First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?
Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that
Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me
If it ever tops 40%, things will start to get interesting. Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.
While 40% would be interesting, it would not change the political maths.
To alter the head of state arrangement there are two quite separate questions: What is the public mood; and the political numbers.
To get to the republican goal several things need to happen, and only Labour can even think of it. It is absolute no go area for Tories.
1) It requires a mandate, so must be in a manifesto 2) It requires a party with this manifesto to win 3) It requires a referendum, and to win, 4) It required enacting.
Support for the monarchy is across the central political spectrum, increasing with age. Older northern WWC are as loyal in this as Sussex flower arrangers.
Elections turn on a % of people vote switching. A few % points means win or lose. Even if only 10% of voters would switch to support the monarchy, the cause and the election is lost. So in any currently foreseeable case, it will not be in a manifesto of any party trying to win.
I’m pretty sure lots of countries have gotten rid of their monarchies without step 3. Indeed, plenty haven’t bothered with steps 1 or 2.
On this subject I think it is fair to say 'That is them and this is us'. We'll find out.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Timothy 2:12
The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course
If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.
Nah.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Yes, many religious people take such a view, including me. But what has religion got so exclusively to do with it? There are perfectly good secular this world, personal, society, and social good reasons for marriage, permanence, 'for better for worse', monogamy and faithfulness.
Marriage is a human, not religious invention.
With other human-made contracts, if both parties want to end the contract, they can.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
I think it says a lot about us that people are asked to swear oaths when they don't know the future. I for one dont believe the vast majority enter into a marriage without thinking this is the one, discovering they are wrong is just life and they shouldnt be penalised for it
First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?
Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that
Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me
Sorry, maybe you're in the top 95% then? 99%? How far do I need to go?
First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
The problem won't be with those who vote. The problem will be with those willing to stand.
(BTW, for the same reason the HoL should be appointed not elected).
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?
Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that
Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me
Sorry, maybe you're in the top 95% then? 99%? How far do I need to go
No wasnt saying it as low. Why invent straw man arguments? Its probably because you are a fuckwit.
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
No. The point about no fault divorce is that one of two parties can unilaterally decide the position without any reference at all to the thoughts of the other. The other party's rights are entirely obliterated. That is what 'no fault divorce' is.
Personally I think in our sort of society this is unavoidable, but in human and philosophical terms it's horrendous.
First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?
Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that
Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me
Sorry, maybe you're in the top 95% then? 99%? How far do I need to go
No wasnt saying it as low. Why invent straw man arguments? Its probably because you are a fuckwit.
You might need to think carefully about what "being in the top 90%" means. It's a subtle dig, so just think about it for a moment. Then have a think about who, if anyone, is the fuckwit here.
First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.
I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.
That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest
You don't think people can be trusted to select one?
I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side
So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?
Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that
Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me
Sorry, maybe you're in the top 95% then? 99%? How far do I need to go
No wasnt saying it as low. Why invent straw man arguments? Its probably because you are a fuckwit.
You might need to think carefully about what "being in the top 90%" means. It's a subtle dig, so just think about it for a moment. Then have a think about who, if anyone, is the fuckwit here.
No my expression of not being in the 90 percent clearly indicated I didn't claim to be in the top 90 percent. I dont need to think about who is the fuckwit because it is obviously you
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The high point was under Elizabeth yes.
How do you know? Who knows what the future holds.
Do you think the monarchy will be more popular under Charles? In which case, that was the high point yes
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
It’s not necessarily about mutual agreement. It can be about one spouse (eg Newt Gingrich) deciding they wish to dump the other.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
I think it says a lot about us that people are asked to swear oaths when they don't know the future. I for one dont believe the vast majority enter into a marriage without thinking this is the one, discovering they are wrong is just life and they shouldnt be penalised for it
FWIW it's not an oath, it's a promise or covenant which in our law neither party is obliged under any circumstances to abide by. The deeper meaning of marriage has been privatised - a couple can have this is they choose it. No external framework or law supports it.
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The high point was under Elizabeth yes.
How do you know? Who knows what the future holds.
Do you think the monarchy will be more popular under Charles? In which case, that was the high point yes
Why the focus on Charles? Your claim was about the high point of popularity, not restricted to his reign. I have no idea what the figures will be like in 10, 25, 50 years, and neither do you.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
I think it says a lot about us that people are asked to swear oaths when they don't know the future. I for one dont believe the vast majority enter into a marriage without thinking this is the one, discovering they are wrong is just life and they shouldnt be penalised for it
We’re all adults, who face no duress, in this day and age, to get married.
