316
submitted 5 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 50 points 5 months ago

Great now make it so if you cheat you lose the ability to get alimony.

And an open relationship is different then cheating.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Honestly, I think it’s high time we ditch old marriage laws in favor of much more individualized marriage contracts that are settled in civil court if they’re dissolved. Modern marriages are much more complex than traditional ones and our antiquated laws don’t deal with them well. We’d have to update laws/policies about hospital visiting, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, as well, but I think it would be worth it.

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So reading a 200+ page EULA before saying I do, got it.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

that's the opposite of the point of these laws. the entire point of this and no fault divorce is that the state shouldn't dictate relationships. how are you going to adjudicate cheating anyway?

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

How?

If person a is shown to have been cheating then person a loses any claim to alimony.

Pretty simple.

Person A in divorce court “judge I want alimony”

Person B in divorce court “your honor Person A was cheating here’s the proof”

Judge “ no alimony will be awarded from Person B to Person A”

Why should anyone be allowed to get alimony after cheating? That’s just insult to injury.

Your spouse cheats you walk in on it and now you want a divorce. Added bonus you have to pay money to the cheater for life???

How does that make sense?

It should literally be law that the alimony goes away at that point.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 5 months ago

I do wonder the legal definition used here. I hope the law doesn't consider it cheating if you tell them about it first, regardless of if they say yes

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

Just my opinion, if my spouse (I'm not married) walks up to me and asks if they can sleep with someone else and I say no. Then they do it anyway. I would absolutely call that cheating. Then I'd call a divorce attorney. If I had to pay alimony after the divorce I'd be extremely bitter.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago

Your partner is not your property. They have the right to fuck who they want.

They dont have the right to endanger your health, which is why they need to tell you

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

In the context of the comment chain, you’re saying that a person who willfully violates a monogamous marriage vow should still be able to claim alimony in the event of a divorce, simply because they informed their spouse they were doing it?

Fuck that. What the hell are you thinking? Please tell me this isn’t what you mean.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Marriages shouldn't be monogamous. Thats antiquated and ridiculous

Some people get married for tax benefits, and the law shouldn't say anything about whether or not the marriage is poly or mono. I mean, sure, let people opt into it if they want legally enforced monogamy, like a prenup. But by default marriage shouldn't require monogomy. Thats insane.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Wow. Way to give polygamists a bad name, dude. Can’t let the monogamists have their slice of happiness, huh?

Pathetic. I’m glad you’re in the extreme minority, what a horrendous opinion you have.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I literally said its OK to be mono. Just that it shouldn't be required.

Also its polyamory, not polygamy

[-] JamesFire@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

There is absolutely a difference between having an open relationship where both parties consent, and having a relationship where one person just sleeps around, but it's totally fine because the other was informed it was happening.

Your partner may not be your property, but that doesn't mean that sleeping around just because you told them it was happening is ok.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If you dont consent to your poly partner fucking someone else, you're saying "your body, my choice"

Thats so fucked, and I can't believe you're defending it

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

If a poly person is with a monogamous person and wants to sleep with a new partner, end the relationship with the monogamous person. The monogamous person can stay out of the relationship if they know the other person is poly, too.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

Sure. I'm talking about a poly person in marriage with a poly person. They shouldn't be able to be criminalized for fucking someone else if they told their partner about it first.

[-] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I’m talking about a poly person in marriage with a poly person.

No you weren't. You're moving the goalposts.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

Nah, you made assumptions

[-] JamesFire@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If you dont consent to your poly partner fucking someone else

Whoa buddy, drop the assumptions. You're assuming your partner is poly. Among other things.

Thats so fucked, and I can’t believe you’re defending it

I can't believe you're defending cheating and then excusing it as "we're just poly" (Even though you absolutely did not make that clear to begin with, and are now changing the circumstances of your argument. Maybe list out any assumptions you're using?)

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

I would never marry anyone who wasn't poly. The law is the one making assumptions here.

My point is that it shouldn't be possible for my spouse to persue criminal action against me for fucking someone else in a poly relationship if we're married. Thats fucked.

The law shouldn't make it not allowed to fuck someone outside your marriage by default. As I said before, thats cool to make it optional like a prenup, if you'd like, but it shouldn't be the default

[-] freeze@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

People who are so concerned about that possibility can just require their prospective spouse to sign a prenup with conditions like that on alimony, as a condition of getting married.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

There are a number of states where the prenup is all but worthless.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Even Canada doesn't have that implemented, I wouldn't count on that any time soon. In Canada, your wife could cut off your finger and cheat on you then file for divorce, then you'd have to give her half of your house (even if it was your childhood home you fully owned long before your marriage) and pay her alimony if you make more than her. Also if you have kids, she's very likely going to win custody of them.

It's a bit fucked up lol

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In some states in the United States, if you get a divorce, they go back to birth so for example, a child home would be split up. But in most states, they only go back to the date of marriage. I will say : I’ll never get married ever. But if I was dumb enough to do it, I would absolutely never get married in a state that (during a divorce) went back to birth. And I would never live in that state (while married) either. What’s mine before the marriage is mine what is hers before the marriage is hers.

No one should be able to claim the ability to take something before the marriage ever existed. That’s just my opinion.

And yeah, I doubt it would ever get implemented.

this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
316 points (100.0% liked)

News

29434 readers
2735 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS