• andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

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

    And an open relationship is different then cheating.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Yes absolutely this. Cheating should not be a crime you go to jail for.
      But it should have consequences. I think a good way to go is a law that unless there is a prenup that specifically deals with cheating, and unless it was an agreed to open relationship or there was otherwise permission to cheat, a cheater is ineligible for alimony and must be considered morally suspect for the question of child custody.

      • hessenjunge
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Consider the following (IMO common) scenario: One spouse is abusive and does not care about the children. Maybe it’s a malignant narcissist and their family is like property for them.

        The other spouse cares about the children and may be the only one doing any real parenting. Also they suffer the loveless, abusive marriage. At some point they meet someone that cares for them and somehow that leads to cheating before they can escape the marriage.

        In this scenario the children should stay with the cheater and the alimony should not be depending on who cheated. (Both IMO of course).

        • Makhno@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          At some point they meet someone that cares for them and somehow that leads to cheating before they can escape the marriage.

          If you can’t keep it in your pants for the sake of your kids I don’t feel bad for you. You’re not gonna die from not fucking. Jesus christ lol

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was in favor of individual contracts for most of my life.

        But there’s an issue - with individual contracts there’s a greater degree of uncertainty every time someone goes to court over them.

        It’s the same as with individual contracts in other areas. Say, labor.

        Power balance matters.

        So - ideally yes, but in our real world with our real legal and enforcement systems - we may not be able to. Same as with labor, again.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Well I doubt it would be truely individualized. Probably something more like a menu of terms that everyone else is using would quickly develop. Maybe a few numbers to customize. But mostly boilerplate. And probably requiring arbitration.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day 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.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Yeah indentured servitude as punishment for being victim of a cheater. That’s just pure injustice and the state shouldn’t be enforcing that.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Here’s something nuts . I have three down votes and six up votes. Think about that. There is a solid percentage of people that think I’m wrong in saying what I said.

    • freeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours 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.

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yup, that’s a great way to start a marriage. “I love you with all my heart and want to be with you forever. Also, I don’t trust you, so let’s get a prenup.”

        The law needs to protect people by default. It’s just impractical not to. You have to keep in mind that humans are not perfect rational agents.

        • freeze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          If someone has this strong of a concern about potentially having to pay alimony in the future and their partner is this bothered by practical attempts to alleviate that fear by preventing an issue, then maybe they’re just not right for each other and shouldn’t get married.

          Alimony laws also vary enormously by jurisdiction, and people could also just e.g. not marry someone who doesn’t work or isn’t planning to. Or only marry someone who gets paid close enough to the same amount that alimony likely wouldn’t come into play regardless.

            • freeze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              19 hours ago

              I think I have a realistic view. Usually terminally online men don’t understand how alimony even works or how rare it is in the first place. I suppose they just get off on these kinds of justice porn theoretical outrage scenarios.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        In some states in the United States, if you get a divorce, they go back to birth so for example, a child at home would be split up. Butin 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 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.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          2 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

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

                  Also its polyamory, not polygamy

          • JamesFire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 day 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day 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

              • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 hours 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours 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

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                23 hours ago

                You have no conception of how contracts work do you?

                Contracts involve things people aren’t entitled to all the time. Nobody is entitled to have someone else meet them for lunch at 1 pm either. You can’t dictate someone else’s movements that way.

                Oh wait! Unless they agreed to meet you there at 1pm.

                Fascinating, the way promises can turn a lack of entitlement into legitimate entitlement.

                • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 hours ago

                  This article is literally about changing that contract because its based on an antiquated concept of some old book that claimed it was the word of some mythical creature in the sky

                  We’re updating the contract for a reason.

              • kofe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                24 hours 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  22 hours 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

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

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