TV01:
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.

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.


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.

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 ?

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!


But you postulate it as a necessary feature of marriage

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.

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.

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


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


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


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

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

Let me sit down and wait for Crackhaus.

TV01:
Then in what sense is it a contract?

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.

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.


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.

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


TV

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

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

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'.

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

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

TV01:
When you bring something new, you'll hear something new .

That makes 2 of us. Need better convo jor


TV

I must admit that you are right this time around.

Mindfulness:


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

Let me sit down and wait for Crackhaus.

I suspect TV is a ROBOT. That nucca can type

darkenedrebel:


I suspect TV is a ROBOT. Damn!!!. That nucca can type

LOL

Mr Gadget.

Mindfulness and TV01 choi!! You guys are from a separate planet, confirmed!

TV01:

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.


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.


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

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

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

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.

fem29:


Ridiculous! Consequences of doing something wrong is death!disgusting train of thought

@MRBrownj didn't imply that death should be meted out to a cheating partner by the aggrieved better-half. Cheating is wrong and destructive whichever angle it is looked at. I expect the OP, women advocates and feminists to voice out against wives cheating and not focusing on the toga "Men are fools or beasts" for hitting a cheating wife. Note that I have not said it is better if its the man cheating, the focus here is the woman (WIFE). The emotional damage cheating spouses leave their men is better imagined. What more when she becomes undaunted and disrespectful? Anger is dangerous and some people don't handle theirs properly which most times results in physical abuse and unfortunately death in some cases.

Just like someone here opined earlier, the way marriage is structured in Africa which Nigeria isn't exempted from gives the man this sense of ownership of the woman. It is what it is and if this sort after change by mostly the women is to be realized, the building block of contracting marriage as we know it is where to start from. Until that is done, the pipe dream of "Its my life and I can live it as I deem fit" in marriage by a wife will remain unrealistic.

Its amazing how our women compare western marriages with what is obtainable here in Africa with Nigeria in focus. Western marriages are the way they are because of the relaxed value system in the west and how their marriages are contracted.

Need I say more? Cheating is bad. Preach against cheating and not destroying the mindset of our younger generation in relation to marriage and its values. Marriage is a wonderful thing. Women should respect and honor their husbands. If you as a woman is not cut out for marriage, stay single and don't discourage or malign the institution of marriage. Preach instead how our ladies should conduct themselves in their marriages to make the home a haven. Peace will return and we will hear less of spousal abuse/murder.

My view in its entirety and I make no apologies.

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

The three parts to a divorce, all distinct from each other.
1) the divorce itself. Completely separate from the other two.
2) financial settlement. Ideally the courts want a clean break order where both parties leave the union and carry on their lives independent of each other.

In marriage, there is no such thing as mine or yours except that which is protected under prenuptial. In the absence of that, all assets brought into the union and acquired during the union are marital assets to be shared equitably between both parties.

This links to the child/children if there are in the divorce. The courts priority is to make sure the kids are provided for with a home, ideally both parents should have a home both if there isn't enough to go round, the courts would most likely find in favour of the parent who is and has always been the primary carer to the children.

If this seems to favour women, that is because it is usually women who give up their careers or have to take breaks to care for the children.

In situations where the father has been the primary carer and the mother the provider, the father will continue to be so and the mother to pay support for the child.

3) who ever has given up their time to raise the child is compensated for their time and possible loss of future career prospects as a result for being primarily responsible for day to day care of the children. Courts also look at future earning power to determine how the assets to be split.

4) child custody and maintenance is also dealt with separately. The law requires both parents to be responsible for their children.

5) finances are the most difficult bits, sharing the marital assets. Courts prefer that divorcing couples work this out themselves as they best know what applies to their circumstances. They recommend using mediators who are legally trained to guide the process so they work within the law. Mediators however do not give advise, they are to remain impartial.

6) if mediation fails, you can apply for a financial order from the court and the court applies the law to split assets. But children will always come first so their aim will be to provide one stable home at minimum if not two out of available assets.
7)courts aren't interested in who is at fault, when you are both done, you are done. All the state wants is how to best facilitate both parties to move on with their respective lives.

Kimoni:
Mindfulness and TV01 choi!! You guys are from a separate planet, confirmed!

We are from TWO different planets.

crackhaus:

Lol, see I get where you're coming from...but like I posited earlier, all of this is idealistic but not realistic.

