₦airaland Forum

Mindfulness:


I am actually proud of my creativity that was inspired by your strong desire to control that could be replaced by your trust in the Almighty and that ALL IS WELL.


All I know is this, making people stay together by force will SELDOM - if at all - help children. It will rather have the reverse effect.

Couples should have easy and cheap access to counseling and if all efforts fail, they should be guided through the divorce process in such a way that they are enabled to cooperate in the best interest of their children.

Good education is another factor that can contribute to not only a healthy development of children but to a sensible approach to life by their parents.
The elimination of poverty is another factor that is important in the greater scheme of things.

Divorce per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out bad and marriage per se is not a guarantee that children will turn out good.

I though I was the epistleer . Answer the question, with help if required. You have stated marriage is no gaurantee - implying that it is not ATBE the best way. Fine, no problem;

In lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Abi you want to keep us entertained doing "keepy-uppy"


TV

MRBrownJ:
more NONSENSE from deluded people who think that having a child is a blessing.... raising a child PROPERLY is the real blessing, as we certainly know that many unfit mothers are having kids and throwing them in garbage bin and gutters.

So if "raising a child properly is a blessing", the child will not be born before being raised . And the birth of child - cannot be celebrated in it's own right until it is properly raised .

And I am happy for "my way of thinking" to be questioned. What about yours? What gives you the right to determine who is an unfit mother. Or father for that matter. What are your credentials? Is there anything here to suggest the couple in question are not?

MRBrownJ:
well if that is the case then it is equally that "god" who gave man the ability for abortion, yet are you not against it because it doesnt fit your selfish religious agenda?! abeg!

Why get your knickers in a twist, rather than reason rightly. If a gift is used for good, is the giver not to be honoured? and if it is used - contrary to the givers desire - for bad, is the giver to be blamed?

MRBrownJ:
it was created by the man above, in the sky called Harry Potter.... everyone knows that! but hey, if you have any proof that it wasnt created by Harry Potter and instead by "your" God, then i sure would like to hear that.

And if you have proof for how it was done, we'd appreciate your spelling it out. But in lieu of anything you have to offer, let others rejoice ion their own way. You see your belligerent and sweaty funk was uncalled for.

MRBrownJ:
sorry if i dont conform to your way of thinking

Hypocrite. Are you not bug-eyed because this story does not conform with yours

MRBrownJ:
all glory to Harry Potter too, right?

If that's who you worship, good for you, but don't rain on other peoples parades - because they don't conform .


TV

Mindfulness:
How about castrating some individuals that we don't regard as fit to raise well-adjusted, healthy, productive individuals?
And how about installing cameras in our homes so that we can make sure that children are actually raised and not parked in front of the TV for hours?
And how about implanting chips under the skin of married people so that their spouses can monitor where they go and for how long?

That is, I am utterly bereft of answers to a simple question, so I am going to dribble around aimlessly and fight as one who beats the air. Mindfulness, always on form

Such a simple question and you can't make the slightest headway - better call the marines


TV

raumdeuter:
Stillfire

I like/love you yesterday, I dont like or love you today. Why should I be punished for my feelings?

Would it be better to suppress my feelings and just continue in it even if I am sad everyday?

Absolutely, you are free to love whomsoever you please, for as long or as short and, as much or as little as you like, and in whatsoever manner you choose.

And indeed, your love, be that an emotion or an action, as long as it remains, will not be prompted, validated or enhanced by marriage, so how would you be punished if your love diminishes or ceases, or simply chooses to perch elsewhere?


TV

crackhaus:
Lol, you TV01 have always been an ardent proponent of the sanctitiy of marriage as a lifetime commitment...but this isn't how every body will see it.

I, like you, am a believer in 'till death do us part', but what you're implying by question number 1 is that the only way society can have well-adjusted, healthy, and productive citizens is ONLY by policing and implementing the family unit in its most traditional form, ergo "man, woman, children, and everyone lives happily ever after - this here is exactly why sanctions on infidelity won't work, because there will be no happily ever after in a marriage that is held together not because of genuine love but only because someone wants to avoid sanction (jail time/fines).

At the end, you still end up raising unhappy and unproductive citizens who are maintaining their family unit only because they want to avoid jail.
People can't be forced to keep loving and staying with someone they would rather not be with.

I have not argued for the unimportance or worthlessness of marriage, my argument is that one can't be forced to remain in it.
Raising productive citizens is not tied to marriage.

I am not implying anything, the question was clear - in lieu of marriage how does society go about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens.

Just a concise treatise please. Answer the question without recourse to marriage. Or as my day used to say when he was grilling me about my misdemeanors "tell me what happened, and don't mention anyone elses name" .

Like I said, no problem with anyone disdaining or eschewing marriage, but please tell us what you would replace it with. This point first. Surely it can't be that hard .


TV

crackhaus:
This is because the person who was cheated on is not disenfranchised until the marriage is dissolved and that person becomes unable to move on smoothly (financially) with his/her life - this is what the law seeks to protect.

So if vows of life-long fidelity are taken by the couple, and one breaks that vow, you would view that as 1 party having done no wrong, and the other having suffered no loss?

crackhaus:
While in the marriage however, you can't say that because someone was cheated on, then he/she has been disenfranchised.
No one has died from disappointment and heartbreak...no 'normal person' at least.

