit most from the arrangement) have been ignoring the institution.

Granted I don't think that law should be passed to constrain marriage, but I think it's strange a lot of people gang up on people who even DARE to recommend "conservative family values." That recommendation doesn't imply legal coercion; sometimes it's just advice.

This, so much this. I support conservative family values and lasseiz-faire libertarian political values, figure THAT ONE out!

 

[Core Imposter]

This, so much this. I support conservative family values and lasseiz-faire libertarian political values, figure THAT ONE out!

You are heading for a collision mate. Even the liberals recognize we have a problem.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/not_pretty_picture_qlef5Ek2LskN7y5FW0bJ3H

The numbers are staggering. Out of 120,000 live births in New York City in 2010, more than 54,000 babies were born out of wedlock.

The human toll behind the numbers is devastating. Children raised without two parents face much higher odds in every facet of life. It’s as if they are forced to swim with one hand tied behind their backs. Some succeed, most don’t.

Now comes the good news. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do something about this preventable tragedy.


A billboard campaign is not going to solve the problem of out of marriage births combined with declining birth rates. We are facing a massive social engineering project. The society shaped by the Church is being torn down but the values of faith are those that supported the family. And it was the structure of the family that served as a foundation of society.

All of our problems are interconnected and there will be massive change, by choice or necessity. In a society where everyone wants to be free to do whatever they want and also collect free ponies I'm betting that change will be involuntary and brutal.

 

[ace99]

Where do whores go, thought Tyrion as he pissed strongly into the river. He sighed with relief but became immediately depressed again. Where do whores go?

He looked down at the stream of urine sadly. Not here, he thought. Not here.

More than a year after Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher announced they were splitting up, Moore will officially file her divorce papers in Los Angeles as early as today (March 6).

Moore previously said she wanted to settle the divorce via confidential agreements, but the New York Post reports that the actress is tired of being unable to reach a settlement. Even though Kutcher filed his in December, Moore didn't want to file her papers until after the private agreement was reached. Now the divorce could go to a trial.

An insider reportedly told the Post that Kutcher has been especially "difficult" and "hostile" throughout the process.

“Ashton made a lot of money after marrying Demi -- a lot more than she made -- but despite him becoming just as famous through her, he believes he doesn’t owe her that much,” the source said, emphasizing that Moore is fed up.

The couple have attempted to reach a private settlement for the past year.

"Demi is definitely ready to move on,” the source said of her decision to file. “It’s hoped lawyers for both sides can reach a settlement this spring. Otherwise the divorce will go into litigation and trial.”

Kutcher, 35, is the highest-paid actor on TV thanks to his leading gig on "Two and a Half Men," which net him $24 million between May 2011 and May 2012. The last payday publicly reported for Moore, 50, was $2 million for 2003's "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle," according to IMDB.

Kutcher and Moore split in November 2011 following rumors that Kutcher had an affair with a 22-year-old on the night of his and Moore's six-year anniversary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/demi-moore-filing-divorce-papers_n_2818283.html

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are heading for a collision mate. Even the liberals recognize we have a problem.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/not_pretty_picture_qlef5Ek2LskN7y5FW0bJ3H

The numbers are staggering. Out of 120,000 live births in New York City in 2010, more than 54,000 babies were born out of wedlock.

The human toll behind the numbers is devastating. Children raised without two parents face much higher odds in every facet of life. It’s as if they are forced to swim with one hand tied behind their backs. Some succeed, most don’t.

Now comes the good news. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do something about this preventable tragedy.


A billboard campaign is not going to solve the problem of out of marriage births combined with declining birth rates. We are facing a massive social engineering project. The society shaped by the Church is being torn down but the values of faith are those that supported the family. And it was the structure of the family that served as a foundation of society.

All of our problems are interconnected and there will be massive change, by choice or necessity. In a society where everyone wants to be free to do whatever they want and also collect free ponies I'm betting that change will be involuntary and brutal.

So stop the free ponies

 

[Core Imposter]

Demi Moore is the perfect example of how society tends to begin its decent into hell by allowing women to serve in the military.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Demi Moore is the perfect example of how society tends to begin its decent into hell by allowing women to serve in the military.

I'm so tired of hearing about this crap (Either side) because its so irrelevant to our real problems. If the neocon warmongerers can get us talking about why women should/shouldn't serve rather than spending our time discussing what our military should be doing, or if what our military is currently doing is anything that a moral person ought to be involved in (The answer to that first question is "Defense of our country" and the answer to the second question is "Not right now, no", but the neocons have very, very radically different answers) then we've already lost.

I'd actually tend to agree that women serving in the military PROBABLY isn't the best policy choice but frankly I couldn't care less. We deserve to lose right now anyway, since the only fighting we're doing is pure, naked aggression. I don't wish for anyone's death, of course, but that applies equally to the "Enemy" troops as it does to our own. I'd gladly trade women serving, or not serving, in exchange for ending the pseudo-service called "Aggression and imperialism."