"If I were to, there would be a short term volcanic eruption. The wokerarti would be on the smelling salts. Even the vegan community might go for a bacon sandwich."
Wouldn't surprise me. There is a Nigel Farage shaped hole in our hard right populist politics. Only one way to fill it.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Obviously if two married people despise each other, they must be compelled to live together. Without a large population of spouses who cause each other mutual revulsion, marriage would be a farce, you see. For goodness' sake.
I havent claimed to be the top 90% is one of my all-time favourite self owns. I really, honestly laughed out loud.
because you are a drooling idiot your village is wondering where you are
Can I be up next, use your best insult
We have traded insults back and forth....when I have ever claimed though that I am more intelligent than most or earn more than most or richer than most. How does that suddenly translate into claiming I am not in the top 90% to indicate that I am higher than that? Which is what the other poster is implying. Yes more politically aware than most and I think that applies to most that post here because the majority of the country never thinks about politics.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
No. The point about no fault divorce is that one of two parties can unilaterally decide the position without any reference at all to the thoughts of the other. The other party's rights are entirely obliterated. That is what 'no fault divorce' is.
Personally I think in our sort of society this is unavoidable, but in human and philosophical terms it's horrendous.
OK, thanks for the explanation.
When you say the other party’s rights are obliterated… their rights to what? To be married to someone who doesn’t want to be married to them? What would you suggest the unhappy spouse should be obliged to do, specifically?
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
I think it says a lot about us that people are asked to swear oaths when they don't know the future. I for one dont believe the vast majority enter into a marriage without thinking this is the one, discovering they are wrong is just life and they shouldnt be penalised for it
We’re all adults, who face no duress, in this day and age, to get married.
No legal duress certainly but there is also social pressure from friends and especially family
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The high point was under Elizabeth yes.
I think there was some support for Elizabeth that was personal and not monarchical, but not much.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
It’s not necessarily about mutual agreement. It can be about one spouse (eg Newt Gingrich) deciding they wish to dump the other.
Thanks. But isn’t “dump” a somewhat loaded word? There has to be a divorce settlement.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.
It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.
Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?
I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.
What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?
You said that the high point was under Elizabeth, the polls aren't saying that because they don't look infinitely far into the future. And no, I wasn't saying that. I was thinking about what people may have said after the deaths of previous long-reining monarchs.
The high point was under Elizabeth yes.
I think there was some support for Elizabeth that was personal and not monarchical, but not much.
I had a tremendous respect for her but I still do not support the existence of the monarchy in any way.
Of course that is very different from actively seeing it abolished - which I also do not support.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
It doesn't conflict with that. It just removes the need to explain in public what has gone wrong in private.
I was quite enjoying this woke not woke stuff. I haven't quite got my head round it yet......
I went to the Cannes film festival on Wednesday and three girls were doing a synchronised walk down the Croisette topless. (It's tricky grabbing attention)
The question is what would the correct woke response be?
The question is, did you get inside any of the festival, if so what can you report?
A friend of mine, who wrote the plays I acted in, went last week, went down to walk about because he likes to think he’s in the trade, but a selfie with Harrison Ford and a viewing of directors cut of Basic Instinct is all he managed.
A selfie on the Red Carpet with Harrison Ford doesn't sound bad. Certainly beats one with this years favourite Ken Loach.
I'm hoping Jonathan Glazer does well. A very talented commercials directors and I'm told this one is really good.
PS Like to guess which is older the Cannes Film Festival or the Monaco grand Prix?
Clue. It surprised me.
Obviously the film festival is older, oldest in the world, no point even googling.
I loved Under The Skin and how it was made. Scarlet Johansson driving a white van around Glasgow like a fly on a fishing line, what’s not to like. Not sure about his 4th film. Everything to do with the Shoah I find difficult to watch, sad depressing and makes me angry, so won’t seek it out. Four features in 24 years is slow going isn’t it?
Ken Loach announced this is his last film, so I’m sure he’ll get a send off on his last lap of honour. More appreciated abroad than at home? I liked Land and Freedom, but every other Loach film I have seen I didn’t like at all, they are like books dense and slow in prose but superficial in premise. I know friends who went on a March and Loach was there, and he really wound them up being obnoxious about their politics.
