• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Bum'? 'Loser'? Ex-husband sues ex-wife for insulting alimony checks

Alimony is a bull**** idea that should burn in fire.
 
Alimony is a terrible system, but it's a terrible system born of another terrible system --marriage and gender economic relations prior to about 2000.

The alimony system won't really work for young generations, but the fact of the matter is that for older generations, women stayed at home and this was expected of them. Men worked, and that was what was expected of them.

I will never get married, but if I did it would come with obvious prenups. As for what you do with the past generations? That's like asking how you cleanly, fairly arbitrate how to split up Iraq to make everyone leave happy --it's just a complete quagmire.

As for this case, they're clearly both being petty assholes. She's being an asshole just because she thinks she is justified in it, and he's being an asshole because he thinks he's justified in being one. People are precious... Especially divorced people.
 
I hate to say it but I agree with Henrin. Alimony in this day and age is an antiquated and should be gotten rid of. Alimony was due to when the men worked and the women stayed at home. It was meant as a way to make sure women weren't destitute when the man divorced her. In this day and age however women work along side the men and can do quite a lot to make money.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I hate to say it but I agree with Henrin. Alimony in this day and age is an antiquated and should be gotten rid of. Alimony was due to when the men worked and the women stayed at home. It was meant as a way to make sure women weren't destitute when the man divorced her. In this day and age however women work along side the men and can do quite a lot to make money.
Click to expand...

Obviously that's true, but what do you do for people who are still from that age? There's still a ton of people alive who were a part of that generation, since I'd argue probably even a sizable percentage of Gen X'ers still held themselves in those gender roles and economic relations.

It would almost make sense to define different classes of marriages depending upon what results people want, from which generation, etc.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065380107 said:
Speaking from personal experience?
Click to expand...

No happily married and drive a BMW X5 and when the wife allows the 911 carerra S.

My penis is UUGE...
 
FieldTheorist said:
Obviously that's true, but what do you do for people who are still from that age? There's still a ton of people alive who were a part of that generation, since I'd argue probably even a sizable percentage of Gen X'ers still held themselves in those gender roles and economic relations.

It would almost make sense to define different classes of marriages depending upon what results people want, from which generation, etc.
Click to expand...

Those women like the women that decided to stay at home in younger generations will neither be without money or unable to work after the marriage.
 
Henrin said:
Indeed. The reasons for that are however different.
Click to expand...

Yeah...sure. It's all about you, Henrin. The total freedom of action without boundaries...well, for you. Everybody else should bow to your freedoms. We get it.
 
Henrin said:
Those women like the women that decided to stay at home in younger generations will neither be without money or unable to work after the marriage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but let's be realistic for a moment. If someone was without a job for 10 or 20 years, especially if it started at any point in their 20's, means that they did not have access to promoting or furthering their career during the most productive years of their life. That means, yes, they can get a job, but they're being penalized for creating a family with a man. I think if that's the arcane, sexist system that used to exist --and the man agreed to it-- then he owes her for the years she lost on her career (Or vice versa, if it was the man taking care of the family and he lost years on his career). If we want to be ultra capitalist about it, the person who worked still owes the one who didn't for services rendered that allowed both of them to have children.

I'm as uncomfortable with you about the idea of alimony, because it's a terrible idea. But that was how things were done, I can't see a better system that is even remotely in the ball park of fair for these old, completely sexist institutions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I hate to say it but I agree with Henrin. Alimony in this day and age is an antiquated and should be gotten rid of. Alimony was due to when the men worked and the women stayed at home. It was meant as a way to make sure women weren't destitute when the man divorced her. In this day and age however women work along side the men and can do quite a lot to make money.
Click to expand...

I don't see how sex plays into this issue. The OP was about a woman who wrote alimony checks to her ex-husband. The courts seem to have found a reason for alimony that is not contingent on gender.

I suppose it makes sense to me that marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. Many partners commit their lives to caring for the house/children/pets. If they are kicked to the curb with nothing, it seems a bit unfair. I suppose i think it's hard to know what's really fair.

Anyone can make money, but many people have their ability to make money severely curtailed by dedicating more their lives to the marriage than their careers.
 
Removable Mind said:
Yeah...sure. It's all about you, Henrin. The total freedom of action without boundaries...well, for you. Everybody else should bow to your freedoms. We get it.
Click to expand...

I'm not married and I have no intention of ever getting married, so no, this is not about my freedom. This is about a bogus concept that someone deciding to stay at home and forgo other opportunities in their life somehow obligates the other party to pay for them after their marriage is over.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't see how sex plays into this issue. The OP was about a woman who wrote alimony checks to her ex-husband. The courts seem to have found a reason for alimony that is not contingent on gender.

I suppose it makes sense to me that marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. Many partners commit their lives to caring for the house/children/pets. If they are kicked to the curb with nothing, it seems a bit unfair. I suppose i think it's hard to know what's really fair.

