============================================================
To parphrase your vacuous prose, you believe that raging hormones are at the root of marriage and that those who marry in the grip of such a devious chemical reaction cannot be expected to think rationally.
============================================================
Do you seriously contend otherwise? If such were not true there would be no sex, no marriage and no human race. I will not elaborate by citing published works on the subject but suffice it to say that the portion of our brains which governs reproduction and procreation is still essentially the same as it was in our primitive ancestors, and operates independently from our reasoning centers, while simultaneously suppressing them. Normal, young human beings thus are expected to "think" about whether they should marry, while the reasoning power necessary to do so is effectively anesthetized.
============================================================
...While a creative argument, it is quite laughable. If someone enters into a marriage with that little reflection or thought because they are busy thinking about education or employment or in the throes of sexual rapture, they deserve what they get. Marriage should never be taken so lightly.
===========================================================
I'm glad I'm amusing you. Unfortunately I doubt if the victims of the fatuous law you advocate and apparently are defending here are quite so amused.
============================================================
Your statement that your scholarly concepts are somehow based in "years of study" is equally laughable. What scientific method was used for your study exactly? However, it certainly sounds nice when you need to support an overbroad generalization with little merit.
============================================================
I never said my study was necessarily "scientific". Lack of adequate resources to further refine it and subject it to greater scientific controls and protocols was another reason that I abandoned the project. This was also in the early eighties, before powerful, practical computing power was easily available. The results were, however, essentially as stated. Would you be interested in assisting me in doing a more careful study of this same subject today? I know the answer already, as well as the reason for it!
============================================================
Granted, it does raise a salient point I may agree with and that is that some mandatory education before marriage regarding consequences of divorce may be a good idea. If such issue ultimately had to be litigated, there would be much greater litigation in the courts with no uniformity.
============================================================
If the above statement means that there would be more litigation if those applying for a marriage license were required to receive "some mandatory education" before marriage then I agree. The reason that this is true is that the nature of the "mandatory education" would depend upon who authored or designed it, as there is no such thing as clear, objective divorce law--particularly in the area of "property division".
============================================================
Your strange argument regarding intuitive priciples is equally uninspiring. The guiding priniciple for most is "me, me, me." That is particulalry true in a divorce. Ever heard of a home being gutted of property in the night or a bank account raided? Who then decides how the other person survives financially?
============================================================
If someone is foolish enough to VOLUNTARILY have a joint account with another party, uncontrolled by the right contract or other legal instrument, then they get what they deserve. If their home is gutted of property in the night, whether by a stranger or by their spouse, they should have recourse in both civil and CRIMINAL law. I realize that this is not presently the case, but is something else I would like to see changed.
The intuitive principle of "me, me, me" is certainly characteristic of the human race, and you can see it by the reaction in a woman's eyes when her attorney tells her how much she is "entitled to" from her STBX. There is also another intuitive principle, however, and that is the principle of wanting and being willing to adhere to a clear, fair, open agreement. Of course, when the state has already written one for a person, and it is one-sided in their favor, then the "me, me, me!" reaction sets in again and theft under color of law occurs.
============================================================
Even if we were to assume that some divine virtue flows through people, every person or culture may have a different definition of what that principle may be. You want unguided impossible standards? Well, you seem to have defined it.
===========================================================
I don't believe that any "divine virtue" flows through most people. On the contrary. This is why laws that assume such, such as the property division laws which are custom-made for greedy gold diggers, should be eliminated.
============================================================
I am however, sorry that your health prevented you from writing your tome. I love a good comedy.
===========================================================
You must have written the marital property division laws in Texas. My "tome", like my case for keeping my hard-earned assets, is already judged in your kangaroo court as representing a laughable position, before I have even started to present it!
BTW, your writing style seems to have changed. Is it possible that I am really talking to "the missis" now?
--------------------
"There is no force so powerful as an idea whose time has come."
...Everett Dirksen
Edited by jbar (04/24/08 04:09 AM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: There is a law...
Edit
Reply
Quote
