[Fasces]

You've ignored the question I asked, though.

How does a spouse in an abusive relationship secure the divorce? Who do they need to ask for permission / who judges the evidence / what's the line between 'abuse' and 'mistake'?

[Godstud]

Your argument is irrelevant, as that's not what I was talking about. Again, you talk about the exceptions, and not the rule. I am sure exceptions can be made. You aren't making an argument.

[Fasces]

You sound like the GOP with their 'common sense abortion legislation' and handwaving very real consequences with a vague "I'm sure there will be no consequences."

Walk me through the mechanics of your proposed reform.

Right now if a spouse wants a divorce -> they file divorce papers -> they settle or use a civil court to settle outstanding legal disputes -> courts recognize both of them as 'single'.

What would happen in your ideal system? What steps would I have to take?

[Tainari88]

My parents got divorced after being married for 21 years. They had shared custody of us and were mature about it. I was sixteen years old and my sister was 18 years old when my parents got divorced. I think my father initiated it. But my mother signed the papers and I think later on they got along better. My mother remarried after 12 years of being single. My father had some girlfriends but he never remarried.

He said my mother was the best woman in the world. But, my mother had enough of my father's ways. Though she paid for his flowers for his funeral and took care of him when he was ill. She brought her second husband to help her help him when he got ill.

It is strange, but they got along really well after being divorced for a long time.

Now, looking back on it? I think they did well on a human level with each other. They just did not do well within the constricted ways of marriage between men and women for their generation. My mother found love again. I like that a lot. She was happy with her second husband.

[pugsville]

Your argument is irrelevant, as that's not what I was talking about. Again, you talk about the exceptions, and not the rule. I am sure exceptions can be made. You aren't making an argument.

it;s entirely reasonable question which you are ignoring.

[Fasces]

Everyone knows CBA means 'can't be assed' not 'cost-benefit analysis' @pugsville

[pugsville]

Do you know what's worse for kids than parents in a bad marriage? Not having both parents around. If the parents aren't selfish assholes, they'll manage things and make the kids a priority. Usually the parents choose selfishness and get a divorce.

Your opinion,. In many cases it is worse.

If the parents are bit selfish assholes, they'll manage things and make the kids a priority applies equally regardless divorce or no divorce. Divorce does not mean both parents are not around.

[pugsville]

Statistics show that women win child custody rights a staggering 90% of the time, even though fathers play an important role in their children's lives pre and post-divorce.
https://familylawattorneymesaaz.net/div ... %2Ddivorce.

You might feel that it's incorrect, but the reality shows otherwise. Sabotaging a man in family custody court is appallingly easy. A simple asking of a restraining order against a father cause calamity, whether that is justified, or not.

Father's parental rights groups exist now for a reason.

If women do the majority of the child-rearing before the divorce is irrelevant. Divorce should seek 50% custody of children from the start, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Canada IS better than most, but still has problems due to an inherent bias(traditionalism).

Anyways, we're getting off topic. The thread isn't about custody of children, but divorce.

@Fasces Casting aspersions because I don't agree with you? You're usually the victim of that.

I don't watch nor listen to Crowder. I watch/listen to people across the spectrum, to get a wider perspective.

"in 51% of child custody cases, both parents agree for the mother to be the custodial parent. "


"Out of every five custodial parents in the United States, about four were mothers, according to the US Census Bureau child custody statistics from 2018. It’s a slight decline compared to 2014, when 82.5% (five out of every six) of custodial parents were mothers."
https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics/

"nearly 4 in 5 custodial parents were mothers (79.9%). But the statistics go deeper than that: Not only does the mother get custody of the children more often, the parents agree in more than half the cases (51%) that the mother should have custody."
https://www.justgreatlawyers.com/legal- ... statistics

"In fact, on the national average, a female parent is granted around 65% of custody time, whereas a male parent receives around 35%."
https://utahdivorce.biz/national-child- ... by-gender/

link to census bureau study

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens ... 60-269.pdf

[Godstud]

None of those facts, @pugsville, dispute what I've already posted.

