says.
One I can think of: Divorce should not be easy. It should require at least 1 year of living apart (with evidence) and a valid reason for splitting up (both consenting to splitting up, is not a valid reason).
While I agree with your first statement, I do not think the government should play any part in divorce.
>>76169639
then getting married should also not be easy
Marriage should be seen as a contract's issue, not as separate, if the people in the contractual union made provisions for a mutually agreed end of the contract then good for them, if one person broke the terms of the contract (adultery) then that should be sufficient.
Once marriages are seen as contract rather than marriages in the eye of the State it'll give them another reason to stop giving everything to the woman but instead the injured party.
As for the politically incorrect opinion, I'll go for something /pol/ incorrect: white nationalism is phoney and not all "whites" should stand together as a white nation but have separate nations.
>>76169639
How about marriage is just not handled by the state in the first place?
>>76171695
no white nationalist says all whites should live in one country you moron, it's fine if all the European countries are independent of one another
Get your morality out of my laws.
Marriage is a contract of incorporation, just like the founding of company between business partners. It's not the government's business to force people to keep a company running against their wishes.
>>76169639
>more bureaucratic interference into peoples lives and liberty
no
>>76171898
>Marriage is a contract of incorporation
No, it is not. Marriage is the pillar of our civilization. It has always been about religion and morality and society. Just because two persons marry voluntarily, doesn't mean they can just end that bond without getting consent of the society.
>>76171989
Yes, getting married at the church before God is an important thing. Signing a contract in front of a judge is just a business matter.
>>76171747
Marriage is a contract and contracts are to be enforced by the state. It's an honorable ideal you people have but you need to remember why it is handled by the state in the first place.
The state is there to punish crime and enforce contracts. The state shouldn't have a say in who enters what contracts (gay vs straight marriage) and what are to be the terms of those contracts or how it should end (divorce and family courts) but once done, the citizens should be able to turn to the State as for any other contract.
>>76171847
How long have you been here? Not everyone thinks that of course but some people do.
>>76171989
Yes it is up to those two people, just because people should be more responsible and be mindful of their moral duties to family (if they have children) does not mean the State should have any right to force them against their will.
You want to use the state to fix a moral failing of two individuals who don't want to see it as a moral issue. You're fixing the symptoms rather than the illness by forcing them to stay together.
>>76171989
>Marriage is the pillar of our civilization.
Even the most uncivilized tribes have marriage, so no.
> It has always been about religion and morality and society.
It has always been about money, money, and money. Or more apt: property (cattle, land) and alliances
Singular morality/religion/law just wraps itself around universal human behavior, and then pretends that it is the real universal standard.
>>76172147
>Signing a contract in front of a judge is just a business matter.
Considering you get preferential tax treatment from the government, welfare gibmees and that you can have legitimite kids in a marriage... not to mention like 1500 other things which is legally controlled as part of marriage, I 100% disagree.
If marriage was just another name for a religious relationship or some contract, then ok, it would just be a contract... but as long as the law provide a massive legal framework and tax benefits and welfare etc. on a marriage basis, society has a say whether it ends or not.
>>76172203
>How long have you been here? Not everyone thinks that of course but some people do.
Literally no one here says that. That's is not and have never been what white nationalism means
>>76169639
im pretty sure we have that. 'valid reason' is a subjective term, but it's required. so irreconcilable differences is a reason that covers everything.
>>76172330
No, those benefits are not to be handed by the state. If you don't want society to suffer for the acts of others then make society not responsible for them, don't try and impose a "greater good" by the State.
>>76172384
>so irreconcilable differences is a reason that covers everything.
But it should not, especially if kids are involved. An extramarital affair is a valid reason, violence is a valid reason, alcoholism of one party is, but some kind of generic "differences", wtf? No, of course that is not a reason.
>>76172436
As long as there is massive preferential treatment for married people over unmarried people, society has a right to interfere in how divorces work.
>>76172463
Yes, much better for the children to grow up in a dysfunctional family where both parents loathe each other and are forced to stay together. That's definitely much better.
