What Does Breach Of The Marriage Contract Cost?

Marriage and divorce are complicated.  Many legal systems look at marriage as a contract.  A husband's obligations -- usually to support his wife.  A wife's obligations -- usually to have sex with her husband.  So, what happens when 2 people decide to break the contract?  Well, if it is 2 people agreeing this doesn't work any more, hopefully, they will be able to come to an agreement.  After all, they agreed it isn't working, right?  But, what if one is happy and the other is unhappy?  Well, in business, that would be simple.  You buy them out.  Usually, partnership agreements--good ones--have bailout clauses how to split up, who gets what, etc.  Who will handle the arbitration or law--which court will have jurisdiction.  But, how should a man and woman divorcing handle it?

Let's face it, prenuptial agreements can't cover everything.  There will always be unexpected issues arising.  But, what happens when one party changes a fundamental premise?  You were married in a certain religious setting and now...You're not into that religion any more?  You're not a communist or liberal or Republican or whatever any more?  What about the kids?  How are they to be brought up?

In contracts--a sale is a contract--if there was a fundamental misunderstanding, the contract--the sale--can be voided.  For example, selling land while being ignorant of the mineral rights and mineral richness of the land.

This could also apply to marriages based upon a false premise.  Usually, misinformation about a previous marriage or current financial situation.  However, I have found it hard to accept an annulment from a couple married for 30 years and having 5 children!  (True story!)

Yet, there is another scenario.  As children we are all socialized to be whatever.  What happens when we realize how we were manipulated and no longer want to live that way?  This is particularly obvious with religious upbringings and gender issues.  How does this all apply to divorce and the children?

There are no easy answers.  But, one thing is for sure, the one breaking the contract has to pay a premium.  And, if either side is too hard headed, the result will be unpleasant for all parties concerned.

NOTE:  See Fraidy Reiss'es article in the Huffington Post.   An example.

NOTE:  The current custody battle for Pearl Perry Reich is also very interesting.  Much to comment on.  But, I will not be misconstrued as publicly supporting either side without knowing the parties.  And, even if I knew the parties, I could never go back in time and know the historical facts.

A Real Argument Against Intelligent Design: Intelligent Design, Belief in God & Atheism

Belief is for something you can not know.

God is an improvable. No one can prove God exists. We can look at things and surmise the existence of God is true. Often, that is a fallacy based upon skewing the facts—including just what proves one’s point while ignoring the rest of the data.

By the same token, one can not prove that God does not exist either.

This was a point made by Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians of our time and the 19^th century.

Believing in God is quite logical. The belief answers many questions.

The disbelief in God, is also quite logical.

However, the dogmatic disbelief in God is not logical at all.

Or, the belief that the disbelief in God is a fact, is not logical.

There are good reasons not to believe in God.

There are even better reasons to reject that which is said in the name of God.

While the opposite of the belief in God is atheism, this is not what many people mean when they say they do not believe in God. What they mean is they reject their theory of God or belief system in God. Meaning, the explanations of evil, heaven & hell, austerity of life, suffering, poverty, etc. ‘Why me?’ ‘Why do I suffer so much, while others have it so good, or easy?!’

Not believing in God is usually more a denouncement of a religion than the disbelief in God.

Many people use the idea of intelligent design to prove the existence of God. This is not new. This is done by the old Middle Eastern view of master architect. This was done by the Greeks with all their math. Albeit for a polytheistic view of gods. This has been done by many physicists. The French Catholic scientists and mathematicians did the same. Louis Pasteur’s discoveries were all done in the quest to prove that life comes from God and can not be man made. Laplace, in his magnum opus, Méchanic Céleste (Heavenly Mechanics or The Mechanics of the Sky), went into a great in-depth explanation of the math of motion. Also, to explain, that there is a “great” intelligent mover, who knows where every molecule will go and when.

None of which “proves” the existence of God. All of which merely lends credibility to the existence of God.

Or, as some would say, using God to explain what we can not understand.