So in the breaking of an agreement, unless death ensues, there has been no breach

This will be over before my journey home.




TV

Mindfulness:
Since Crackhaus is very good at presenting his points - which I fully support in the context of this thread - in a concise but clear way, I will let him go first and add my two cents later.

TV

crackhaus:
Answer:
By living in a fool's paradise and deceiving one's self in broad summer daylight.

Mindfulness:
Indeed.

Fine. The defence rests We will no longer defend marriage as we have outlined it. Now demonstrate that you have the strength of your convictions and clear logic for your views.

Please tell us, how, in the absence of marriage as we've outlined, how best;

1. society goes about optimising the long-term raising of well-adjusted, healthy and productive citizens
2. contains the feral...
3. particularly keen ...

I actually have 3 questions at the very least, but so as not to conflate things, or drag ourselves all over the shop, please start with the 1.

I'm throwing this open to all. I'm even willing to face sanctions if you present logical, clear, qualitative and compelling positions.


TV

Mindfulness:
The argument outlined by Stilly and supported by TV is that 'A dysfunction in marriage, translates into the larger society and may affect ME in the process, when the sons and daughters of these dysfunction start manifesting.'

The argument outlined by Stilly and fully supported by TV is also backed up by numerous longitudinal studies on families, their dysfunctions and the consequent social pathologies.

Whatever you like to think, the truth is that marriage only makes sense with regard to children. You yourselves argue that very thing when you can't see why people should be able to enter and exit relationships at will.

And in lieu of children you are in a sense correct. Why would anyone want the government to involve itself in their intimate affairs?

The only reason they get involved is because they see the long-term benefit of shoring up and privileging marriage. There are a whole host of benefits and reasons why they do this. Any relationship that is not marriage can be regulated by a legal agreement the couple agree on.

The arguments Stilly and I make, are not to prohibit change per se, but to challenge if the change is based on good and brings good outcomes.

And the truth is, all the change I see presented is based on "selfish adult desire", as opposed to the best long term interests of vulnerable children. And the outcomes are not foreseeable good in the long-term.

All you have to do is show otherwise. And to be frank, talk of personal happiness and pursuing dreams sounds base and trite. Those things could be pursued without endangering our collective future.

Mindfulness:
How will treating your spouse like a criminal make your family more functional?

Think broader, deeper, and longer-term. As Stilly says, it's not about any individual. Just as a contract without sanctions for breach is absurd, marriage that is bespoke to each couple is meaningless and pointless.

Mindfulness:
This is the height of confusion, I swear.

No, your position is the height of unthinking selfishness.


TV

crackhaus:
On a more serious note though,
Are those laws even implemented?
Like people go to jail for committing adultery? Honest questions..

Mostly not. Where such laws are still on the statute books, they tend not to be implemented. Other states/jurisdictions that had them have decriminalised them - wasn't one of the Koreas cited here a while back?

My position remains; even if you view marriage as a civil contract - as opposed to a covenantal union - if there are no sanctions for breach;

1. it is pretty worthless, not actually worth the paper it's written on. And they used to say "...it's just a piece of paper".

2. It cannot be taken or entered into with the sobriety required. It will hence be exited without due consideration.

3. And all that is well and good as far as it goes, but will it still deliver the benefits? And if it doesn't what will? What will be the possible negative effects. Sow in the wind and reap in the storm...


TV

Stillfire:
Masculinist ko, Michael Jackson ni. I would rather use the phrase more conservative than liberal when it comes to morality. As of now, marriage/family is the bedrock of any society. A dysfunction in marriage, translates into the larger society and may affect ME in the process, when the sons and daughters of these dysfunction start manifesting. So anything to penalize these dysfunctional people is fine by me.

Funnily enough, the bolded is one of my big concerns. I know what is right, but children who grow up with this type of thing "normalised" will have a difficult time grasping why.

I can refrain, remove and even inure myself to a great degree, but kids who are raised seeing this in every facet of social life - even school curricula - will have a hard time seeing it as wrong.

I spend so much time socialising my son about natural families and their rightful structure. He knows his family tree 2 generatiosn back and what all the relationships are termed . I've even started to assiduously court a number of families of "the right kind", hoping that long-term they will have great choices to hand, or at least decent models if they decide to look further afield.

The thing is driving me to prayer and to church ! How will I respond if one of mine brings home someone with 2 daddies ?. I can't even countenance single parents sef. Inculcating that bigotry right now.

My neighbour - a single woman - had a daughter via IVF all by her lonesome. Two months before we had ours How would they potentially not grow up best of mates. I had kuku developed one kin' antipathy for the woman longest time. Imprecatory prayers abounded...na so she just move house...when we saw the for sale sign...ah, come see thanksgiving .

The Bible is true. Unless God cuts short the time, even the elect will be deceived. Come quickly Lord Jesus...Maranatha.


TV

MRBrownJ:
NONSENSE!!!! God or fertility treatment gave them triplets?!l

Bro', whatever the way and to whomever attributable, surely you should first rejoice with them on their blessing . Secondly, is it not God who gave man the ability to devise fertility treatment? Thirdly, whatever men can, will or have devised, I'm yet to hear of any creating reproductive organs from scratch - and out of nothing .

A few of you posts have been highly questionable of late, is all ok ?

And finally, all glory to God....hallelujah!!!!!!


