However, if that company has assets that it accumulated, those can be sold off to pay off its creditors, especially if the company has broken its contracts. This is no different than the bank repossessing your house because you failed to keep up your end of the contract. No-fault divorce essentially is the equivalent of allowing you to not make the payments, but then insist that the house is still yours.

Absolutely. However, it should not be allowed to stiff all its creditors for no reason and skip away without penalty, which is what no-fault divorce does.

The problem here, Livewire, is that boob and his leftist ilk want the pay without having to do the work.

Define destructive, bob. Abuse? Grounds for divorce. Adultry? Grounds for divorce. My second marriage ended in dissolution because I didn’t want anything from her, except the divorce. If I had been forced to bring it to a divorce court, I was prepared to go after the house, and bring as much of the scene and as many people into court as possible. I made it clear I was going to make life for her and I in Ohio look like Atlanta after Sherman was done. Then I could move to FL and start over.

Sorry, still bitter.

My point is, a ‘destructive’ relationship is grounds for divorce. So how does your statement matter a whit to no fault divorce?

Tell us, boob, do you believe that organizations that receive tax exemptions should be required to follow certain rules or have their exemptions stripped? If so, why don’t you think that “adult, consenting couples” that receive benefits from the government should have to do the same?

the fact that i’m pragmatic and realize that sometimes divorce is better than staying in a destructive marriage doesn’t mean i’m less in favor of commitment.

The problem here, boob, is that you consider your spouse not being attractive enough to be a “destructive marriage”. No-fault divorce did not add the capability to divorce an abusive or adulterous spouse; it simply made it easy for liberal cads to ditch one and start over again without the previous one’s consent.

What is simplistic and frankly immature is the unwillingness to commit without an “out”.

Don’t get married, Boob. You aren’t mature enough.

As Heliotrope and NDT have very eloquently addressed, there is nothing about my position that restricts freedom. Marriage is a voluntary institution. If you don’t want to commit, don’t get married.

However, what liberals seek to do is not protect freedom, but undermine commitment. Just as they want the Constitution to be a “living breathing” document that means whatever the hell they want it to mean, instead of a contractual commitment, or the way liberals insist election laws are meaningless when they lose, likewise they advanced “no-fault” divorce.

But voluntary commitment is essential to maintaining freedom. Freedom is illusory in a society where rules don’t mean what they say and contracts aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. That would be anarchy, and anarchy is only a temporary state that always leads to tyranny.

You are free to purse happiness because we all agreed to forgo the freedom to kill you should the idea tickle our fancy. Marriage is likewise strengthened by commitment. And liberalism has only harmed marriage and harmed society by undermining that commitment.

The rest of your examples are dull witted non-sequiturs that I’m not even going to bother with.

1) i was not giving my opinion of no-fault divorce in that argument; i was pointing out a contradiction.

2) last i checked, no-fault divorce was implemented by heterosexuals for heterosexual marriage.

3) number of times i have cheated on someone: zero.

moving on… in #48 you call me a “hateful bigot” who insults anyone who disagrees with me…and then you…insult me…for…disagreeing with you.

w.o.w.

Why should we believe that boob behaves any differently in public that he does here? Wouldn’t that make boob a hypocrite and contradictory?

The fact that boob and his fellow gay leftists shriek against no-fault divorce as being against their “freedom” shows the obsession that boob and his leftist ilk have with twisting marriage. They have no intention of honoring commitment; they want promiscuous sex with as many people as possible, and they want their “spouses” unable to take legal recourse against them for doing it.

As they say at K-Mart, “have a nice day.”