Some of the more disturbing aspects to divorce court:

1)No right to trial by jury and no right to representation by a court appointed lawyer if you cannot afford a private attorney. Your fate is solely in the hands of one judge.

2)Lawyers are essentially completely immune from prosecution for fraud, libel, defamation, excessive litigation and more.

3)Family courts are not courts of law but rather courts of equity. This amplifies the risk and damage that a corrupt judge can do to you exponentially by giving that judge virtually unlimited power to interpret the law according to his or her opinion as to what is 'right' as opposed to what might be actually written in the law.

Kafka's The Trial pales in comparison to the reality of modern day family court.

Can't wait to see Gay Divorce Court!

>> ^spoco2:
Yeah, as @hpqp said, he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. It's bullshit that the man having his penis chopped off is just hilarious, but that doesn't discredit the entire movement for equality between the sexes, that's a cheap shot.


Um, I don't mean to keep this going to much longer, but if that was what hpqp said, then that would be fine. However, that’s not quite what he said (even if he had intended to say that,) and it’s not quite what others (Including the Angry Atheist) are arguing against either.

Most, if not all (Like myself) agree that the movement fucking rocks. Keep it up! And men, you need to get in there and fucking help too! However, these women need to be vilified from within the group because, just like in every movement in life, there are douches within. It’s noted these very rare occurrences are rare…ish…which is not quite right nowadays. Go to divorce court, in Florida, and have a penis. They will bend it back on you and fuck you with it hard. Your kids are her kids… Jail time? Not if you have a vag here in FL… I am not sure hp knows that is standard practice in Florida, and other States in the USA.

hpqp, from my interpretations, said pretty much that just because feminism has these types of individuals it's not their fault at all. There is no need to refute this barbarity from the movement because the movement (just like with most movements) doesn’t teach this barbarity. These people laughing, a whole audience, are simply dicks, not feminists, because they belong to some other group.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being someones brother isn't a legal status first, nor is marriage. How the law deals with peoples relationships will, of course, be defined someway. The problem is, because the law has decided to be first in relationships instead of second, the law is denying contacts between people. A man and 20 women decide to entire into a relationship of sorts. The government will not allow this contact because it has decided to play the moral authority on enforcing certain contracts.
I mostly agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I, too, would like to see "marriage" as just an agreement between people recognized by the state...but it isn't such. Right now, the state defines what marriage can be, and who can and can't enter into that relationship instead of people making that choice for themselves. The point is, gay people cannot enjoy the same legal status as heterosexuals, the law is denied to them. Gay people can, indeed, enjoy each other as per anyone can...but can't see their loved on in certain hospitals because they, in fact, are not equal under the law.
So marriage is kind of both, in a sense, still private and public. Someone can SAY they are married, they just might not get all the protections afforded other people because the state does regulate it. My problem is that the STATE has defined the rules as to what marriage can and will be, not individuals. The state will not recognize the love I share with my mouse pad. The state on such matters has to have the last word, of course, my problem is they also have the first word.
(btw, I am confused by the statement not personal AND no private, certainly it has to be one, or both...and certainly, it has to be one first.)


I think we both have the same basic idea about how this should ultimately be handled. But since the devil is in the detail, I'll still nitpick a bit. I still say that the state needs to have some control over how they define marriage, and that it can't be a private matter because of the benefits afforded to married couples. I do think the government should recognize "non-standard" family units, and should allow you to assign visitation rights / tax benefits / property sharing / etc. as you see fit for the most part.

However, there are limits. Marrying your mousepad, for example, is right out. Even if you have an undying love for your mousepad, it can't consent (being inanimate), so that's a problem right there. A mousepad doesn't pay taxes, so there's no reason to give it tax benefits. And if you divorce it later on, does it get half of your possessions? Who would represent it in divorce court? No, I would say someone marrying their mousepad is trying to game the system by getting married tax benefits while still single.

You seem to imply that the state shouldn't recognize the marriage between yourself and your mousepad, but that they shouldn't define what marraige is... I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.

(You are correct regarding the personal / private thing -- I misspoke. It is personal, but isn't private.)

@GenjiKilpatrick, so let me get this straight.

According to you ghetto is defined by a) the quantity of children you choose to have, b)selecting names without historical or cultural meaning, and c) if you're ever in divorce court? Got it. Makes absolute sense.

I always thought it had something to do with a person's poor living conditions.

>> ^blankfist:

Why is she ghetto? Because what she named her kids? Hmmm.


Because she:

- Has seven kids.
- They all have names with no historical or cultural meaning. (they just rhyme and are "unique")
- She's on divorce court.

You being politically correct/sensitive about people that clearly rise to meet a stereotype gives them more reason to remain that way I think.

Careful, though...4 out of 5 internet marriages end in internet divorce court.