I also suspect UK film industry are run by a luvvies club full of Loach acolytes, who all know each other, money given out to each other like a closed shop. Hopefully not as bad as the French film industry is at closing ranks
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
Hell no as a child of divorced parents it was more damaging to have two parents at war than them splitting up. Sometimes splitting is best for the kids
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
No. The point about no fault divorce is that one of two parties can unilaterally decide the position without any reference at all to the thoughts of the other. The other party's rights are entirely obliterated. That is what 'no fault divorce' is.
Personally I think in our sort of society this is unavoidable, but in human and philosophical terms it's horrendous.
OK, thanks for the explanation.
When you say the other party’s rights are obliterated… their rights to what? To be married to someone who doesn’t want to be married to them? What would you suggest the unhappy spouse should be obliged to do, specifically?
You perfectly express the problem and why I think 'no fault' is inevitable. But its availability on its own undermines the concept and meaning of the mutual promise made - 'for better, for worse' and all that.
I don't think there is a less bad way of doing the law, but I still want its use to be very rare. I don't hold my breath.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
Hell no as a child of divorced parents it was more damaging to have two parents at war than them splitting up. Sometimes splitting is best for the kids
A friend of mine was in a tumultuous relationship for many years. When they finally separated and divorced, the son said "thank fuck for that".
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
Hell no as a child of divorced parents it was more damaging to have two parents at war than them splitting up. Sometimes splitting is best for the kids
Agreed, and beyond that, if we think about marriage being merely a vehicle for procreation and child-rearing, we start to open up the idea of restricting it only to heterosexual couples who are fertile.
What's that, you're fifty? Sorry, too old, marriage license denied. Etc. No, that's not the world I want.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
Hell no as a child of divorced parents it was more damaging to have two parents at war than them splitting up. Sometimes splitting is best for the kids
A friend of mine was in a tumultuous relationship for many years. When they finally separated and divorced, the son said "thank fuck for that".
precisely...as a child its always a disaster because its what you are used to, long term though it can be more beneficial than always being in the middle of the war
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
Hell no as a child of divorced parents it was more damaging to have two parents at war than them splitting up. Sometimes splitting is best for the kids
Agreed, and beyond that, if we think about marriage being merely a vehicle for procreation and child-rearing, we start to open up the idea of restricting it only to heterosexual couples who are fertile.
What's that, you're fifty? Sorry, too old, marriage license denied. Etc. No, that's not the world I want.
I don't object to marriage at all I do object to the idea the till death us do part thing is held sacred. Living changes us and what we want now, or need now may not be what we want or need in ten years time. I totally am in awe of people that are happily married after 50 years. Good luck to them and celebrate it. Holding all relationships to that standard is never going to work though
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
No fault divorce is not about a breach of contract, though, is it? It’s about 2 parties to a contract mutually wishing to terminate that contract. That’s allowed in commercial contracts, isn’t it?
No. The point about no fault divorce is that one of two parties can unilaterally decide the position without any reference at all to the thoughts of the other. The other party's rights are entirely obliterated. That is what 'no fault divorce' is.
Personally I think in our sort of society this is unavoidable, but in human and philosophical terms it's horrendous.
The rights of the other party are not entirely obliterated. The financial consequences for example cannot be unilaterally decided by anybody. The only 'right' you're talking about is the right of somebody to insist their marriage continues despite their spouse wishing to end it.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Of course. No one should be required to remain in a marriage that has become hell.
But, I’ve known too many men who’ve walked out, once their wives got too old for them, or wanted children.
I mean "MONARCHY" has a 34% lead over REPUBLIC and seems to be pretty overwhelmingly liked?
By the time that lead is eroded Chas and Camilla will be gone and the firm will be on to Wills and Kate who will prove a much more popular King and Queen.
The future of the Monarchy is assured for this Century IMO.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
There is a lot of diversity in the mating approaches of different species. I don't think you really want to go down the learning lessons from nature road. It could lead to quite a dark place.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
Affairs are human, and caused by human frailty. Abandonment bothers me more.
I absolutely loathe the philosophy behind a film like The Bridges of Madison County, which treats adultery as liberating, and sticking with one’s spouse as the wrong choice.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
There is a lot of diversity in the mating approaches of different species. I don't think you really want to go down the learning lessons from nature road. It could lead to quite a dark place.
And the so-called "pair bonds" so beloved of Victorian moralists conceal a dark abyss.
See the classic work on dunnocks (aka hedge sparrow) by Nick Davies.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
Yes. Marriage embraces contradictions because people are what they are. For me the central thing is that children are cared for by their natural parents under a promise to do so. Only marriage is a public undertaking to do this. The key is each person putting others ahead of themselves.
As for all this '100%' and 'absolutely' stuff. Human nature isn't like that. That is as true for people who stay married for 65 years as those who marry 9 times in 15 years.
Some much older man befriends much younger employee and eventually turns into a sexual relationship? There’s a word for that. Grooming.
That's probably unfair. IIUC the other man was over the age of consent when he met him. Although he did abuse his work position and hurt his wife, he didn't actually break the criminal law. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something
Students I teach at Uni are all over the age of consent too. Grooming is about abuse of power. His position as TV star vs young man making his way into TV is where I think this justifies grooming.
On topic, the ghost of Olly Cromwell takes issue with the phrasing of ‘a new high’.
But in all seriousness, it’s still a firm majority in favour, and I’d guess that a fair chunk of the minority are, like me, ‘soft republicans’ I.E. against the monarchy in principle but in practice not something to get too worked up about.
Given His Royal Dryness Pervy Phil, Harry the egomaniac, a king who is markedly less popular than his mam and - I wouldn’t mind betting - the unpleasant treatment meted out to the republican protesters, it’s not surprising that support for the institution has slipped. Maybe more surprising that it hasn’t slipped further?
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
Yes. Marriage embraces contradictions because people are what they are. For me the central thing is that children are cared for by their natural parents under a promise to do so. Only marriage is a public undertaking to do this. The key is each person putting others ahead of themselves.
As for all this '100%' and 'absolutely' stuff. Human nature isn't like that. That is as true for people who stay married for 65 years as those who marry 9 times in 15 years.
I agree people are people some work it out some dont. There is a huge difference between a work contract and an agreement to live together forevermore contract
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Of course. No one should be required to remain in a marriage that has become hell.
But, I’ve known too many men who’ve walked out, once their wives got too old for them, or wanted children.
I fear I have strong views on the subject.
I agree but it cannot in a modern society be legislated for, or brought about by social pressure. In an individualist age, individuals are invited to do the right thing individually. It won't always happen.
Some much older man befriends much younger employee and eventually turns into a sexual relationship? There’s a word for that. Grooming.
That's probably unfair. IIUC the other man was over the age of consent when he met him. Although he did abuse his work position and hurt his wife, he didn't actually break the criminal law. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something
I do think there’s something in the complaint that is sometimes aired by (mainly) women, that the gay marriage/gay rights, “yippee” patting ourselves on the back thingy that we did in the last decade or so, and a pile of people came out and divorced/left their partners, well it left their partners feeling a bit lost and unfairly treated.
Liberal society congratulated the newly out people (some of whom apparently had no moral framework at all, when seeking out new partners) and kinda forgot about the ex-partners left behind who were left to figure out wtf happened to their life.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Of course. No one should be required to remain in a marriage that has become hell.
But, I’ve known too many men who’ve walked out, once their wives got too old for them, or wanted children.
I fear I have strong views on the subject.
I agree but it cannot in a modern society be legislated for, or brought about by social pressure. In an individualist age, individuals are invited to do the right thing individually. It won't always happen.
Should also be noted that the prime movers for divorce are generally woman percentage wise
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
True, and from all accounts he does not seem a particularly likeable human being.
There is also something distasteful about a much older man who had direct authority over his 'lover' having such an affair. Yes, it happened in the past but that didn't make it right.
Having said that, just leave him alone now. He has admitted it, his career is in ruins.
Although I bet WeBuyAnyCar.com wish they hadn't released this YouTube video with the (in)famous phrase "At WeBuyAnyCar.com, we live by one simple philosophy. Be more like Philip Schofield"
Some much older man befriends much younger employee and eventually turns into a sexual relationship? There’s a word for that. Grooming.
That's probably unfair. IIUC the other man was over the age of consent when he met him. Although he did abuse his work position and hurt his wife, he didn't actually break the criminal law. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something
I do think there’s something in the complaint that is sometimes aired by (mainly) women, that the gay marriage/gay rights, “yippee” patting ourselves on the back thingy that we did in the last decade or so, and a pile of people came out and divorced/left their partners, well it left their partners feeling a bit lost and unfairly treated.