TV

lezz:
And how does your bellowing bear on the issue here, eh?

Are you seeking to justify homosexual adoption with heterosexual rape ?

I've read the post a number of times and simply couldn't figure out where to start in response. Na so I bail 0 . Genius really. Sapped the appetite for a fight right outta me. And that's saying something.


TV

It's a genuinely tough one...feel for you bro',you sound so sincere, and committed to marriage. In the first instance, I actually agree with her - a newly married woman deserves privacy with her husband if at all possible.

You are equally committed to your family - and fulfilling your duty as elder and patriarch, I troway salute. At this point your family comes first, but if you decide to marry her, then she does.

I don't see how you will reconcile this unless she gives ground. And if she doesn't and you go ahead, it will only worsen after the formalities. What you are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg.

Indeed, even if she agrees now, she can change, and I suspect she has an aversion to a closeness between you and your blood relatives that will surface long-term whatever the situation.

At best you may be able to arrange a long-term solution whereby they stay with someone else, and you give financial support. I wonder if this will go down well with her. I suspect she will not be happy for your money to be utilised in that way either.

Does she have any competing responsibilities/demands from her own family? Finally I will caution you to think hard about this. Are there other things that give you cause for concern. Don't let this issue blind you to other things, there may well be some.

I'm not comfortable with this one. Seek Gods face if you believe.


Best wishes
TV

crackhaus:
One cannot enter a contract that negates one's civil right to desire an out - this be the crux of the matter.

If that was the case with marriage, then marriage itself would be illegal. Whatever the right or freedom is, one wilfully decides to forego it to enter the marriage institution. It's only voidable if under-age, non-consensual, to closely related, or unconsummated

crackhaus:
As far as sanctions go, isn't this where spousal settlements and child support come in?

Exactly - why I said it didn't have to be jail or fines per se. Jail time is not that common for what are considered civil, as opposed to criminal offences. Often it would be of little value, or even negative in some cases. Nobody likes jailing mothers.

So back to my example. With fault divorce, anyone who decided to up and leave for no valid - AAA - reason - would be penalised in the settlement. Now a man can build himself up, marry a woman with nothing, then if she decides to "pursue happiness", she can take his kids, his house, and hefty childcare payments. And still frustrate his efforts to spend time with his kids. He can lose his wife, assets, kids, and still face jail if he doesn't pony up. Altogether worse than jail and fines in my opinion.

Funnily enough, in 90% of cases the wife gets the kids. In the other ten, it's often another - grandparents etc. - so fathers rarely get custody. It's considered in the childs best interest to be with their mother, although it's a confusing ideology, as apparently women add nothing of distinct value and 2 men could do the job just as well .

crackhaus:
These are already the sanctions that would apply to breaching the contract of marriage...and not just on the breaching per se, but only after filing for divorce on that account.

I am always happy for reconciliation. But fines and jail do come into play. Bigamy for instance. And for someone who commits adultery with a married person and seduces them away, a hefty fine for the 3rd party for jointly home-wrecking, as we saw on one thread earlier, is great in my opinion.

With no-fault divorce, there are essentially no sanctions, and men usually draw the short straw. It actually triggered MRA in the West.

crackhaus:
What stilfire proposes however, is a situation where the defaulter is made to pay fines for cheating on his/her spouse, not the usual paying of spousal support after the fact following a divorce...and for such a proposition, it is purely unrealistic.

In a way it's the same when divorce is based on fault, as the offending spouse is punished via the settlement. With no fault-divorce, there is incentive for the party that the law favours in dvorce to end the marriage. That happens to be women for now - hence the up to 80% of divorces being initiated by them.

Anyway, it's good to see that Stillfire is a "masculinist" .


TV

crackhaus:
Are you for or against stillfire's idealism on the proposition that infidelity on the part of a man/woman should be treated as breach liable to jail terms/fines?

Yes and yes but... Yes it's a breach and yes there should be sanctions, but they can be foregone if there is reconciliation, and they don't necessarily have to be jail time or financial, but in some case they can be.

crackhaus:
If yes, how is this not a breach of one's civil rights/freedoms?

As I've stated, if the sanctions from breaching a contract are illegal/unenforceable, then the contract itself has to be void from the get-go. Again, one cannot enter into a contract that negates ones civil rights or freedoms. For this premise to hold, then marriage itself cannot be a thing.

crackhaus:
If no, then I don't understand your entire response, particularly because not all contracts require a fine/jail term if breached...and this doesn't make them any less 'a contract'.

As I explained to Mindfulness above, sanction does not just mean jail time or fines - although they can in some instances be translated as such. Indeed, civil cases rarely result in jail time. It's about fines for losses suffered or other suitable means of redress.


TV

Mindfulness:
TV01, with all due respect, you sound like a broken record. It's sooooooooo booooooring.

When you bring something new, you'll hear something new .

Mindfulness:
Let me sit down and wait for Crackhaus.

That makes 2 of us. Need better convo jor


TV

Mindfulness:
If you need laws to control and punish your partner in case she steps out of the line, then you don't trust her and you need legal support to soothe your fear in case she won't.

Marriage does not assume a "stepping out of line" - divorce does that. And I have no fear of anyone leaving me - believe that. Entering rightfully into marriage - without a pre-nup - requires, nay, demands trust, hope and rightful expectations - ab initio.

The sanctions are first and foremost to shore up the institution, and secondly to ensure that divorce does not profit the instigator, which it does now, with no-fault, and laws favouring women.

Mindfulness:
It is bondage once you demand punishment for someone who re-considers his choice for whatever reason. People should commit because they want and not because they are forced to. It beats my imagination how anyone would want to be with someone who stays with them by force.

Make the right choice to begin with. A lifelong commitment is not to be entered into lightly. Other relationship forms are freely available, avail yourself of one that most matches the desire to leave at any time and for any reason. The legal benefits can all be contracted separately.

Mindfulness:
People do not always agree on whose fault it was that led to the marriage break-down so they will try to prove that it wasn't their fault but the other person's, which in result will lead to a very messy divorce, the washing of dirty linen and ultimately to means that do not justify the purpose.

Nope. Civilly, Divorce was allowable for the 3 A's - abuse, abandonment and adultery. For those to be justifiable, it will be clear who is at fault.

It is not messier than no-fault case, as in truth, if you want a divorce for any reason whatsoever, it must be because you fault your partner, no? The term "no-fault" itself is an oxy-slowpoke.

If spouses can't debate fault - which there should be little need to, they will re-focus and argue settlement, which they wouldn't have to do if fault were established.

It may refocus energy at to a different aspect, it does not dissipate the hurt, rage or bitterness. Indeed, regardless of how you couch it, that was never the intent of NFD. It was to ostensibly allow a small number of women to escape horrible marriages without too much exertion.

Now something like 80% of marriages are instigated by women usually to "pursue happiness", or "find themselves", or "be true to their hearts", for which they are typically awarded, the kids, the house and lots of free cash. Tell me you won't be bitter if that happens to you or yours? No fault legally maybe, but there will be much blame and recriminations between the parties.

In any event, I care little for the nuances of divorce, as it is not a feature in properly constituted marriages.

Mindfulness:
I would much rather go for a peaceful arrangement than a war even if it was me who was wronged. I would much rather maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my child than have a compensation that would destroy any friendly relation, which would make matters even worse for my child in the long run.

Why does it have to be messy because there is fault? Or not messy because it is processed under no-fault rules. So one party will not/cannot be bitter if their spouse decided to leave for no justifiable reason? And you called me idealistic ?

Mindfulness:
So are unhealthy relationships and at times even more unhealthy.

That is the plaintive whine of one who puts themselves first. Kids do better even in a household with a low level of conflict, than in a divorce situation - fact!

Mindfulness:
I am yet to see people who divorce based on a whim.

But you postulate it as a necessary feature of marriage

Mindfulness:
What compensation do you want the wronged party to receive?

It factors into decisions on custody, childcare payments, etc.

If a woman wants a divorce because she met a nice man on holiday or to "pursue happiness", even though her husband has done no wrong, he should have custody if he so desires, and he shouldn't have to pay her anything if his income is much higher than hers. He should also get priority over the house.

Mindfulness:
And therefore nobody should be forced to remain in a marriage.

Nobody is forced to enter into it. Nobody is ignorant of the lifelong nature of it. Nobody is forced to eschew alternatives. You have no point here. It's simply wilful, and an attempt to make your assertion a fact - it's not.

Mindfulness:
I don't have to shout it from the roof-tops to feel validated.

No, you just patrol the section looking for threads to you can stealthily use to self-validate .

Mindfulness:
Divorce is ALWAYS costly. And even if it wasn't, the wronged party can make it so if it helps them to feel better.

The link says otherwise in financial terms, you claimed otherwise in emotional terms with your bogus "better divorced, than unhealthy environment" cliché.

Mindfulness:
You are free to ignore nauseating comments.
You seem to have masochistic tendencies.

One may need to be slightly masochistic (or to be pious sacrificial ) to remain committed for the long haul.

Mindfulness:
I didn't know I have that much power over you.

You don't - your winding mazy runs usually lack end product. But just to ensure that those lauding your silky skills do not remain blind to the fact


TV

Mindfulness:
Whatever you call it, it doesn't change the fact that you and many other people use marriage to gloss over their feelings of insecurity.

Please explain this - how do I use marriage to "gloss over my insecurity" ?

Mindfulness:
I don't need to understand marriage as some sort of bondage so that I feel secure. And I don't need to punish people to feel better.

How can choice and consensuality be deemed bondage?

Mindfulness:
Fault divorce makes divorce messier than it needs to be and greatly diminishes chances for parents to maintain a friendly parental relationship for the sake of their kids.

In what way does "fault" divorce make separation messier? And how does it make parents less friendly?

Mindfulness:
When there was fault divorcing, people used to stay together by force maintaining an unhealthy environment for everyone involved.

Firstly, separated parents is always unhealthy for kids. Secondly, fault divorce means that marriage is less likely to be treated as a disposable relationship that can be canned on a whim. And thirdly it meant that there was some sort of recompense for the wronged party.

Mindfulness:
And one of the benefits is to make another person stay with you by force?

Utterly bogus. No one gets married by force.

Mindfulness:
I don't need to champion anything. I live my life and marriage as it suits me, whether you like it or not.

Don't be touchy. Be proud. Truth has no problem being shouted from the roof-tops

Mindfulness:
No! Divorce is costly in many countries whether the couples want it or not.

