And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

Concerning morality: do these situations continue to happen because of western society’s “women are more moral than men…” meme? [bleh, that last sentence was a tongue twister] In American society, especially – women are never called out on anything . Promiscuous girls are just being taken advantage of by bad, sinful men. [Hence, where the false-rape allegations come into play. A pure moral woman is incapable of consenting to sex; a man must have manipulated her into participating in said act...] This attitude permeates within American Christianity. I was actually taught it my Catholic school’s equivalent of sex-ed.

It is crazy.

But it is legal.

And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

Nope. My family [immediate & extended] is rather boring. I’ve never personally experienced a divorce. Unless soap opera plotlines count. Ian and Jane on EastEnders was a drama-filled divorce proceeding. Jane tried to take Ian to the cleaners [after she cheated on him...], but it turned out, Ian wasn’t as wealthy as she originally thought.

She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven.

Back to my original question: how is that not considered crazy? Pretending to love a man, so you can divorce him after you get married and steal his money – how is that not sociopathic? Feigning love – such a complex premeditated lie. It’s more than just fraud, it’s evil.

Obviously the person who wrote this has never been through a divorce proceeding. Don’t tat person realized the entire reason feminists successfully instituted no-fault divorce is so that a judge is not legally allowed to ask any questions on the motive for divorce? She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven. The usual stated reason on the paper work of “irreconcilable differences” (female legal-ese for, “he doesn’t give me the tingles like the guy at work”) is so sufficiently vague as to not be questionable.

Thanks for taking a stand. I looked around recently at Church and realized just how much divorce and wreckage was floating in the congregation Now of the wrecking spouses who up and left were present, but there was a lot of pain and damage left behind.

Jason

without qualifications (such as feminism, conservatism, or socialism

Yes, this. It’s interesting how quickly we (I) stand on and fall back on our own personal religion, kind a first line defense, rather than Truth – I don’t totally understand the mechanism, sometimes it’s “I’ll get around to it eventually”, and sometimes it’s “I shouldn’t have to bring out the big guns for this round” if that makes sense – it’s pretty silly. I think there’s still some reluctance to be perceived as too Jesus-y, so we kind of wallow around in logic or ego or the socio-political whatever we’re vested in for a while ’til we warm up a bit. The filters are problematic.

And good post, too.