>>76169639
>both consenting to splitting up, is not a valid reason
haha what? how is that not a valid reason
In Sweden if both parties do not consent you have too wait a year before the divorce can take place.
>>76169639
Infidelity should be immediate grounds for a no fault divorce
>>76169639
It should rather require at least a half year long therapy session. If they still want to separate after that, then let them.
>>76172487
So your solution to a problem created by state intervention is more state intervention rather than remove the state from that part of the equation then? How do you think people who are forced to be with each other will live? They won't be happy, they might cheat, have affairs, turn to addictive or destructive behavior. That's no way to raise kids.
Again you're trying to use the state (for a problem created by the state) to fix a moral problem, but that's not the way to go. And if we remove no fault divorces then people will just agree to separate, "cheat" and use those affairs as "valid reason" for divorce, completely nullifying your laws.
>>76169639
no it you be easier
when I think about all those poor young unexperimented girls who'd marry a /pol/ack and who, after 4months, will realise they are living with a sicko
those poor girls need an easy and fast exist, so they'll be able to build a new and decent life with a real man
BTW men who'll never find a wife or GF shouldn't talk about marriage or divorce
>>76172626
Infidelity should be immediate justification for being fired out of a cannon into the sun. Too many sloots and retards making a mockery of a sacred institution.
>>76172709
My solution is to either remove all state interference or not at all. And I favor the second part, because people do not have to get married in front of a judge. And if they do, they enter a societal authorized bond with lots of state consequences and should be bound by that bond.
People are currently free to just get married in a church and aim for a contractual partnership agreement without being married in the eyes of the state.
Or in other words, people should have three choices to formalize their relationships: A. church only, no contract partnership (Amish people style marriages). B. contract only or contract and church only marriages (libertarian model) or C. traditional marriage in the church and state sanctioned. C. is the most tight bond which can not be entangled without a very valid reason and takes a long time to be entangled.
Everyone then has a choice what to go for.
Oh look, it's another thread where people who have done no research spout dumb entry-level opinions.
Prior to no-fault divorce, which came about in the 70s, we had fault divorce - that is, the divorce is the fault of one party. So when two adults decided to separate mutually, with neither being "at fault", the judge was helpless to actually divorce them. So you got what we call a "legal fiction", where the wife or husband rents a motel room with a friend of the opposite sex for a single night. Nothing happens between them and most of the time they don't even show up to the hotel room. All they're doing is creating a paper trail to show fault, and then bam, legal divorce.
The law is the way it is because society wants it to be that way. If you changed the law you'd just create a system of workarounds. Don't change law, change people.
And then fail at that, and realise the universal, immutable truth.
People get the government that they deserve.
>>76169639
Consentual sex should use some form of a signed contract as a consent. Sex without one should be considered rape for both parties and punished as such. Marriage shall be understood as a sex content, hence you can't rape your spouse. Only this way we can fix the modern clusterfuck of sexual rights.
>>76173302
That is a good point, but is not what this topic is about.
We are talking about actual marriage.
>>76173070
Would you have the church interfere in state afairs and decide which contracts (your c type marriage) should be upheld or nullified?
I thought the west understood that church and state ought to be separate. Stop listening to Islam, Hans.
Marriage is a custom and a contract, people should be free to have the ceremony in church and no legal contract or have the religious ceremony + legal contract, the state should only care about the contract, let their family and priests worry about approving or disapproving of the divorce but the state shouldn't have any say in it. Listen to
>>76173229 that's all that's going to happen if you don't let people divorce without fixing the morality and social views of marriage, ad that's done by communities and family upbringing, not be the state.
>>76173229
>So you got what we call a "legal fiction", where the wife or husband rents a motel room with a friend of the opposite sex for a single night. Nothing happens between them and most of the time they don't even show up to the hotel room. All they're doing is creating a paper trail to show fault, and then bam, legal divorce.
I am fine with that. There should only be default divorce. This way, no side can pressure the other into no default consensual divorces.