 

[Formaldehyde]

What's wrong with making people think twice about divorce again?

Perhaps they should have to view a sonogram of their daughter's predicted fetus first.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.
.

And this has what to do with my original assertion that conservatives tend to demand the government stay out of our lives except when they want the government to enforce their own values? This whole bit is a sidetrack/distraction from my original comment, though MobBoss tried to throw the red herring label on me.

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.

Why does it matter if it's good for the state? You take this approach and you start down the slippery slope to massive government intervention in our lives 'for the good of the state'. Certainly I could say this about all kinds of things I would support the government getting involved in (seatbelt laws, universal healthcare, SSM, legalizing drugs, blah blah blah) but you'd be against many of those things as they are against conservative values and because your [not you personally] goal is to 'drag the government into the bathtub and drown it'. Yet, when it comes to enforcing your values, hell, anything that's good for the state and also happens to fit the conservative social goals should have the force of law to compell us to follow them.

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

Yet you accuse me of red herrings.

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

Cool beans.

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.

Again, you took what I said originally about conservatives trying to force their socal values on people while simultaneously clamoring for 'small government/government out of our lives' and went down a tangent. I was and am happy to follow you, but don't try and smack me with your stinky fish, please.

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.

I don't see marriage counceling as a bad thing either.

Rofl, you never agree with me.

ROFLcopter, I do quite often; you never pay attention.

 

[MobBoss]

Why does it matter if it's good for the state? You take this approach and you start down the slippery slope to massive government intervention in our lives 'for the good of the state'....(snip)

Ok, before you get off on a wild tangent, let me stop you. What I mean by saying 'good for the state' I mean that its good for the people, not necessarily good for the government - and that since long healthy and productive marriages are good for people, then the government has a vested interest in supporting them.

I hope that clears it up.

Yet you accuse me of red herrings.

I merely countered your own red herring with another.

I don't see marriage counceling as a bad thing either.

I recognize you agreeing with me here.

ROFLcopter, I do quite often; you never pay attention.

^

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ok, before you get off on a wild tangent, let me stop you. What I mean by saying 'good for the state' I mean that its good for the people, not necessarily good for the government - and that since long healthy and productive marriages are good for people, then the government has a vested interest in supporting them.

I hope that clears it up.

That's not how 'for the good of the state typically gets used', but ok I see.

I merely countered your own red herring with another.

No no no, I went on a tangential rant about conservatives, you threw out the red herring.

I recognize you agreeing with me here.



^

There have been other times, including recently, but this is still progress.
Edit:
I never should have said 'quite often', because that's not true. But it's also untrue that I reflexively disagree with you.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And this has what to do with my original assertion that conservatives tend to demand the government stay out of our lives except when they want the government to enforce their own values? This whole bit is a sidetrack/distraction from my original comment, though MobBoss tried to throw the red herring label on me.

Moderate conservatives usually have reasonable arguments for the interventions they do want, I don't usually agree (I am a Libertarian after all) but they can usually be somewhat consistent without just resorting to "The Bible says so therefore..." which doesn't really work for a secular country. Radical conservatives, on the other hand, are typically wildly inconsistent by any secular metric and possibly even a Christian metric, anyone who wants government to intervene in just about every social behavior they don't like should surely want the government to redistribute wealth to the poor as well.

Why does it matter if it's good for the state? You take this approach and you start down the slippery slope to massive government intervention in our lives 'for the good of the state'. Certainly I could say this about all kinds of things I would support the government getting involved in (seatbelt laws, universal healthcare, SSM, legalizing drugs, blah blah blah) but you'd be against many of those things as they are against conservative values and because your [not you personally] goal is to 'drag the government into the bathtub and drown it'. Yet, when it comes to enforcing your values, hell, anything that's good for the state and also happens to fit the conservative social goals should have the force of law to compell us to follow them.

How is legalizing drugs "Good for the state"? I'd say its good for the people, but the state? I'd tend to think that banning drugs would indeed help "The state" become more powerful.

I don't really know how Mobby gets from "State" to "People anyway. There are lots of forms of government that aren't States (For example, my church has a government but my church is not a State, the family would usually be another example of a government that is not a State, and so would a private school) but a State is always a government.

 

[JollyRoger]

If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't a vasectomy count as an annulment?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Adam's sin was disobeying God, not learning about God's World.

Like Homosexuality, or eating pork or eating fat, or tearing your clothes or shell fish or mixing fabrics in your clothes or tattoos, working on the sabbath, mistreating illegals or long hair ...... wait ....... is that why the Priest who were obeying God killed Jesus ?

Did Jesus not know that long hair was an offense against himself ?

EDIT: Having sex with your daughter is OK though.

 

[schlaufuchs]

If marriage is for procreation, shouldn't a vasectomy count as an annulment?

Don't ever go away again.