A proposed logical argument that is not logical is a fallacy.

A refutation proves that a logical argument is a fallacy.

The refutation of intelligent design is NOT atheism—the belief that God does not exist.

The refutation of intelligent design is proving the premise, the idea, that the design of the universe is really not as intelligent as we believe:

“If a man in order to shoot a hare, were to discharge thousands of guns on a great moor in all possible directions; if in order to get into a locked room, he were to buy ten thousand casual keys, and try them all; if, in order to have a house, he were to build a town, and leave all the other houses to wind and weather—assuredly no one would call such proceedings purposeful and still less would anyone conjecture behind these proceedings a higher wisdom, unrevealed reasons, and superior prudence.” [Yet so is Nature…] – J.W.N. Sullivan … The words quoted by Sullivan are from Lange, “History of Materialism”.

THAT—is a real counter-argument to intelligent design!

Of course, that counter-argument has been rebutted with all the advantages to the eco-system and fulfillment of the needs of the food chain as well as life in general, that such behavior brings.

Brilliant. Yes, brilliant. We can go around in circles forever; with more and more retorts; all summing up to the same basic argument; pointing to the same type of facts; demonstrating: Intelligent and Unintelligent design.

The real question remains: “Does one believe in God because one believes in God?”

You Want to Know Why There is so Much Child Abuse & Neglect?

Banning Children.  What a novel idea?!  As a kid I used to see this sign, "No kids allowed" in some antique shops.  My parents liked to go antiquing and took me along on their Sunday outings.  That is where I got a book on backgammon and learnt the game.  Some shops had signs that said, "If you break it, you bought it."  In one shopping area, with several antique shops, only one had the "No kids" sign.  My father said, with a smile, 'We won't go into that store.'  As if we were on boycott!

Of course, we can debate the legalities and ethics and practicalities of kids in an antique shop.  Surely, some kid has broken something.  Surely, it was an accident.  Surely, the kid does not have to pay.  Surely, the parent has to pay.  But, what if they can't?  At the moment?  What of the aggravation?  What of the accusations and counter-claims?

True.  There are some places that kids do not belong.  There are some parents that should teach their kids better manners.  But, kids are kids and; Americans are anti-children.

While there are some places where kids do not belong, I think this is much more about America being anti-child than anything else.  This is about people not having patience; or being forgiving or tolerant.  Since kids are powerless against adults, adults can easily blame kids for things and get away with it.  A serious trip for some adults how love "to rule over children".  And,  while some couples may try and not have kids, there really is a certain selfishness to the DINKs.  (Dual Income No Kids)

I once saw this anti-child attitude and child neglect manifest in a woman, that had to have her mink coat, but couldn't afford to buy her kids clothes.  One pair of pants for the entire school year.  No joke.  Now, *that's* real neglect!  She got away with it.  She didn't want to be a mother and did the bare minimum not to be arrested.

And, they want to know why there is so much child abuse & neglect.  Because people do not give a damn about kids.  People hate kids.  Kids are annoying and noisy.

In a country where you get more tax deductions for raising horses than children, what do you expect?

The U.S. birth rate is negative.  Americans do not have children and have to rely on the foreigners, immigrants with kids (Mexicans with large families) to keep the U.S. birth rate up.  Let us not forget all the adoptions of foreign children or; reaping of children, from minority foreigners (Mexicans) by Child Protective Services, to keep our population growing.

This is an anti-child society.  Adults do not marry and have children.  The many single mothers can't compromise and get along with a man.  They have to rely on artificial insemination or adoption of foreign children.

What does that say about our society as a whole, in getting along with other people?  Children, by the way, are people.

We, U.S. citizens, need to rethink our position.  Perhaps being nice to children, giving them attention, positive direction and activities, setting examples of good behavior--Yes, even at a public restaurant--might go a long way to having children who would be pleasant to be around.

Clearly, the current anti-child philosophy is not a sustainable life philosophy.