Causing people to pay a fine or face jail term for breaking a marriage contract essentially means restricting the will of a person.

Okay let me try point a scenario to you:
You say it should be treated like a contract. Well a contract also has what they call 'citations/conditions/terms' - in the sense that certain things need to be met for the contract to remain valid.

So what if a man who agrees to your idealistic approach then goes ahead to state a condition like:
I will remain a committed husband and not disrespect the institution as long as my wife performs all her wifely duties e.g
- Prepare what I want to eat when I want.
- Make love to me any and every time I want.
etc.

Should my wife fault on any of these conditions, she should be prepared to pay a fine or allow me seek these conditions elsewhere so I don't face emotional and sexual turmoil...lol. (In your own words)


Stillfire, are you starting to see why idealism doesn't always translate into reality?

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?

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.

No I don't see life like that. For every ideology there is a fundamental flaw. Nothing is ideal. For example democratic principles dictate that majority carries the vote, but a major flaw (amongst others) to this principle is that majority does not mean right. Same with conservatism, liberalism, feminism , masculinism and all other human ideology. Even Christianity most of the time defies my human logic. Now as a christian, feminist, who is more conservative than liberal, the question is should we then throw away the baby with the bath water because of these discrepancies and flaws? Absolutely not. We can only regulate, amend, tweak and open it up for discussion and look for how we can better society.

Now concerning my suggestions on sanctioning adultery (which most of the time is the precursor to unleashing dysfunction into society), these things are not new nor ground breaking and had/has translated into reality. Here are some states in America where adultery is illegal:

1. Arizona

Getting it on with someone other than your spouse is a Class 3 misdemeanor here, punishable by up to 30 days behind bars. And not only will the spouse be penalized but also the other person (now that's justice!).

2. Florida

In a place where bathing suits are the dress code, how can eyes not wander? Still, he should keep his hands to himself: Floridian adulterers can spend up to two months in jail and be charged up to $500.

3. Kansas

"Intercourse or sodomy" with someone other than your spouse is a Class C misdemeanor here, punishable by up to a month in jail and a fine of up to $500. Remember, Kansas couples: There's no place like home.

4. Illinois

Frank Sinatra probably wouldn't consider Chicago "His Kind of Town" if he knew about this state law. The consequences for adultery in Illinois is up to a year in jail for both cheaters.

5. Massachusetts

Straying in the Bay State is a wicked bad idea. It's considered a felony with a fine of up to $500 and a jail sentence of up to three years.

6. Oklahoma

If Oklahoma native Dr. Phil's anti-cheating advice doesn't persuade him, perhaps this will: Not only do adulterers face fines of up to $500 but also incarceration for up to five years.

http://www.womansday.com/relationships/dating-marriage/a50994/adultery-laws/

I would like this introduced in Nigeria.

TV01:

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

TV

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.

Stillfire:


The aim is not to force people but to regulate during the marriage and not only at termination. Of course the freedom of terminating a marriage would be there. Termination of a marriage also comes with a price. So losing time and money is not new. It's not much of a contract if one can leave by their own 'free will' throwing the other spouse into emotional turmoil. Modern marriage should be seen as a business contract with each party detailing what they expect from each other with penalties if one goes against it. I believe this is fair.

It's your opinion, not more and not less. I don't see my marriage as a business contract but you can approach your marriage like this. And since you are located in the US, you can make full use of these laws you have presented here - which according to me will lead to more problems. Criminalize your husband's behavior and tell us how it has helped solve your marital problems. I am sure they will rather disconnect you two and lead one party to resent the other even more. Spouses will act like intelligence agencies tracking the people they are supposed to trust like criminals. I would much rather invest the money they will be fined with into counseling than punishing. What is the aim of it all? To control and to punish or to resolve conflicts?

My two cents.

As a matter of fact, the US is not a country that is famous for fidelity and low divorce rates so these laws have not been effective in the way people wanted them to be.

Since my spouse's commitment is voluntary, it should remain this way. Marriage is not bondage. I married a man, not a slave.

MRBrownJ:


i wish more women thought like you did, instead of them thinking that cheating back would be a valid option.

If you had more women like me, this life would be boring!

90% of his salary?! kai, now you are punishing his family/business as well... you need to find a fine/punishment that will affect JUST the cheater and not his immediate entourage. corporal punishment like flogging (lol) would make more sense.

Lol, it has to be something that hurts. Besides we would give the family a considerable amount of the money which would be controlled by the cheated spouse alone, so the kids don't suffer in the process.

why would these men be responsible for their act, if they can now just pay a fine for fooling around?

This is why it has to be at a percentage that will pain the cheater in his heart. 90% is the best!

is the fine in place to punish these men or compensate these women who "willingly" stay with these monsters? if it is really that bad for these women then what about compulsory divorce for any cheaters instead? so that these wifeys dont suffer any longer than they should. Compulsory divorce, thats where the real solution is for people who got married for the wrong reasons.

Both - to punish the cheater and compensate the cheated. This suggestion is for Nigerian men who claim to love their wife, cheats on the wife and would like to continue the marriage.

such contract should have a clause stipulating that any party can update the contract with new terms, whenever they please... and if the other party doesnt agree to the new terms, then a compulsory divorce should be enforced

Hmm, still thinking on this. My quick answer is absolutely not! The premise of all my argument is to dissuade as many unserious losers from entering into the institution. They can 'cohabit' if they can't live by the terms.

now it could get a bit tricky if the cheating lady is married but unemployed, and her husband would have to "unwillingly" pay her fine

No. She will go to Jail. Remember this is for people who would like to continue the marriage.

but imagine the state of marriage if/when everything is regulated and fined. you disrespect your spouse, FINE! you shout at your spouse, FINE! you talk too damn much, FINE! you came home late, FINE! you make her jealous by talking to ex, FINE! you cant fulfill your bedroom duties because of that "headache", FINE! the food you cook taste funny, FINE! it will be worst than the way people are suing left right and center for BS in the US. i think divorce aint so bad afterall.

I think our legislature would do justice in coming up with appropriate laws to protect and preserve the marriage institution.

Mindfulness:


It's your opinion, not more and not less. I don't see my marriage as a business contract but you can approach your marriage like this. And since you are located in the US, you can make full use of these laws you have presented here - which according to me will lead to more problems. Criminalize your husband's behavior and tell us how it has helped solve your marital problems. I am sure they will rather disconnect you two and lead one party to resent the other even more. Spouses will act like intelligence agencies tracking the people they are supposed to trust like criminals. I would much rather invest the money they will be fined with into counseling than punishing. What is the aim of it all? To control and to punish or to resolve conflicts?

My two cents.

As a matter of fact, the US is not a country that is famous for fidelity and low divorce rates so these laws have not been effective in the way people wanted them to be.

Since my spouse's commitment is voluntary, it should remain this way. Marriage is not bondage. I married a man, not a slave.

1) It's not about me.
2) There will be the option for divorce.
3) This is for people who want to continue the marriage.

Stillfire:


It's not about me.

It is about your opinion.

May I ask you something?

Do you want your (future) spouse to stay true to you because he loves and respects you or because he is afraid of the legal consequences?
Do you want him to do the right thing because he is upright or because he is forced to?

Mindfulness:


It is about your opinion.

May I ask you something?

Do you want your (future) spouse to stay true to you because he loves and respects you or because he is afraid of the legal consequences?
Do you want him to do the right thing because he is upright or because he is forced to?

You are trying to make it about me.
Nevertheless, my energies are not fixated on why he's in the relationship. Rather, it is a matter of why I am in the relationship.

Stillfire:


You are trying to make it about me.
Nevertheless, my energies are not fixated on why he's in the relationship. Rather, it is a matter of why I am in the relationship.

Now you are making it about yourself.

Why are you in the relationship?

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

Stillfire:


No I don't see life like that. For every ideology there is a fundamental flaw. Nothing is ideal. For example democratic principles dictate that majority carries the vote, but a major flaw (amongst others) to this principle is that majority does not mean right. Same with conservatism, liberalism, feminism , masculinism and all other human ideology. Even Christianity most of the time defies my human logic. Now as a christian, feminist, who is more conservative than liberal, the question is should we then throw away the baby with the bath water because of these discrepancies and flaws? Absolutely not. We can only regulate, amend, tweak and open it up for discussion and look for how we can better society.

Now concerning my suggestions on sanctioning adultery (which most of the time is the precursor to unleashing dysfunction into society), these things are not new nor ground breaking and had/has translated into reality. Here are some states in America where adultery is illegal:

1. Arizona

Getting it on with someone other than your spouse is a Class 3 misdemeanor here, punishable by up to 30 days behind bars. And not only will the spouse be penalized but also the other person (now that's justice!).

2. Florida

In a place where bathing suits are the dress code, how can eyes not wander? Still, he should keep his hands to himself: Floridian adulterers can spend up to two months in jail and be charged up to $500.

3. Kansas

"Intercourse or sodomy" with someone other than your spouse is a Class C misdemeanor here, punishable by up to a month in jail and a fine of up to $500. Remember, Kansas couples: There's no place like home.

4. Illinois

Frank Sinatra probably wouldn't consider Chicago "His Kind of Town" if he knew about this state law. The consequences for adultery in Illinois is up to a year in jail for both cheaters.

5. Massachusetts

Straying in the Bay State is a wicked bad idea. It's considered a felony with a fine of up to $500 and a jail sentence of up to three years.

6. Oklahoma

If Oklahoma native Dr. Phil's anti-cheating advice doesn't persuade him, perhaps this will: Not only do adulterers face fines of up to $500 but also incarceration for up to five years.

http://www.womansday.com/relationships/dating-marriage/a50994/adultery-laws/

I would like this introduced in Nigeria.

Interesting...so in a country that prides itself on being the most free and liberal on the entire planet, someone can actually be jailed for choosing to cheat on their spouse but another man gets recognition for choosing to fall in love, have sex, and marry a fellow man? Lmao...

And you're honestly telling me that you don't see anything wrong in a system like this:
Homosexuality √
Polygamy ×
Infidelity ×
Feminism √
Animal rights √
Transgender √

Let me guess, as long as it's legal/illegal in the USA it should be legal/illegal in Nigeria because they always know what they're doing.

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

Mindfulness:


It's your opinion, not more and not less. I don't see my marriage as a business contract but you can approach your marriage like this. And since you are located in the US, you can make full use of these laws you have presented here - which according to me will lead to more problems. Criminalize your husband's behavior and tell us how it has helped solve your marital problems. I am sure they will rather disconnect you two and lead one party to resent the other even more. Spouses will act like intelligence agencies tracking the people they are supposed to trust like criminals. I would much rather invest the money they will be fined with into counseling than punishing. What is the aim of it all? To control and to punish or to resolve conflicts?

My two cents.

As a matter of fact, the US is not a country that is famous for fidelity and low divorce rates so these laws have not been effective in the way people wanted them to be.

Since my spouse's commitment is voluntary, it should remain this way. Marriage is not bondage. I married a man, not a slave.

Exactly... Who is fooling who I wonder

How someone can voluntarily marry another and be penalized for voluntarily cheating on them is the height of confusion.

I thought the modern generational chant by Nigerian females was 'marriage is not by fire by force'?

News flash:
Marriage is now by fire by force o in the USA, oya make una change una tunes.

Even animals now have move rights than humans who desire to be adulterous.. Lol

Only in God's own country.

crackhaus:

Exactly... Who is fooling who I wonder

How someone can voluntarily marry another and be penalized for voluntarily cheating on them is the height of confusion.

I thought the modern generational chant by Nigerian females was 'marriage is not by fire by force'?

News flash:
Marriage is now by fire by force o in the USA, oya make una change una tunes.

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.'

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

This is the height of confusion, I swear.

Stillfire:


1) It's not about me.
2) There will be the option for divorce.
3) This is for people who want to continue the marriage.

Ohhh I see, so it's only people that want to continue the marriage that will be jailed or made to pay fines? Lol..

This is getting funnier by the minute, and I hope you're not making all this up..

So I cheat on my wife and then I'm told to either divorce or continue with the marriage on the account that I will go to jail or pay a fine,... why the hell would anyone even want to continue that marriage?

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

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.'

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

This is the height of confusion, I swear.

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

crackhaus:

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

Indeed.

TV01:

Mostly not. Where such lawsy 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

Your number 1 pretty much sums it all.

The marriage contract becomes and is essentially worthless the moment one party decided to have sex with someone else outside the union - this is the choice he/she made and he/she should not be jailed or fined for it.

The idea in trying to prove that marriage is worthy of a long-lasting lifetime commitment is not for civil law or government to decide and implement, it is only for God Almighty who will judge all adulterers on judgement day.

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