GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[GIThruster]

Are there any traditions that have gone by the wayside for the good? I respect tradition and proven ways of doing things, but what are some examples of things that once worked, but whose time eventually came and they were properly relagate to the dustbin of history? Also, are there any example of cultural norms that ya'll think should now be changed? Why?

Even though I'd call myself a "traditionalist" in many ways I do believe in social evolution and I agree some traditions need to give way to new ones. Polygamy gave way for marriage as it exists. The question was as regards "no fault" marriage as compared to the older form that these Iowa senators were seeking to reestablish.

Real Libertarians will here want to make an argument that the Government shouldn't get involved in things like marriage at all. So when Perky wants to marry his pet poodle, people shouldn't be able to complain. Obviously the Libertarian solution here fails. It fails too, when marriage is extended to support polygamy, or same sex marriage, or incest or marriage beneath a certain age, or beastiality--all of which have been attempted.

But the more immediate question is, has this question of "no fault" divorce worked out? How has it worked out? The concept of "no Fault" was created to support the very question Stubby raised "how is forcing a married couple to stay together good for the family?" The answer to that question is long and convoluted and we would not all agree with a single answer. I think it should be obvious though, that the concept of "no fault" was developed to remove responsibility from the married couple for their children and allow them to make null their marriage vows for literally any reason.

IMHO, one of the problems that plague our society is that people are not, nor are they expected to act responsibly. The early intent of marriage was to secure children from selfish parents and I see no reason to think "no fault" is an improvement. Rather, we see instead that children get thrown under the bus for all kinds of reasons and people pretend this is fine. They pretend that growing up with something other than the single family unit with one father and one mother in the home is not a problem. The statistics however say it is a problem and obviously, this is what these Iowa Senators are acting on.

So when you take the situation and pose it as if this were a radical move, you have mischaracterized the situation. It is not radical to return to a recent tradition--one that is so recent it is still held in many if not most states and across parts of Europe. Also, when you ask if it's okay for the government to intrude this way, you are asking if the status quo is okay. It is okay. It has always been okay. Okay for more than 2,000 years is pretty okay.

[paperburn1]

This brings to mind my daughters marriage. Her new found husband's grand parents where there ,married 66 years. The DJ asked how they stayed together for so long and ma kettle replied " We we grew up when things got broken we would fix them" even made my icy heart whisper a little "Ahhh"

[GIThruster]

Its good to note though, she also grew up when people did not generally have sex out of wedlock, that women were strongly stigmatized for doing so, and when there were powerful social sanctions used to punish socially those who were "illegitimate". We have discarded all that and these are very important differences between now and then.

I think it's very difficult to say just what modern marriage ought to look like. I think there must be a middle ground between where we were and where many are pushing us, and that wherever that middle ground is, the kids need to be protected. So far, that's not happening.

Obviously, things like birth control, cheap, safe and readily available abortion, and internet porn in the home, have changed the environment and marriage is going to change with them. I strongly doubt we will ever again see the kinds of sexual restraint on the part of women we have seen for the last few thousand years--basically all of human history to this point. This is all new, that women are willing to "share their gifts" the way they now do. Marriage is certainly going to change as a result, but that doesn't mean the kids need to be sacrificed.

[Diogenes]

Its good to note though, she also grew up when people did not generally have sex out of wedlock, that women were strongly stigmatized for doing so, and when there were powerful social sanctions used to punish socially those who were "illegitimate". We have discarded all that and these are very important differences between now and then.

I think it's very difficult to say just what modern marriage ought to look like. I think there must be a middle ground between where we were and where many are pushing us, and that wherever that middle ground is, the kids need to be protected. So far, that's not happening.

Obviously, things like birth control, cheap, safe and readily available abortion, and internet porn in the home, have changed the environment and marriage is going to change with them. I strongly doubt we will ever again see the kinds of sexual restraint on the part of women we have seen for the last few thousand years--basically all of human history to this point. This is all new, that women are willing to "share their gifts" the way they now do. Marriage is certainly going to change as a result, but that doesn't mean the kids need to be sacrificed.

I see all the factors converging in an implosion. I have contact with people both Wealthy and Poor, both professional and worker class, and I can tell you what I am currently getting from the underclass frightens me.


The efforts of so many of the poor to get on disability convinces me this system cannot be sustained. Eventually the money will either run out, or become so worthless it won't buy anything. Then they dying will start.

[Stubby]

Sexual restraint on the part of women? I would say there is less sexual repression of women. Women are closing in on sexual equality with men.

If i didn't have such a wicked headache I would go after your previous post for all the stuff you clump together. All your presumptions and whatnot.

[Teahive]

One can only presume this proposed change back to the previous form is the result of the copious volume of evidence that children are better served inside traditional families.

In general this is true, however that does not preclude that in specific instances of dysfunctional marriages separation could be the best available option.

[GIThruster]

True, but rules, habits, traditions, are not based on counterexamples. There are always exceptions to the rule. Traditions need to cope with the general rule and children are best cared for in traditional families.

[Teahive]

The question is, how common is this "exception"? Are there studies that compare outcomes for children in poorly functioning families to children raised by separated parents? For well functioning families divorce obviously isn't even a concern

By the way, tradition traditionally allows exceptions, too. But we're talking about tradition codified as law, which is stricter.

