Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Why the fvck do we have alimony?

FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 6:30:19 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Like, alimony encourages people to stay in marriages that have gone terribly awry, the sort of marriages that lead to unhappy parents and fvcked up childhoods.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 9:10:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:30:19 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, alimony encourages people to stay in marriages that have gone terribly awry, the sort of marriages that lead to unhappy parents and fvcked up childhoods.

Considering that there are more women in the workforce than males, and women are by far the larger group receiving alimony, this social bandaid can be safely removed. It won't though, because women cling to their privileges, as evidenced by the shitcanning of the ERA from Shlafly's STOP crowd. (stop taking out privileges)
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 11:34:56 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

It can be traced back to the ancient world, where men were the breadwinners and women spent most of their time having babies. Any woman without a man was destitute, unless she had independent wealth. In this context, alimony is fair and reasonable, as it prevents a man from dooming his wife to starvation just because he doesn't like her anymore.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 11:44:15 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

The argument is that should a person sacrifice their career, or parts of their career to sacrifice for the family, that they should in some way be compensated for that lost monies, or compensated that they might be out of the work force entirely for the case of a stay at home parent.

Not saying I agree with it, but there is some merit to the case, circumstance depending.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 11:44:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

The argument is that should a person sacrifice their career, or parts of their career to sacrifice for the family, that they should in some way be compensated for that lost monies, or compensated that they might be out of the work force entirely for the case of a stay at home parent.

Not saying I agree with it, but there is some merit to the case, circumstance depending.

I thought what you are describing is child support, and alimony was merely an antiquated way of ensuring the woman can still live in somewhat equal standard as she did in marriage in a time where it was economically unlikely.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 11:11:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 4:19:02 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 9/15/2016 11:44:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

The argument is that should a person sacrifice their career, or parts of their career to sacrifice for the family, that they should in some way be compensated for that lost monies, or compensated that they might be out of the work force entirely for the case of a stay at home parent.

Not saying I agree with it, but there is some merit to the case, circumstance depending.

I thought what you are describing is child support, and alimony was merely an antiquated way of ensuring the woman can still live in somewhat equal standard as she did in marriage in a time where it was economically unlikely.

No, child support is child support. Alimony is supposed to assist a party financially for sacrificing their time as a career employee to instead be a primarily domestic player in the relationship.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 11:50:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think it's should be circumstantial. There are people who are getting divorced who may not have seen it coming, and are getting "dumped" so to speak. It's really devastating if your spouse was you sole source of income/livelihood, and now you are suddenly getting dumped. In this case you should receive alimony.

Fortunately and unfortunately for me, I have my own affluence, but even after getting dumped by my spouse, since I make more money than him, I'm probably going to have to pay him alimony....yeah that sh*t sucks too hard. I don't think I should have to pay him to keep the lifestyle we had while together since he decided to leave, but in the end the divorce cost less monetarily and mentally if I just pay him instead of fight it out.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 12:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:30:19 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, alimony encourages people to stay in marriages that have gone terribly awry, the sort of marriages that lead to unhappy parents and fvcked up childhoods.
Taking government out of marriage would be a start. That way, each marriage contract would be able to be written according to the wishes of the couple, not the archaic laws of Ancient Rome and the church canon. (Just keep the ban on incest, polygamy and polyamory in place.)
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 12:21:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 12:13:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/15/2016 6:30:19 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, alimony encourages people to stay in marriages that have gone terribly awry, the sort of marriages that lead to unhappy parents and fvcked up childhoods.
Taking government out of marriage would be a start. That way, each marriage contract would be able to be written according to the wishes of the couple, not the archaic laws of Ancient Rome and the church canon. (Just keep the ban on incest, polygamy and polyamory in place.)

In taking the government out of said contract, whom would you suggest enforce it should it need to be dissolved, or develops into a state in which one party to the marriage is aggrieved?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 12:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 12:21:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In taking the government out of said contract, whom would you suggest enforce it should it need to be dissolved, or develops into a state in which one party to the marriage is aggrieved?
The court system, of course. Yet marriage would be as basic as a small business contract where two parties have scribbled down an agreement on a piece of paper.

This implementation, however simplifying, does not remove the need for legal counsel or the structure of the legal system for those facing a divorce. It is a question of increasing flexibility and of having the parties set their own terms (within reason) from the get-go.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 1:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 12:30:38 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 12:21:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In taking the government out of said contract, whom would you suggest enforce it should it need to be dissolved, or develops into a state in which one party to the marriage is aggrieved?
The court system, of course.

AKA the government.

Yet marriage would be as basic as a small business contract where two parties have scribbled down an agreement on a piece of paper.