Divorce is not costly. Individuals make it costly - https://www.gov.uk/divorce/overview

Mindfulness:
It definitely is a catalyst to my happiness.
Happiness is the purpose of my life by CHOICE.

That too.

I have not said that I am ONLY responsible for my happiness, I have said that I am PRIMARILY and EXCLUSIVELY responsible for my happiness.

Repeated - and varied to suit - ad nauseum

Mindfulness:
You are too sensitive now.

Only to your finely honed dribbling skills. !


TV

Mindfulness:
I have already explained it. There are some legal benefits that result from this contract.

Legal benefits granted by the state - if said benefits were not already inherent in marriage - are not the reason for marriage. You get the state benefits because you are married, marriage is not so that you can garner state benefits.

Mindfulness:
I think it is sick to marry for the reason that it gives you control over your spouse.

Again, a diminished understanding of marriage and it's commitment.

Mindfulness:
I expect my spouse to be loyal and respectful because he wants to and not because he has to. If he doesn't want to respect our relationship, then good riddance to ...

It's "good riddance" now is it ? Not, "whatever makes one happy"

Mindfulness:
Yes and I am sure you know it.
I would much rather try to maintain a friendly relationship with the father of my kids if he decided to behave in
a way that is not pleasing to me then have him punished. It wouldn't help me at all.

No fault divorce has nothing to do with kids, or actually does anything to maintain friendly relationships.

Indeed, when there was "fault", divorcing couples use dot focus their energy on the fault. Now their is "no-fault", they typically focus on the terms of the separation, often the kids.

Mindfulness:
Never has been and never will be.

Lots of relationship forms, but only 1 type of marriage as defined.

Mindfulness:
Which benefits? Do you really think that everyone wants the same benefits as you do? Certainly not.

The benefits are multi-level. Not just for the individuals, and not much to do with legally sanctioned goodies .

Mindfulness:
Certainly not your understanding of marriage but this should come as no surprise.

Championing marriage is primarily by living it, not commandeering it as it suits in order to validate ones choices.

Mindfulness:
Divorce is expensive. This in itself makes it harder for people to leave.

I'm no expert on divorce, but that would only be if the couple make it so.

Mindfulness:
No, I don't.
I am enjoying all the legal benefits that come with marriage without acting like it is some sort of bondage.
We entered the union voluntarily and we are free to exit it voluntarily.
I certainly won't force anyone to stay with me who doesn't want to.

It's not by force, or controlling. It's by choice and commitment. Like I said, a diminished grasp of the marriage institution. One that at best, only sees it as a vehicle for your happiness.

Mindfulness:
I have not said it was valid, I have simply presented a life experience where it has been helpful.

Either you are saying it is valid because it is helpful, or that doing something wrong is valid if it is helpful. Which just suggests you don't subscribe to moral absolutes, rather consider outcomes. Happiness again

Mindfulness:
I am sure most people try to resolve their conflicts before they think of separation.

Or cheating

Mindfulness:
I am very committed to myself and my happiness, which is not exclusive to being committed to other people in my life. How is it your problem?

Don't get into a funk - you have repeatedly stated that you are only responsible for your own happiness. And more tellingly, emphasised that you are not responsible for the unhappiness you leave in your wake whilst in search of your own happiness.

Mindfulness:
Well, I don't hate you or your views. I ignore them most of the time. It wasn't me who quoted you on this thread. Maybe you were too slow to notice that I choose to quote you when I like your comment instead feeling bitter about comments that go against my beliefs. I love the freedom to choose what I like instead of focusing on the things I don't like.
It is your choice to contaminate your system with negative vibes of scorn.

Like coyly claiming to respect my opinions, then labelling them naïve and idealistic in the same breathe .


TV

crackhaus:
Marriage is already a contract by civil law, but it ain't the kind of contract that can attract the penalty of a fine/jail time should one or more of the parties involved be found wanting.

Then in what sense is it a contract?

crackhaus:
The reason for this is because, as much as it's a contract pledging commitment between two people, you really can't force anyone to remain committed to another person on an emotional and sexual level against his/her own freewill - that will be tantamount to abuse on one's civil liberties.

Firstly, no one is forced to "contractually pledge commitment", that is done on their own volition, and it is done consensually.

And secondly, if enforcing the commitment, or sanctioning the breaking of it, is an abuse of civil liberties, then entering into it in the first place is wrong. It perfectly aligns with "restraint of trade" law". You cannot "contract" something that is illegal.

crackhaus:
Which is why there is an option for divorce (terminating said contract) should one or both parties require an out.

Mindfulness noted the covenant form of marriage earlier. It would help if we consider a civil form as distinct. Noting that I don't consider it true marriage - and yes, I appreciate that many jurisdictions do.

Divorce is not part of the marriage contract, it's an entirely separate legal transaction, which only comes into play with premature dissolution. But then how does divorce on the basis of "one party wanting an out" in anyway enhance marriage?

Obviously vows may vary, but vows which do not pledge permanence, or include "an out", are not marriage vows. Whatever the label the contract is given. In pretty much the same way as the relationship of two same sex people can never be a marriage. I outlined the particulars in my response to Stilly above.

crackhaus:
Another thing to note is that most contracts are not given lifetime validity, so are you then saying the marriage contract should hold on a minimum of 5years after which either party can choose to renew it for up to 10years or choose to end it?