>>76169639
How is your idea politically incorrect when one year is a requirement by law in your own country, you moron? As for your state invention bullshit, it's retarded.
>>76173452
>Marriage is a custom and a contract, people should be free to have the ceremony in church and no legal contract
Which is my Option A.
> or have the religious ceremony + legal contract, the state should only care about the contract, let their family and priests worry about approving or disapproving of the divorce but the state shouldn't have any say in it.
Which is my Option B.
What I am saying is that there should be an Option C with actual state sanctioned marriage. That marriage can only be divorced if a court decides so with strict rules that do not allow consensual marriages but only at fault divorces.
>>76173613
>How is your idea politically incorrect when one year is a requirement by law in your own country, you moron? As for your state invention bullshit, it's retarded.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehescheidung_(Deutschland)
Actually, in Germany you can even get a consensual divorce before 1 year of separation. And there can be no fault divorces, which is very problematic. A woman can just leave a man and get a divorce and there has to be no reason whatsoever but "I want to fuck someone else" without any actual wrongdoing by anyone.
>>76173761
And? Looks like a valid reason to me to end a marriage when one party's fucking someone on the side and has lost all interest in pursuing the marriage.
>>76173872
>when one party's fucking someone on the side
I said if the woman leave and just says "I want to fuck someone else", then such a marriage is currently not divorced on a fault basis. The woman can get a divorce just because "die Ehe ist gescheitert" because she moved out and she can still keep the kids and get alimony.
What I am saying is that there should always be a valid reason which means someone has to be at fault or both be at fault and there has to be serious shit going down (cheating, alcoholism, violence etc.)... and then whether or not any payments have to be made by one side to the other, shall depend on the fault. If someone is not at fault, not a single cent should be paid to the other side.
>>76169639
Marriage should only be allowed after 5 years of registered partnership. It should be for everyone, thought.
>>76172237
>Even the most uncivilized tribes have marriage, so no.
Even uncivilized savages realise it's a requirement for a functioning society and therefore a pillar of civilization which relies upon a functional society.
>>76174047
Do you just dislike women or what's your problem?
>>76174226
>Do you just dislike women or what's your problem?
My point is that marriage shouldn't just be a contract. If someone wants a contract, fine, he should just enter a partnership contract.
If someone just wants the church thing, fine, they should just find a priest and divorce should then be a church question only.
BUT actual state sanctioned marriage should have a shitload of consequences, protect the kids in the marriage and be fucking hard to divorce. This way people will actually think about it before getting married for real... and have to overcome problems, knowing that a divorce is extremely hard to get.
>>76174047
> The woman can get a divorce just because "die Ehe ist gescheitert" because she moved out and she can still keep the kids and get alimony.
Wow, that's fucked up.
>>76169639
Divorce is a symptom, not a cause of society's ills
>>76174597
I'd say it's an accelerant, throwing oil on the proverbial fire.
The easier divorce is the more fucked up kids we get, does anyone have the single mother/ crime rate .img?
>>76169639
>Divorce should not be easy. It should require at least 1 year of living apart (with evidence) and a valid reason for splitting up (both consenting to splitting up, is not a valid reason).
You've obviously never been in a relationship in your life.
>>76169639
The Rothschilds need to be removed. like eternally removed.
if we dont do this there wont be any progress ever.
>>76174919
I assume you have no idea how marriage was handled for centuries before the feminists in the 1970s and 1980s were able to change the law.
>equating a relationship with a marriage, how stupid can someone be.
>>76169639
Before WW3 there will be civil war in USA and UK
>>76175216
I've been married, you fuckwit. When it doesn't work out, you want a clean break from that person, not to have your relationship with them leech over into other aspects of your life or have to mark a date in the calendar when you're finally 'free'.
If you don't understand the relationship dynamic and the emotions involved, you should shut the fuck up about it.
>both consenting to splitting up, is not a valid reason
>mfw reading this shit
>>76175216
So you do hate women then.