This implementation, however simplifying, does not remove the need for legal counsel or the structure of the legal system for those facing a divorce. It is a question of increasing flexibility and of having the parties set their own terms (within reason) from the get-go.

You still need the executive arm of the government for enforcement. You aren't actually "taking the government out".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 1:36:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 1:20:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/16/2016 12:30:38 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 12:21:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In taking the government out of said contract, whom would you suggest enforce it should it need to be dissolved, or develops into a state in which one party to the marriage is aggrieved?
The court system, of course.
AKA the government.
Synecdochically, the federal government. (We are Americans, right?)

Yet marriage would be as basic as a small business contract where two parties have scribbled down an agreement on a piece of paper.

This implementation, however simplifying, does not remove the need for legal counsel or the structure of the legal system for those facing a divorce. It is a question of increasing flexibility and of having the parties set their own terms (within reason) from the get-go.
You still need the executive arm of the government for enforcement. You aren't actually "taking the government out".
You are most definitely taking government out of marriage -- not literally but in the sense of a libertarian trope. At present, government regulates the details of the agreement in ways that sustain marriage as a "public institution." And it is common that we refer to the "institution of marriage" as a grand and age-old function in society. This is the practice libertarians seek to end through privatization. And by making marriage a contract like any other, the parties define the terms while the court system is a mere enforcer.

Seriously speaking, is "a contract like any other" a better trope than "take government out of marriage" or "marriage privatization"?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 1:43:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
In taking the government out of said contract, whom would you suggest enforce it should it need to be dissolved, or develops into a state in which one party to the marriage is aggrieved?
The court system, of course.
AKA the government.
Synecdochically, the federal government. (We are Americans, right?)

Sure, but the vast majority of marriages in the US are county, perhaps state level. The federal government really doesn't come sniffing around except for tax purposes.

Yet marriage would be as basic as a small business contract where two parties have scribbled down an agreement on a piece of paper.

This implementation, however simplifying, does not remove the need for legal counsel or the structure of the legal system for those facing a divorce. It is a question of increasing flexibility and of having the parties set their own terms (within reason) from the get-go.
You still need the executive arm of the government for enforcement. You aren't actually "taking the government out".
You are most definitely taking government out of marriage -- not literally but in the sense of a libertarian trope. At present, government regulates the details of the agreement in ways that sustain marriage as a "public institution."

Please explain. Provide examples if able.

And it is common that we refer to the "institution of marriage" as a grand and age-old function in society. This is the practice libertarians seek to end through privatization. And by making marriage a contract like any other, the parties define the terms while the court system is a mere enforcer.

This happens anyways.

Seriously speaking, is "a contract like any other" a better trope than "take government out of marriage" or "marriage privatization"?

Marriages already are a contract "like any other". It rely upon the same mechanisms for enforcement, it rely on agreement of all parties, it look to the government for benefit if applicable.

I am failing to see exactly what the difference is beyond perceptions.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 1:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I mean, it's not really that different than the fact that a husband and wife's estate is typically split when they separate. It's just a version of that tailored for couples who get by paycheck to paycheck. The case for alimony was definitely stronger back when women could not realistically be expected to pay for their own living expenses. The idea that a woman could be left destitute at a moment's notice while her husband could just pack up and move on is, I think, a bit unfair. And if the kids stay with their mother, the notion that the father should only have to support the children, but not their caretaker on whom their lives depend, is sort of ridiculous, assuming he doesn't accept responsibility for them. I really dislike the idea of making marriages arbitrarily hard to get out of for exactly the reasons you mention (the fact that it traps couples in unhappy marriages which can be disastrous for the children). However, I also recognize that in some cases, a wife has planned her life on the assumption that she will have someone to support her. If she had known this support would someday vanish, it's unlikely she would have entered into the arrangement at all, and probably would have been spending her time in other ways e.g., on her career or on finding a dependable husband.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 2:31:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Marriage is a queer beast, half vestige and half vital societal organ. In the form that it takes today, the compromises and half measures that have survived sexual liberation don't make much sense. Alimony is one of those, being part of the wider societal initiatives to care for vulnerable woman. Seeing as women are no longer particularly vulnerability, it is more often used either out of cynical materialism or vindictive malice. As the saying goes, jealousy is born with love but does not necessarily die with it. In my opinion, the abolition of alimony would make the prospect of marriage at once less terrifying and more terrifying, depending on your intended role within the marriage, and would largely act to discourage domesticity, which I see as a terrible outcome.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 2:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 1:43:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Please explain. Provide examples if able.
If the following examples aren't self-explanatory, I'm putting you in the autism box.

This is how social conservatives responded to the same-sex marriage ruling in June 2015:

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs."
-- Chief Justice John G. Roberts

"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

"These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry."
-- Mashallah (pbuh) Antonin Scalia

Marriages already are a contract "like any other".
Because alimony is a legal obligation specific to marriage, which two consenting parties cannot agree to remove without violating the law of the land. In a "contract like any other," the parties would have freer range. They would not be forced to consider the "rehabilitative" aspect of the other's ability to support himself/herself following a separation.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 2:53:48 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 2:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 1:43:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Please explain. Provide examples if able.
If the following examples aren't self-explanatory, I'm putting you in the autism box.

This is how social conservatives responded to the same-sex marriage ruling in June 2015:

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs."
-- Chief Justice John G. Roberts

"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

"These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry."
-- Mashallah (pbuh) Antonin Scalia

I guess I am not garnering your over arching point here. What people -think- of something, and how we -act- with something are quite different. Marriage, while we might -think- of it in special ways, we execute it like a contract. See below.


Marriages already are a contract "like any other".

Because alimony is a legal obligation specific to marriage,

in name only.

which two consenting parties cannot agree to remove without violating the law of the land. In a "contract like any other," the parties would have freer range. They would not be forced to consider the "rehabilitative" aspect of the other's ability to support himself/herself following a separation.

Support is one way of framing it. Forcing a consideration to "support" some one, for this arrangement is a clause of the contract. The idea is that should some one back out, the other party needs to be made whole. Applying different terminology doesn't change the concept.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 2:53:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/16/2016 2:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 1:43:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Please explain. Provide examples if able.
If the following examples aren't self-explanatory, I'm putting you in the autism box.

This is how social conservatives responded to the same-sex marriage ruling in June 2015:

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs."
-- Chief Justice John G. Roberts

"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

"These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry."
-- Mashallah (pbuh) Antonin Scalia
I guess I am not garnering your over arching point here.
I'm stumped. You don't understand the difference between institution and contract? It's as if we don't speak the same language.

Marriages already are a contract "like any other".
Because alimony is a legal obligation specific to marriage,
in name only.
Incorrect. Alimony is alive and well. Incidentally, a practice dating back to the laws of Ancient Rome. (It is part of what makes marriage an institution embedded in our religious, cultural and social practices, as worded by the justices above.)

The idea is that should some one back out, the other party needs to be made whole.
And that legal obligation (alimony) is precisely what I hope to see rendered null and void. In its place will be a mutual agreement fully determined by the couple. That is my standpoint. You can either agree or disagree with it. And feel free to argue against it. But if you don't understand what I am saying, your contention is solely with the English language.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:07:16 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 3:35:28 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 2:53:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 9/16/2016 2:45:42 PM, NHN wrote:
At 9/16/2016 1:43:54 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Please explain. Provide examples if able.
If the following examples aren't self-explanatory, I'm putting you in the autism box.

This is how social conservatives responded to the same-sex marriage ruling in June 2015:

"As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs."
-- Chief Justice John G. Roberts

"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas

"These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry."
-- Mashallah (pbuh) Antonin Scalia
I guess I am not garnering your over arching point here.
I'm stumped. You don't understand the difference between institution and contract? It's as if we don't speak the same language.

Marriages already are a contract "like any other".
Because alimony is a legal obligation specific to marriage,
in name only.
Incorrect. Alimony is alive and well. Incidentally, a practice dating back to the laws of Ancient Rome. (It is part of what makes marriage an institution embedded in our religious, cultural and social practices, as worded by the justices above.)

The idea is that should some one back out, the other party needs to be made whole.
And that legal obligation (alimony) is precisely what I hope to see rendered null and void. In its place will be a mutual agreement fully determined by the couple. That is my standpoint. You can either agree or disagree with it. And feel free to argue against it. But if you don't understand what I am saying, your contention is solely with the English language.

So, in keeping with "the other party needs to be made whole", if you consider that to be what you want to remove, per se, from contractual obligations, there is no reason anyone should enter into a contract with anyone: the possibility of shirking of obligations has no enforcement. If I walk away from a housing contract, I still need to make the bank whole, whether or not I live in the house. If I walk away from a deliver contract, I still need to compensate for product and delivery, regardless if I use it or not. You are stating that the marriage can be dissolved, both parties walk away, and despite the fact that one party might have contributed more domestically than financially, and possibly sacrificed careers to ensure child rearing was done according to domestic wishes, that accounts for nothing in the relationship. If that is not a consideration, there is no point in marriage.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 6:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

To compensate home makers for the value of those services, while ensuring that divorce doesn't end in financial ruin.

That said, one of the main reasons I am so reluctant to get married is precisely for the fear that despite any prenup., if I was to become divorced, that would cause me financial inconvenience.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support.