Liberal society congratulated the newly out people (some of whom apparently had no moral framework at all) and kinda forgot about the partners left behind who were left to figure out wtf happened to their life.
This is true, but is not in itself an argument against gay rights; indeed the partner would likely have been with a completely different person had law and society been different sooner.
Some much older man befriends much younger employee and eventually turns into a sexual relationship? There’s a word for that. Grooming.
That's probably unfair. IIUC the other man was over the age of consent when he met him. Although he did abuse his work position and hurt his wife, he didn't actually break the criminal law. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something
I do think there’s something in the complaint that is sometimes aired by (mainly) women, that the gay marriage/gay rights, “yippee” patting ourselves on the back thingy that we did in the last decade or so, and a pile of people came out and divorced/left their partners, well it left their partners feeling a bit lost and unfairly treated.
Liberal society congratulated the newly out people (some of whom apparently had no moral framework at all) and kinda forgot about the partners left behind who were left to figure out wtf happened to their life.
This is true, but is not in itself an argument against gay rights; indeed the partner would likely have been with a completely different person had law and society been different sooner.
Some much older man befriends much younger employee and eventually turns into a sexual relationship? There’s a word for that. Grooming.
That's probably unfair. IIUC the other man was over the age of consent when he met him. Although he did abuse his work position and hurt his wife, he didn't actually break the criminal law. Happy to be corrected if I've missed something
I do think there’s something in the complaint that is sometimes aired by (mainly) women, that the gay marriage/gay rights, “yippee” patting ourselves on the back thingy that we did in the last decade or so, and a pile of people came out and divorced/left their partners, well it left their partners feeling a bit lost and unfairly treated.
Liberal society congratulated the newly out people (some of whom apparently had no moral framework at all) and kinda forgot about the partners left behind who were left to figure out wtf happened to their life.
This is true, but is not in itself an argument against gay rights; indeed the partner would likely have been with a completely different person had law and society been different sooner.
Sure, I don’t disagree with any of that.
There were far too many that married for cover its true. Men werent the only culprits though
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
True, and from all accounts he does not seem a particularly likeable human being.
There is also something distasteful about a much older man who had direct authority over his 'lover' having such an affair. Yes, it happened in the past but that didn't make it right.
Having said that, just leave him alone now. He has admitted it, his career is in ruins.
Indeed! Lets hope it doesn't end up in another Caroline Flack type tragedy...
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Of course. No one should be required to remain in a marriage that has become hell.
But, I’ve known too many men who’ve walked out, once their wives got too old for them, or wanted children.
I fear I have strong views on the subject.
It seems fair enough for people to think marriage is a solemn committment which requires work and effort, not to be cast aside lightly, without going the Danny Kruger route on these things. I'm not really sure how no fault actually makes things worse, since people simply walking out is not reliant on obtaining a divorce.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
Yes. Marriage embraces contradictions because people are what they are. For me the central thing is that children are cared for by their natural parents under a promise to do so. Only marriage is a public undertaking to do this. The key is each person putting others ahead of themselves.
As for all this '100%' and 'absolutely' stuff. Human nature isn't like that. That is as true for people who stay married for 65 years as those who marry 9 times in 15 years.
I'm happily married now to a person with whom that is true, but my first marriage was an absolute trainwreck for reasons related broadly to that not being the case.
I don't like to admit to failure, so admitting that the marriage had failed, and that I couldn't fix it, was very difficult. And I'm aware that I will be judged for that failure, because of course people who weren't involved in the marriage will wonder about what the failure of my first marriage says about my commitment to another person. I mean I judge my own Dad pretty harshly for the failure of his marriage to my Mum, so I know people won't be able to stop themselves from wondering about what the truth of the matter was.
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
It genuinely was well handled, having seen the clip again the other day. It would have been very easy to get angry or bluster, but he stayed firm and serious without giving in to the absurd scenario Schofield was presenting - he clearly thought it was an awesome gotcha moment.
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
He did actually. What Schofiled and This Morning did on that interview was disgraceful. Dave handled it great (as he tended to do with most things... But then he could also have the most bizarre screw up - like HMQ purrrrrrrring down the phone)
Dave could have been one of the all time great PMs since WWII but there were just too many screw ups and too many risks taken that in the end he ran out of road.