[Rich]

Your argument is irrelevant, as that's not what I was talking about. Again, you talk about the exceptions, and not the rule. I am sure exceptions can be made. You aren't making an argument.

Let's get real, you talk about exceptions as if that won't cause problems. In the British Isles, we had over 350 years of warfare because of the argument over one exception. It was actually an annulment, rather than a divorce but it amounts to the same thing. I'm not disagreeing with you that there are big negatives to the collapse of life long marriages, but as soon as you say there can be exceptions, then anyone who wants an out will claim to be an exception.

And what's the point of keeping people married anyway? Married peoples don't have to live together. Married people don't have to have sex. They're free to have sex with other people. A man's free to father children with other women, a women's free to get pregnant with any man she wants. Marriage was a patriarchal institution that only made sense in a patriarchal society.

Part of the confusion around marriage, comes from the fact that St Paul was an unmarried homosexual, because of him Christianity always had ideals around marriage that were never grounded in reality. It was always a patriarchal institution, contry to the ideals of Christians. Hence as soon as women started having careers marriage started collapsing.

[Godstud]

Fact: The best possible outcome for a child is to have two heterosexual parents. This puts them at every possible statistical advantage. Marriage is about having children. If you don't plan on having or raising children, then there is no need for a marriage.

[ingliz]

If you don't plan on having or raising children, then there is no need for a marriage.

There are reasons to get married besides having children. According to the Pew Research Center, around 58% of those getting married cite companionship, and children are optional when asked. About four-in-ten cohabiting adults cite finances and convenience as major reasons why they moved in with their partner.

[Godstud]

You don't need to be married to cohabitate.

[ingliz]

You don't need to be married to cohabitate

True, but this survey was for married couples only, and the cohabitees were questioned on why they got married instead of just living together.

[Pants-of-dog]

Having two parents(male/female) involved in raising a child is what is best for children. This is a statistical fact.

Then you are now agreeing that having a fifty percent split is not the best thing.

[pugsville]

None of those facts, @pugsville, dispute what I've already posted.

They do considerably, that in about half the woman gets custody by joint consent, and of the other 50 around 20% make is custodial parent. So when custodial is contents men get it about 40% of the time which radically different from your post saying 10%, complaining men are getting screwed when in fact they doing about even.

There lies, there are dammed lies and then there are statistics without context statistics can be extremenely misleading.

[pugsville]

Fact: The best possible outcome for a child is to have two heterosexual parents. This puts them at every possible statistical advantage. Marriage is about having children. If you don't plan on having or raising children, then there is no need for a marriage.

Marriage is not always about having children there are many laws in many countries that reference marriage. Property, superannuation, inheritance, burial, marriage affects many legal matters which has nothing do with children.

Marriage is recognition by society of a partnership. There is no need for children.

[pugsville]

You don't need to be married to cohabitate.

Nor do you need to be married and cohabiting to co-parent.

[Godstud]

Then you are now agreeing that having a fifty percent split is not the best thing.

False. I am saying that it is optimal to have BOTH parents involved in raising a child, not simply one. I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what I said.

There lies, there are dammed lies and then there are statistics without context statistics can be extremenely misleading.

Yes, and that applies to the statistics your brought forward, which don't actually contradict anything I posted.

Marriage is recognition by society of a partnership. There is no need for children.

If there are no children, the need for marriage evaporates, for the most part.

Nor do you need to be married and cohabiting to co-parent.

No, but historically this has been the best situation possible for raising children. It hasn't changed, and single parent homes are an increasing problem.

The results are not good for the children, and often results in lacking a female or male role model, unless the children are particularly lucky. Trying to keep both parents involved in a child's life should be of paramount importance when custody is considered.

This highlights some problems...
What Are the Disadvantages of a Single-Parent Family?
https://www.medicinenet.com/disadvantag ... rticle.htm


I apologize if I am an avid supporter of the traditional nuclear family(married and with children), of which I now am a part of.

[ingliz]

I apologize if I am an avid supporter of the traditional nuclear family(married and with children) of which I now am a part of.

What does that matter when 'that' doesn't stop people from marrying for different reasons, as @pugsville and I have pointed out?