Most contracts may not be lifetime, but some are, and marriage is one such. It's true nature demands it. A "rolling arrangement" would create more problems. Besides, this is a mute point , if as you've noted, the contract is unenforceable.

crackhaus:
If this is the case, them your idealism might begin to make more sense...but on the account that you want to keep people in a lifetime union by imposing jail time or fines, then that's just not gonna cut it.

Sanctions are not the preferred way, honouring the commitment (contract) is, or alternatively avoiding it, and adopting some other arrangement.


TV

Stillfire:
Lol, I agree that the idea of an open marriage is an oxymoron. I just threw that in there for the non- religious amongst us. Now for the religious ones, and since Nigeria boasts to be a religious country, I really don't see how sanctions and penalties for adultery should be a problem, lol.

You know Stilly, the more I study and examine marriage, the more I see in it a unique simplicity, that behoves what I consider to be divine by design. Did I just say that

The basic criteria of male & female, lifelong, monogamous, consensual, majority age and consanguineous restrictions, beautifully encapsulates what it is. Varying this in any way is to re-define it and perhaps more importantly, means it deliver less benefits.

A so called "open-marriage", would raise all sorts of questions around, inter-alia, paternity, stability, trust etc. That kind of agreement is better suited to a co-habbing , or some other lesser arrangement.

I never get why people want marriage without the particulars. Especially in this day and age where domestic arrangements can be pretty much as one wants without stigma.

It can only surmise that it's because they yearn for the validation and honour that accords with it, but don't have the wherewithal to commit to it?


TV

Mindfulness:
I respect your beliefs - at least as much as I can - but I don't share them.

You neither respect, nor share my beliefs. And that is neither here nor there, as the feeling is mutual .

Mindfulness:
Is the contract signed under the provision that cheating must be punished?

If reneging on a contract goes without sanction, what is the point of the contract?

Mindfulness:
The fact that it was previously so doesn't mean that it must be so now. There are good reasons why no fault divorced has been introduced.

There are? Pray tell, what might they be?

Mindfulness:
In the USA couples can decide to enter a distinct form of marriage, which is called covenant marriage (I don't know about other countries), in which the marrying spouses agree to accept more limited grounds for divorce.

When you understand the reasons for, purpose of, and benefits from marriage, you'll realise that there is in truth only one form of marriage.

However I fully understand that men are able to make variations on true marriage, yet still retain the label. The question is, does doing so deliver the same benefits?

Mindfulness:
This is NOT true.

A marriage is a legally recognized relationship.
If the marriage breaks down, custody and alimony laws apply, which regulate the separation.
In many countries, both parents are granted shared custody if a child is born.
The child has the father's name in majority of the cases, provided the parents are married.
It is not as easy to leave a marriage as it is other relationships.
Married people have certain rights if anything happens to their spouse.
And people who marry officially announce their intention to commit to their partner for the rest of their lives, which makes marriages more stable than other relationships.

Are you now championing marriage ?

But how, if cheating should be allowed and non-punishable, or partners allowed to depart whenever they choose, make it more stable or harder to leave

Here you make a somewhat classic case for marriage, whilst at the same time refusing to live by it's dictates in your own marriage?. I come to realise that most people don't argue from principle, just from a desire to justify what they practice.

Mindfulness:
I have never said that the only way to resolve the issue is to cheat. In fact, I think, that it backfires more often than not but I also think that your position that every problems in marriage can be solved is quite idealistic or even naive. I do not mean to be disrespectful.

And nobody - at least I didn't - claim that you said "the only way" to resolve the issue is to cheat. What you have clearly implied, is that "cheating is a valid way".

Like I said, you neither share not respect my beliefs . But to be sure, every problem in marriage can at the very least be attempted to be resolved, and often workable compromises can be reached. That does not mean that every issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of both, or even one of the parties. It just demonstrates that the commitment to the union is present.

Indeed, the more you write, the more you demonstrate that your commitment is only ever to yourself (your own happiness. It's weird as well that on one hand, you emphasise that you are not bound by societal norms or conventions, yet you insist on dressing your choices in the garb of normalcy? Insisting they are as right, even spiritual

I actually think I despise yours more than you hate mine. And you only hate mine because they don't validate yours. .


TV

Stillfire:
Now, my moralistic opinion is that cheaters in marriage should be fined and policed by the government and a considerable amount given to the partner that was cheated on.

Exactly - "fault divorce". Indeed, "no-fault" divorce is an oxymoron. Although forgiveness and restoration should be sought first, and at least be an option.

Stillfire:
In the advent of lack of income to pay the government, the cheater goes to jail for a month or 2 or 3.

Yes, sanctions up to and including imprisonment are not unreasonable.

Stillfire:
It will not solve the cheating problem, but it would regulate it and help bring some sanity into the institution.

Exactimundo - the institution will be entered to more soberly - as it was, and should be done.

Stillfire:
The law is too focused on 'divorce'. Laws need to be introduced to protect and preserve the marriage institution and the partners involved in the institution.

A1* . Given the purpose and benefits of marriage, it should be shored up all round and supported by force of law. Divorce is actually the anti-thesis of marriage, so shoring up divorce can only serve to weaken marriage.

Stillfire:
You will still have the right to leave the institution, but you will be fined for it. In Nigeria, where conclusions are analyzed and arrived at through religion, I don't see how most people would have a problem with this.

In faith terms I disagree with a "right to leave". You had a right to "not enter in the first place". But this is much better than what we have - and in fact, was what we used to have.

Stillfire:
This will enable only sincere people to get into that institution. The only exception would be if both parties prior to the marriage agree to have an open marriage. Also there will be the freedom of not getting married at all.

Again, I disagree with the former, but agree with the latter. An "open marriage" is not a marriage. Another oxy-slowpoke. Marriage is by definition about life-long fidelity. Simply refrain from marriage as stated - people are free to order their domestic arrangements as they see fit. If they are eligible for, and choose marriage, they abide by it's strictures.


TV

Mindfulness:
Where did you outline what should happen? I cannot see it.
Forgiveness or separation.

Yes, it is but I would like to know what kind of redress specifically.

Ok. And I guess you would like to blame and punish? In what way specifically?

I have outlined my position from a faith position here; https://www.nairaland.com/2347293/possibility-divorce-according-bible/1#45577314

Even if one does not subscribe to the Biblical position, marriage - even civil - is a freely entered into contract. You don't simply renege on a contract without consequence, otherwise, the contract was of no import in the first instance.

By law, the only reasons for divorce where the 3 A's - adultery, abandonment and abuse. So redress. As stated divorce was previously a "fault" issue, so the party looking to leave, or responsible for the split would render forfeits, be it the house, p/alimony, custody etc. And as we saw in that earlier thread, even the 3rd party in an adulterous situation should be penalised. "

No-fault" divorce essentially makes a marriage contract meaningless. Not that I see it as a contract, but over and above that, a covenant. And of course forgiveness is an option for the wronged party

Mindfulness:
I never said you were condoning it.

I've made that clear, but your arguments suggests that people are either condoning it, or seeing it as the logical consequence of cheating.

Mindfulness:
Well, in theory maybe. Not in reality, though.

So denial - or reticence, or imbalance, or abeyance - of sex can never be overcome? And the only way to resolve the issue is to cheat


TV

Theophinio:
This is it
AWESOME
MORE GRACE UPON YOU SIR

Gracias- much appreciated. I'd been meaning to say more on this issue, so instead of opening a thread - lazy me - I'll just post it here...let me know your thoughts.

[size=14pt]…it is better not to marry[/size]

Matthew 19:10 (NKJV)
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry

I believe the bible, and I also believe the bible makes it clear that God instituted marriage for the flourishing and well-being of mankind.

From a purely Christian perspective, marriage has a number of imperatives and serves a number of purposes. I do however believe that God recognises all formally enacted marriages.

The bible makes the law of marriage very clear – it’s until death do part. One may well separate from, or “divorce” their spouse, but re-marriage, whilst ones original spouse is still alive, is adultery. And how will one not consider remarriage- whilst the former spouse is alive - a state, as opposed to an act of sin/adultery?

God hates divorce. Who has the nerve to freely counsel what God hates - divorce - and more specifically, what marriage law forbids – remarriage whilst the original spouse is still alive?

So even if you can conjure up reasons for divorce – and to be clear, I don’t believe the bible really states any for a consummated marriage – remarriage remains out of the question whilst the former spouse is still alive.

Hence, I am always happy to advise people not to marry, or counsel on enhancing their unions, but I will never advise divorce. That is not within anyone’s remit – “What God has joined together...”.

Hence the best remedy for dysfunctional unions, is not to campaign for divorce – it’s at root - to ensure that marriage is properly understood, embraced and committed to in the first instance.

By campaigning for divorce as a remedy, marriage as a whole is weakened and not held in the right reverence, entered into incorrectly, and divorce multiplies the more.

Conjuring up nebulous or woolly reasons for divorce, or not first counselling serious and consistent efforts at healing and restoration, are unbiblical and wrong whatever you believe. Talk of “moving on”, especially where it implies remarriage, is sin, if your spouse is still alive.

Marriage is an archetype of Gods relationship with Israel, of Christ’ love for His church. You cannot leave or forsake your spouse. If you genuinely believe you are in danger, remove yourself from the situation, but you cannot dissolve the union.

If your spouse is genuinely repentant, you are to forgive, and keep on giving them opportunity to repent. If they are not, or you cannot, even if you separate, you cannot divorce, and you cannot re-marry while they are still alive.

Advocates, campaigners and mongers for divorce will answer, as will those who commit the offence. If you did it ignorantly, then repentance is available. But if you refuse to accept it as sin, then your sin remains – and you are clearly saying divorce can happen repeatedly.


TV

lezz:
Quite correct, that's why I wouldn't answer bukatyne's trap of having me define "love" .

Can you imagine?


TV

Mindfulness:
By you?

Yes . So what do you think should happen?

Mindfulness:
Redress? How can the 'wronged' party be redressed?

The wrong party seeks/is given redress. That's the correct legal wording - I stand to be corrected

Mindfulness:
What courts are we talking about? Nigerian?

Divorce always had a cause,. There was a Plaintiff and a defendant. May jurisdictions are changing to no-fault, hence there are simply a petitioner and a respondent. Not sure Nigeria has/will?

Mindfulness:
Now you are contradicting yourself. Just a few posts ago you said that cheating can be the cause of violence. Which one is it now?