Many successful species have "pair bonds", which are equivalent in many ways to human marriages. Presumably pair bonds evolved, and have persisted, because they make it more likely that healthy offspring will be produced, that parents will invest in their offspring, rather than abandoning them.
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
Marriage isn't (just) about children. It's never been just about children. We should broadly let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anybody.
It's about betrayal of someone you love and care for deeply. That what's important to me.
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
Yes. Marriage embraces contradictions because people are what they are. For me the central thing is that children are cared for by their natural parents under a promise to do so. Only marriage is a public undertaking to do this. The key is each person putting others ahead of themselves.
As for all this '100%' and 'absolutely' stuff. Human nature isn't like that. That is as true for people who stay married for 65 years as those who marry 9 times in 15 years.
I'm happily married now to a person with whom that is true, but my first marriage was an absolute trainwreck for reasons related broadly to that not being the case.
I don't like to admit to failure, so admitting that the marriage had failed, and that I couldn't fix it, was very difficult. And I'm aware that I will be judged for that failure, because of course people who weren't involved in the marriage will wonder about what the failure of my first marriage says about my commitment to another person. I mean I judge my own Dad pretty harshly for the failure of his marriage to my Mum, so I know people won't be able to stop themselves from wondering about what the truth of the matter was.
You did not fail and anyone telling you did is not a friend, nor should you be judged for it. No one knows for sure what happens in a marriage, yes they wil wonder but frankly none of their business....if you dont know dont apportion blame
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
He did actually. What Schofiled and This Morning did on that interview was disgraceful. Dave handled it great (as he tended to do with most things... But then he could also have the most bizarre screw up (like HMQ purrrrrrrring down the phone)
Well, he wasn't planning to be overheard on that one. I've often wondered if, between friendly nations, Heads of Government can get pretty darn open with one another - it's not many people who know what their lives are like.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
He did actually. What Schofiled and This Morning did on that interview was disgraceful. Dave handled it great (as he tended to do with most things... But then he could also have the most bizarre screw up - like HMQ purrrrrrrring down the phone)
Dave could have been one of the all time great PMs since WWII but there were just too many screw ups and too many risks taken that in the end he ran out of road.
A shame.
Took a gamble on the EU and lost, not targeted enough on some cuts, and some other stuff, but if you set the EU stuff to one side (he did tell us not to do it), he was decent. I appreciate most cannot put it aside.
The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.
It is hardly that extreme a position
People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree
They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life
Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.
More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.
Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.
Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.
Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.
Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.
I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
What is the appropriate legal penalty? Somewhere below cutting off hands, but maybe a short term in prison for the unspeakable crime of going off your partner?
Damages.
Isn't divorce pretty financially ruinous though?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
I would be better off, financially.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
You've got to speculate to accumulate.
No one is telling sean he needs to divorce....however what if your wife becomes for example a heroin addict or takes a sword and runs it through you...should you still be expected to stay with them....only one of the above has happened to me with a girl I lived with and thought I knew
I was joking.
shrugs its a serious issue people dont generally split without serious issues
Re. Phillip Schofield it's hard to feel much sympathy for him given what he did in that interview with David Cameron back around 2012.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
My boy Dave handled it so well.
He did actually. What Schofiled and This Morning did on that interview was disgraceful. Dave handled it great (as he tended to do with most things... But then he could also have the most bizarre screw up - like HMQ purrrrrrrring down the phone)
Dave could have been one of the all time great PMs since WWII but there were just too many screw ups and too many risks taken that in the end he ran out of road.
A shame.
Took a gamble on the EU and lost, not targeted enough on some cuts, and some other stuff, but if you set the EU stuff to one side (he did tell us not to do it), he was decent. I appreciate most cannot put it aside.
Cameron was not a great pm he had no vision he just thought he might be quite good at it....he was fucking wrong
Comments
It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.
They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.
What you say may be true overseas, but not domestically.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/26/sunak-takes-helicopter-yorkshire-stopoff-two-miles-from-airport
(BTW, for the same reason the HoL should be appointed not elected).
Personally I think in our sort of society this is unavoidable, but in human and philosophical terms it's horrendous.
It's a subtle dig, so just think about it for a moment.
Then have a think about who, if anyone, is the fuckwit here.
Sorry not to call you anything and disappoint you
I think we should learn from those successes, and make marriage rules that are best for children.
When you say the other party’s rights are obliterated… their rights to what? To be married to someone who doesn’t want to be married to them? What would you suggest the unhappy spouse should be obliged to do, specifically?
I'm fairly sure I'd lose 50% of my assets if I divorced, whilst retaining high childcare costs and responsibilities. One assumes I'd be punted out the main family home.
I'd certainly be worse off.
Of course that is very different from actively seeing it abolished - which I also do not support.
My wife is substantially better off than I am. I could leave her for another, and get 50% of our joint assets.
That would be lawful, but certainly not just.
I don't think there is a less bad way of doing the law, but I still want its use to be very rare. I don't hold my breath.
What's that, you're fifty? Sorry, too old, marriage license denied. Etc.
No, that's not the world I want.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65729361
The trouble is it's challenging to remain absolutely faithful, 100%, to the same partner for your entire life when it's only human to be sexually attracted to other people. Sometimes strongly.
Occasionally that bubble bursts, and then it gets complicated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65729361
And LOLing at him having to apologise to the Daily Mail...
Spiegel reports that investigators have found more evidence suggesting pro-Ukrainian group was behind sabotage of gas pipelines
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/26/emails-hiring-boat-suspected-of-nord-stream-attack-ukraine/ (£££)
The lab leak hypothesis is back in play.
Grooming.
But, I’ve known too many men who’ve walked out, once their wives got too old for them, or wanted children.
I fear I have strong views on the subject.
I mean "MONARCHY" has a 34% lead over REPUBLIC and seems to be pretty overwhelmingly liked?
By the time that lead is eroded Chas and Camilla will be gone and the firm will be on to Wills and Kate who will prove a much more popular King and Queen.
The future of the Monarchy is assured for this Century IMO.
I absolutely loathe the philosophy behind a film like The Bridges of Madison County, which treats adultery as liberating, and sticking with one’s spouse as the wrong choice.
See the classic work on dunnocks (aka hedge sparrow) by Nick Davies.
As the old saying goes, what goes around comes around...
As for all this '100%' and 'absolutely' stuff. Human nature isn't like that. That is as true for people who stay married for 65 years as those who marry 9 times in 15 years.
Grooming is about abuse of power. His position as TV star vs young man making his way into TV is where I think this justifies grooming.
But in all seriousness, it’s still a firm majority in favour, and I’d guess that a fair chunk of the minority are, like me, ‘soft republicans’ I.E. against the monarchy in principle but in practice not something to get too worked up about.
Given His Royal Dryness Pervy Phil, Harry the egomaniac, a king who is markedly less popular than his mam and - I wouldn’t mind betting - the unpleasant treatment meted out to the republican protesters, it’s not surprising that support for the institution has slipped. Maybe more surprising that it hasn’t slipped further?
I do think there’s something in the complaint that is sometimes aired by (mainly) women, that the gay marriage/gay rights, “yippee” patting ourselves on the back thingy that we did in the last decade or so, and a pile of people came out and divorced/left their partners, well it left their partners feeling a bit lost and unfairly treated.
Liberal society congratulated the newly out people (some of whom apparently had no moral framework at all, when seeking out new partners) and kinda forgot about the ex-partners left behind who were left to figure out wtf happened to their life.
There is also something distasteful about a much older man who had direct authority over his 'lover' having such an affair. Yes, it happened in the past but that didn't make it right.
Having said that, just leave him alone now. He has admitted it, his career is in ruins.
Although I bet WeBuyAnyCar.com wish they hadn't released this YouTube video with the (in)famous phrase "At WeBuyAnyCar.com, we live by one simple philosophy. Be more like Philip Schofield"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3LRFLkR3W8
As well as the phrase "So Quick. So Simple. So Schofield"...
I don't like to admit to failure, so admitting that the marriage had failed, and that I couldn't fix it, was very difficult. And I'm aware that I will be judged for that failure, because of course people who weren't involved in the marriage will wonder about what the failure of my first marriage says about my commitment to another person. I mean I judge my own Dad pretty harshly for the failure of his marriage to my Mum, so I know people won't be able to stop themselves from wondering about what the truth of the matter was.
Dave could have been one of the all time great PMs since WWII but there were just too many screw ups and too many risks taken that in the end he ran out of road.
A shame.
The consistent pattern of behaviour with him is he's a perennial liar.
Patients are cheaper than rats apparently.
https://twitter.com/alanvibe/status/1662007863336747008