[Teahive]

Real Libertarians will here want to make an argument that the Government shouldn't get involved in things like marriage at all. So when Perky wants to marry his pet poodle, people shouldn't be able to complain. Obviously the Libertarian solution here fails.

What prevents Perky today from publicly proclaiming that he married his pet poodle? Of course no one would take him seriously, and the law would not recognize him as married. Taking marriage out of codified law doesn't change that situation. He still won't be taken seriously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "people shouldn't be able to complain." Complain to whom? Free speech is unaffected.

[MSimon]

If you want a law for everything Islam is your religion. They pretty much understand that if you don't have a rule for everything people will make mistakes.

But it can be taken too far. If you outlaw falling down while learning to walk kids will never learn the technique.

But they are kinda loose on divorce. Or the number of wives and concubines you can have. There are limits. Four wives is the maximum. And raping enemy women in war is allowed. And you can kill your own women if they are unchaste. But there are laws.

In a society with many different cultures the number of laws should be limited to those that are common in all cultures. Laws against the initiation of force and the commission of fraud.

Limiting the kind of material objects you can posses is problematic. You start prohibiting things and pretty soon people get weird ides. Like prohibiting the size of sodas you can buy in certain places. And then things get really weird when 70% of the culture would allow something and the 30% in control forbids it. What you get is an unstable situation.

In any case things like 3D printing, DNA production, CNC machining etc. pretty much makes material prohibitions impossible to enforce.

As to divorce - it is a matter of determination. Either you determine to stay together or you will break up. And the amount of determination required is greater that a lot of people can muster. Marriage - engaged in in haste - repented in leisure.

Because so few set a good example we get a proliferation of laws. And the more laws the more corrupt the society. Because you HAVE to break laws to get by. Some guy wrote a book on it: "Three Felonies A Day"

[GIThruster]

Real Libertarians will here want to make an argument that the Government shouldn't get involved in things like marriage at all. So when Perky wants to marry his pet poodle, people shouldn't be able to complain. Obviously the Libertarian solution here fails.

What prevents Perky today from publicly proclaiming that he married his pet poodle? Of course no one would take him seriously, and the law would not recognize him as married. Taking marriage out of codified law doesn't change that situation. He still won't be taken seriously.

We had this discussion just a few months ago I think when Dio posted about beastiality in what was it. . .Germany? The fact is, we define marriage very specifically for good reasons and it does not involve beastiality. If Perky gets caught having sex with his pet poodle, then he goes to prison, because beastiality is still illegal here.

The point is, that the libertarian view that liberty is always the only concern, is obviously unbalanced. Libertarian theory has no provision to outlaw beastiality, but as a civilization and a self-respecting society, we have a vested interest that people are not routinely boffing their pets. The idea that society has no right to decide what goes on in the bedroom is obviously mistaken. As a society, we have every right to make beastiality a crime and to punish those who practice it. This is what libertarians never understand because their ethics never goes past some childish golden rule type thinking. Society is not best served by having people boff their pets. It doesn't matter how we know this. What matters is that all sensible people know this.

Now the Libertarian wants to respond that it doesn't matter what we make legal or illegal with regard to the bedroom because there is no way to enforce such laws. This is narrow and nearsighted. If we make beastiality legal, people who would otherwise never be tempted will be tempted, and without the social stigma against beastiality, we are headed directly into hillbilly culture. We are civilized by our laws, not by breaking them but by making them. Civilized people know beastiality is wrong, even when they don't know and can't say why.

And just as Dio has said in that other thread, "Evil? Now perhaps. Later, not so much", this is what happens when your view of law is that liberty guides all concerns. That is not a reasonable nor balanced view that can ever lead to a mature and healthy society. What it leads to is hillbilly society, incest, and all the rest that goes with taking liberty one step too far.

That's why I always say, "I have libertarian leanings", but that doesn't mean anything. Real libertarians are so unbalanced they never make any sense.

[Teahive]

I certainly would not take beastiality to be included in the phrase "things like marriage", so I don't know why you're on that tangent now.

The point is simply, marriage can exist just fine without being defined legally.

[GIThruster]

Obviously you're ignoring the challenges to modern marriage I've listed above. Should I list them again?

polygamy
same sex marriage
incest
marriage beneath a certain age
beastiality

--all of which have been attempted.

Doesn't matter if someone objects to these being grouped together. They are all modern libertarian challenges to traditional marriage and that's why they're appropriately grouped together here.

[Teahive]

There's not much "modern" about these "challenges".

Anyway, you claim that government staying out of marriage fails. In what way does it fail?
Note that government staying out of marriage does not mean that things like beastiality automatically become legal.

[hanelyp]

So long as government benefits are applied to spouses (includes the tax code, survivors benefits for some jobs), so long as certain relations are legal inside marriage but illegal otherwise (includes some sex with minors), getting government out of marriage is problematic.

Consider the stakes if unconventional marriage was legally recognized. The spouse gains benefits, and in some cases relations become legal that are otherwise illegal.

Consider the outrage when a gay marriage between a grown man and a 14 year old boy is announced.