>>76174919
It's a good thing she shaved that stink hole since porkys, or we would all know the carpet don't match the drapes.
>>76175491
that's why you don't get married 'fuckwit'
>>76175491
>I'm a bourgeois bohemian who shat all over one of life's most important institutions, and that's why you're wrong
>>76175491
I can only imagine how seriously you take your vows and your word.
Fuck, i can't have any respect for people like you. You swore a fucking oath, man. An, oath, dipshit. Do you even know what that means? No, of course you don't, and you're the cancer what's killing Europe.
>>76169639
Alimony has been instated as a means of supporting primarily divorced women (since women generally didn't work, they had no means of supporting themselves)
With current political climate of equality the basis for alimony is null and moot, as women are just as capable and expected to support themselves.
Child support should be given to 50% of both genders.
>>76175491
>When it doesn't work out, you want a clean break from that person, not to have your relationship with them leech over into other aspects of your life
Then you should have not married in the first place. That is the whole point, the law should make sure, retarded idiots like you do not marry.
>>76175789
>Fuck, i can't have any respect for people like you. You swore a fucking oath, man. An, oath, dipshit. Do you even know what that means? No, of course you don't, and you're the cancer what's killing Europe.
Exactly. At least someone gets it. An oath is an oath. If someone doesn't actually mean "until death do us apart" he shouldn't fucking swear it.
>>76175789
You have a fucking weird, childlike view of what adult relationships are like. They're complicated. And what can seem like the greatest thing in the world can gradually lose its allure over the course of four or five years.
The idea that people should be forced to maintain awkward, loveless relationships or not be able to cut contact with someone and dissolve that arrangement for whatever reason, only goes to show that you and several others in this thread have never been in a relationship. It's not even an argument; you honestly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. It's like someone who's a virgin talking about sex.
>>76174069
This
>>76176043
I hope you know that you have the mind of a kid. I assume you are a millennial.
>>76176394
I assume by this reply that my last post hit the nail on the head.
>not even TRUMP says
Donald Trump is nothing compared to Nick Griffin.
>>76176520
>that gif
Ok, so you are a millennial. Should have known.
>>76176626
you keep ignoring the point I made about you never having a relationship and now you're lashing out and trying to foist attributes onto me that aren't true.
It's not my fault you've made a fool of yourself, dude.
>>76176626
Get off your proxy you fucking poseur.
>>76176949
>Get off your proxy you fucking poseur.
>poseur
Sure thing, m8. I am not French.
>>76176898
You might even be younger than a millennial. Generation Z?
>>76177081
Yeah and you're not German either.
>>76177176
Where did I claim I am German?
>>76169639
These are the only true things Trump has said, ever.
The only involvement by the state in marriage should be the recording and enforcement of a special type of contract called a "domestic contract". A domestic contract can involve any number of men and/or women; however, to be valid, it must contain four basic provisions:
1. The contract must not have a sunset provision, or other external condition that renders the contract void, i.e., it cannot end without some action by a party to the contract;
2. All parties to the contract must cohabitate for the duration of the contract;
3. No party can be a blood relative to another party of the opposite sex, and any contract involving two or more parties that are blood relatives must include at least one party that is not a blood relative, e.g., a man can enter into a contract with two sisters, but those two sisters cannot alone enter into a contract, or that man cannot enter into a contract with his own sister; and
4. The contract must include provisions that detail division of assets, child custody, and other matters upon a party's breach of contract, i.e., a prenuptial agreement.
The primary benefits of the domestic contract are joint taxation and legal recognizance of next-of-kin in situations that require it. All parties to the domestic contract must file taxes as a single entity, and parties that are not biological parents can act as a guardian of children produced while the contract is active (subject to the provisions of the contract).
Note that this contract in no way refers to a "marriage", it is just an apparatus to provide the traditional benefits of marriage only insofar as they apply to matters that involve the state. Anyone can choose to get married subject to the conditions of the church or other private institution that sanctions it, with or without a corresponding domestic contract; similarly, marriage is not a prerequisite for a domestic contract.