Cheating can be "the cause" of violence, cheating is not "cause" for violence. That is, I know it can trigger it, but, I'm not condoning it - no,no, don't mention it, it's your grasp of English, not mine .

Mindfulness:
And if one of the spouses denies the other the pleasure of se.xual intercourse, what do you suggest?

They work it out. Why should there be a denial? Marriage is at it's heart a conjugal relationship. Without sex it's barely a marriage, and without consummation, it can be annulled. They work it out. Nothing that can't be fixed if the will is there.


TV

lezz:
My postulation has been simple. When men cheat, they often do so for fun or just because they can or for ego.

They still love and keep their union even though they can easily divorce and remarry.( the majority of cheating men that is)

I actually agree with your premise on the whole. The only thing I would question is using the very arbitrary term "love". Outside of religion - Christianity - for me, it is simply impossible to pin down. It can mean so many things, an ddoes not necessarily precipitate or underpin marriage.

TV

Mindfulness:
What should happen to people who cheat - men and women? Let me hear.

You go hear am - having said that,this question has already been asked on this thread .

My take is that it first and foremost depends on the definition of a relationship. By definition if the relationship is not formalised or agreed - implicitly or explicitly - by the couple,then cheating cannot take place.

So for example, boyfriend/girlfriendage, I do not consider this formal, moreso where the couple do not clearly outline and agree their expectations.

For a formal marriage, fidelity is implicit, therefore cheating is a transgression. The wronged party has the right to forgive, redress or both. hence my delight and position when we discussed a while back and it transpired that a woman, was fined for committing adultery with a married man.

Prior to no-fault divorce, their had to be cause, and adultery was just cause. And that would determine how the judge ruled. Some jurisdictions choose to codify harsher punishments for adultery. I may not agree with the degree of harshness in some cases, but have no problem with it in principle.

Indeed, no fault divorce means in some ways means cheating has no real consequence for the cheat. Which means a number of things;
1. Cheating while not a right, is not effectively sanctioned. Vows are legally meaningless.
2. Violence may occur more frequently, especially knowing that there is no legal redress, and the laws mean they actually suffer more from the divorce than the cheat.

I don't think there is cause for violence, but neither do I believe there is cause for cheating.


TV

Mindfulness:
If a spouse breaks the marriage vows, you are free to go. I don't see how violence will fix any problems but I can see how it will create more problems. I think it would go a long way if we offered constructive solutions instead of offering understanding for destructive behavior. My two cents.

You are conflating and confusing;

1. If one is "free to go" when a spouse cheats, how does that in and of itself right the wrong of cheating? Or are you claiming no wrong has been done? Or perhaps you subscribe to cheating as a right, as we have learnt today

2. Nobody has said violence will fix anything, or indeed that it is in anyway a good thing. The only thing that has been stated, is that as "cheating" is an outworking of human nature, so is "violence". And cheating may precipitate violence.

3. The constructive solution was preach against cheating, or do not take vows or make commitments that make you a cheat if you break or renege on them. Understanding causes of "destructive behaviour", is not to make excuses for it, rather, it's to help prevent situations that trigger it

The convoluted efforts to vilify a bad outcome and leave unattended a bad action is misguided. As is the underlying effort to absolve women of responsibility for their actions. And yes anyone who commits violence should also face the consequences

QED...and I fed, bathed and put both the kids to bed...I'm good .


TV

^{...shaybebaby...go and read your book}

Mindfulness:
It CAN be dangerous.

Jungle justice is more dangerous because it can also harm people who are PERFECTLY innocent and I wouldn't want to be part of such a society.

Cheating is always dangerous - the outcomes may vary. Nobody is sanctioning jungle justice, we are merely saying violence, is one possible outcome of cheating - cause & effect!

So rather than assert that a woman has a right to cheat and the man should never seek recourse in violence, condemn the cheating, which is wrong and the cause, as well as the violence, which is also wrong, but a consequence.

Even the law recognises this via "crimes of passion".

Mindfulness:
Whether she actually cheats or not, it is wrong to take her life for the reasons I have already outlined.

No one has claimed it is right, good, fitting, proper or appropriate, merely a possible consequence of her original wrong (cheating) - which we have now learnt is a right

Mindfulness:
TV, the reality is that people take these vows and break them all the time. Maybe we should re-consider the vows. I know you don't like it but to me these vows are so naive.

So to make a case against violence, you would condone cheating and covenant breaking - can't you see why you are on to a loser here?
Nobody is forced into marriage, or to take vows, people can arrang etheir domestic affairs as they see fit. If they see fit to marry, let them honour marriage and abide by it's rules.

Mindfulness:
True but people enter marriage with best intentions and then life happens!

"Life" may affect ones situation, it shouldn't change ones character

Mindfulness:
Murder has not solved anything but cheating has.
I know of a man who cheated on his wife who didn't fulfill her 'marital duties' for one reason or another and let herself go after marriage. She became unattractive, unavailable and even aggressive. The man tried to fix it but to no avail. Frustrated as he was, he started cheating on her. It was a great relief for him. He decided not leave his wife because of his children. When the wife found out that he was cheating, she made a transformation.

Competition - the say - stimulates business.

You have no way of knowing what other pathologies his cheating triggered, or other possible outcomes. His cheating could have triggered a violent response. And way to prescribe evil as a a way to achieve good .


TV