Anyone can make money, but many people have their ability to make money severely curtailed by dedicating more their lives to the marriage than their careers.
Click to expand...

He was speaking towards why alimony became a reality. The reason it was extended to men is an entirely different issue that involves fairness and equal treatment concerns.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't see how sex plays into this issue. The OP was about a woman who wrote alimony checks to her ex-husband. The courts seem to have found a reason for alimony that is not contingent on gender.

I suppose it makes sense to me that marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. Many partners commit their lives to caring for the house/children/pets. If they are kicked to the curb with nothing, it seems a bit unfair. I suppose i think it's hard to know what's really fair.

Anyone can make money, but many people have their ability to make money severely curtailed by dedicating more their lives to the marriage than their careers.
Click to expand...

The Court did not find "reason for the alimony" in this case. The woman agreed to pay him that for 6 years because he threatened to sue for it. Even if he lost, it would've cost more money than she could afford, so she agreed to pay that.

She later asked the court to rescind that agreement, after they were divorced, but the court refused (probably because then it would be like it was a ruse to get hubby to agree to a divorce). The court's decision had nothing to do with whether hubby was due any support. It was just confirming the contract she had made with hubby.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Obviously that's true, but what do you do for people who are still from that age? There's still a ton of people alive who were a part of that generation, since I'd argue probably even a sizable percentage of Gen X'ers still held themselves in those gender roles and economic relations.
Click to expand...

Tell them to get with the times.

FieldTheorist said:
It would almost make sense to define different classes of marriages depending upon what results people want, from which generation, etc.
Click to expand...

This seems a bit anal to me. Different classes of marriage? There's simply no need for such.
 
Henrin said:
He was speaking towards why alimony became a reality. The reason it was extended to men is an entirely different issue that involves fairness and equal treatment concerns.
Click to expand...

I understand the origin. You seek to suggest the origin makes the continued intent invalid. I disagree, as do the courts.
 
JumpinJack said:
The Court did not find "reason for the alimony" in this case. The woman agreed to pay him that for 6 years because he threatened to sue for it. Even if he lost, it would've cost more money than she could afford, so she agreed to pay that.

She later asked the court to rescind that agreement, after they were divorced, but the court refused (probably because then it would be like it was a ruse to get hubby to agree to a divorce). The court's decision had nothing to do with whether hubby was due any support. It was just confirming the contract she had made with hubby.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's always fair or that it was fair in this case. Often times, both parties in a divorce are so bitter that they viciously fight for anything they can get. I like to think that judges do not oft reward such greed.
 
Absentglare said:
I understand the origin. You seek to suggest the origin makes the continued intent invalid. I disagree, as do the courts.
Click to expand...

No, Kal cares about the intent of alimony, while I don't.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't see how sex plays into this issue. The OP was about a woman who wrote alimony checks to her ex-husband. The courts seem to have found a reason for alimony that is not contingent on gender.
Click to expand...

Most of the time gender does play into it. There are cases of men receiving alimony. But from my experience and knowledge, those are few in between.

Absentglare said:
I suppose it makes sense to me that marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. Many partners commit their lives to caring for the house/children/pets. If they are kicked to the curb with nothing, it seems a bit unfair. I suppose i think it's hard to know what's really fair.
Click to expand...

Alimony has nothing to do with any of those things you listed.

Absentglare said:
Anyone can make money, but many people have their ability to make money severely curtailed by dedicating more their lives to the marriage than their careers.
Click to expand...

:shrug: That's their fault for not balancing things out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Most of the time gender does play into it. There are cases of men receiving alimony. But from my experience and knowledge, those are few in between.

Alimony has nothing to do with any of those things you listed.

:shrug: That's their fault for not balancing things out.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The judge takes into account all permissible evidence in judgement.

"Part of the justification is that one spouse may have chosen to forego a career to support the family..."

Spousal Support (Alimony) Basics - FindLaw
 
Absentglare said:
That's not true. The judge takes into account all permissible evidence in judgement.

"Part of the justification is that one spouse may have chosen to forego a career to support the family..."

Spousal Support (Alimony) Basics - FindLaw
Click to expand...

Key word in that sentence. "Chosen". They CHOSE to forgo a career. That was their choice. But when the divorce happens the person who chose not to forgo a career is the one that gets shafted. It's called personal responsibility folks. When you CHOSE to do something you should be accepting all of the consequences related to that choice. Including the negative aspects of that choice.

By the way, second to last paragraph shows that what I said previously was correct. It even admits that it is...

More and more, the tradition of men paying and women receiving spousal support is being eroded, and orders of alimony payments from ex-wife to ex-husband are on the rise.
Click to expand...

Which shows that women are still receiving it more than men because they are women. It might be becoming less and less. But its still happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom