Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[Lisa]

yeh but then id ask for your wallet

[ChrisT]

Its full of moth balls

[Lisa]

QUOTE (ChrisT @ Jul 9 2004, 23:03)

Its full of moth balls

[LiquidEyes]

It's a fair cop - I overlooked the bit about when they got together / married. But as I said, it's the same difference - I'm not criticising her for being a gold-digger from the start.

 

Dawn, you're very opinionated about this, but you still haven't answered my question: WHY should she profit from the divorce? Why has a person got the 'right' to continue to live "in the manner to which they have become accustomed"?

[Dawn]

I wouldn't say i'm 'very' opinionated about this, I'm meerly saying what my views on this individual topic are, I do not think she is profiting out of this, I think that the money awarded to her is in conjunction with what she would have got, spent, been given, had the marriage lasted.

 

 

QUOTE

will you have this woman as your lawful wedded wife, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love her, honor her, comfort her, and keep her in sickness and in health; forsaking all others, be true to her as long as you both shall live?.

 

Thats why I think she has a right!!

 

 

I would also be of the same opinion if the tables were turned and it was her, not him that was the bread winner, but then i'm also thinking this thread would never have appeared if it was that way round.

Edited July 10, 2004 by Dawn

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 10:45)

but then i'm also thinking this thread would never have appeared if it was that way round.

Yes it would! That's an incredibly sexist comment. I would be equally disgusted by a man trying to scab off a woman.

 

It's all very well quoting the marriage vows, but they have BOTH broken the marriage vow by splitting up. Why should the richer party be penalised more than the poorer party?

 

QUOTE

I think that the money awarded to her is in conjunction with what she would have got, spent, been given, had the marriage lasted.

What would have happened, had the marriage continued, is irrelevant. That's like saying they should carry on having sex, because that's what would have happened if the marriage had continued.

[Dawn]

.

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:05)

Blatantly you guys haven't even read the article. You are clutching at straws with your arguments .

.

 

QUOTE

It's all very well quoting the marriage vows, but they have BOTH broken the marriage vow by splitting up. Why should the richer party be penalised more than the poorer party?

 

How can you say that ... you don't know how or why the marriage split.

 

QUOTE

I can't think of ONE reason why this selfish bint should get so much money.

QUOTE

This particular case sets a dangerous precedent as to a woman's supposed "rights" upon divorce. Given such a high divorce rate in our country, I consider this a very serious issue.

I also forgot your the only one on here that is allowed sexist views

 

 

QUOTE

What would have happened, had the marriage continued, is irrelevant. That's like saying they should carry on having sex, because that's what would have happened if the marriage had continued.

 

Your assuming one hell of alot for someone that isn't married.

 

 

 

QUOTE

I want to marry her!

I'm assuming she wouldn't have you ... your not rich enough

 

 

 

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30)

QUOTE It's all very well quoting the marriage vows, but they have BOTH broken the marriage vow by splitting up. Why should the richer party be penalised more than the poorer party? How can you say that ... you don't know how or why the marriage split. I'm not talking about the reasons for their divorce. They have *agreed* to divorce. Ergo they have both agreed to terminate the marriage and all associated vows. Agreed?   I repeat: why should the richer party be penalised?

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30)

QUOTE What would have happened, had the marriage continued, is irrelevant. That's like saying they should carry on having sex, because that's what would have happened if the marriage had continued.   Your assuming one hell of alot for someone that isn't married. 1. What assumption have I made here? 2. What difference does it make whether I'm married or not?   I'm simply using analogy to point out the flaw in your reasoning. I.e. the claim that what happened DURING marriage should have any bearing on what happens AFTER the divorce.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30)

QUOTE I can't think of ONE reason why this selfish bint should get so much money. I also forgot your the only one on here that is allowed sexist views Should I infer from your use of sarcasm, you've run out of arguments?   I'm not being sexist. If a bloke tried to fleece his rich ex-wife, I would equally refer to him as a selfish bastard.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 10 2004, 14:07)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30) QUOTE It's all very well quoting the marriage vows, but they have BOTH broken the marriage vow by splitting up. Why should the richer party be penalised more than the poorer party? How can you say that ... you don't know how or why the marriage split. I'm not talking about the reasons for their divorce. They have *agreed* to divorce. Ergo they have both agreed to terminate the marriage and all associated vows. Agreed?   I repeat: why should the richer party be penalised? Who's to say they BOTH agreed to this divorce, just because a divorce has been granted does not mean both parties agreed.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 10 2004, 14:10)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30) QUOTE What would have happened, had the marriage continued, is irrelevant. That's like saying they should carry on having sex, because that's what would have happened if the marriage had continued.   Your assuming one hell of alot for someone that isn't married. 1. What assumption have I made here? 2. What difference does it make whether I'm married or not?   I'm simply using analogy to point out the flaw in your reasoning. I.e. the claim that what happened DURING marriage should have any bearing on what happens AFTER the divorce. A very large one, your presuming they would still have carried on having sex if the marriage had lasted, your also presuming that sex after marriage does not happen.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 10 2004, 14:12)

I'm not being sexist. If a bloke tried to fleece his rich ex-wife, I would equally refer to him as a selfish bastard.

Ahhh we agree on something.

 

 

Although I believe I wrote this somewhere.

 

 

No sarcasum intended, just how I was reading things.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 14:28)

A very large one, your presuming they would still have carried on having sex if the marriage had lasted, your also presuming that sex after marriage does not happen.

Now you're just taking my comments out of context.

 

I wasn't trying to make a point about sex, I was just using it as an analogy. (Look up 'analogy' in the dictionary.)

 

We're getting further and further from the point here.

[Dawn]

Please dont patronise me .. i'm full aware of what the word 'analogy' means thank you.