Idk. I have mixed feelings about it. I also have mixed feelings about alimony, namely, because I know that as the probable breadwinner in any relationship, I am really the one at risk.

Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given.

Is it, though? Often, the kids are economic bargaining chips. That's pretty fvcked up.

And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

That's never really the issue. The real issue is that if you give your ex a whole bunch of money and they then go blow it on, for example, heroin and booze, then your money is wasted. The whole problem with the notion of child support is that it can be very easily misused and abused.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

The theory behind goes back to the days when women earned less than men, for example, when there was an actual wage gap. Now, there is no wage gap. But, this is really one additional special privilege women get because they're women... which I don't like. Women get all kinds of special treatment in the law and the society that is unreasonable, but that's how the law works.

But now that we're a progressive, post gendered society with functional gender equality, spectacular affirmative action programs that make less qualified girls into high earning engineers (to the exclusion of more qualified boys), and lots and lots of companies who shape their corporate policies to avoid even the appearance of sex based discrimination (except, for example, Fox News)... as well as a whole bunch of other stuff that makes women's earning power more or less similar to that of men, the whole argument for alimony doesn't make a lot of sense anymore.

However, it's one of those things that vengeful ex wives use to extort money out of their husbands. This is one of the reason that guys should be very careful about who they marry. Money grubbing whores make bad wives, and it's hard to distinguish a money grubbing whore from someone who is worth making a life with. People can pretend to be something they're not for a long time.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 7:06:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 2:31:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Marriage is a queer beast, half vestige and half vital societal organ. In the form that it takes today, the compromises and half measures that have survived sexual liberation don't make much sense. Alimony is one of those, being part of the wider societal initiatives to care for vulnerable woman. Seeing as women are no longer particularly vulnerability, it is more often used either out of cynical materialism or vindictive malice. As the saying goes, jealousy is born with love but does not necessarily die with it. In my opinion, the abolition of alimony would make the prospect of marriage at once less terrifying and more terrifying, depending on your intended role within the marriage, and would largely act to discourage domesticity, which I see as a terrible outcome.

That's actually a good argument. Divorce should be discouraged, and marriage incentivized. The laws should reflect that.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 2:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 6:28:34 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Like, why do we force people to pay their former wives or husbands? I can't fathom a single legitimate reason for it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about child support. Of course everybody should pay child support to their children. That's a given. And anybody who refuses to pay child support is a disgusting piece of sh!t.

But what I don't get is alimony. What do ya'll think? Anyone support it? Why?

In most cases it's a fair settling for the spouse that stayed home instead of the breadwinner that each day furthered itself within the upward mobilities of their chosen field. The spouse that stayed home to play the most important job of all as the homemaker deserves no doubt, compensation for monetary abandonment. For him or her to enter the workforce with little to no skills as the other all the while of marriage received the best of both worlds, it stands fair to share a bit of the spoils.
KarlGerber
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 5:58:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I devoted my life to representing underprivileged people in discrimination cases (frequently women), have handled occasional California family law cases, and offer this opinion.

I have seen alimony abused by both men and women. However, women are more likely to want alimony which helps perpetuate sex discrimination. Persons receiving alimony often refuse to formally remarry, but have a life long partner because the alimony will be cut off. California has a policy in favor of marriage, and this fact discouraging remarriage is against that policy.

As a discrimination lawyer I have often thought about what I will do when I retire and have thought about pro bono services for men's rights in family law cases. Men typically get fewer custody rights which causes them to pay more child support. There are a lot of people refusing to work due to alimony, refusing to have bank accounts, and cashing checks to avoid alimony. All of that is not a favorable public policy.

The purpose of alimony is to help one spouse maintain a lifestyle they had during marriage. One question is how long it will take them to obtain that lifestyle on their own. If they cannot and they were married a long time courts may indulge lengthy alimony situations.

California has an arbitrary period; 10 years of marriage which tends to trigger alimony rights. Why a marriage of 10 years and not 9 or not 15 deserves alimony is not clear nor is it clear why alimony should not be based upon the age of the spouse at the time of dissolution. A 40 year old, although married for 15 years, may have the ability these days to take a career path that changes their finances drastically.

There are also assumptions people can always find work and are underutilized which is not always the case. If it is assumed they are not really trying to find the most profitable source of income they can be forced to pay alimony based upon income they do not earn, but a judge believes they could if they tried. A lot of this is equivalent to involuntary servitude. A former spouse is essentially forcing another spouse to work.

I do believe the California alimony system is highly antiquated, unfair, and needs to be rewritten.

www.employeelawca.com/los-angeles-employment-discrimination-lawyer