Divorce In The Philippines

[friendly0603]

That's because your comparisons will fail. It's definitely nice not to worry about money. Unfortunately, some of us do. Quality of education for your future kids, quality of nutrition, and others are all affected by money.

I just had to comment on these:

I can't believe this. Tell that to your mom. "Mom what you did raising me up all these years is worthless, because it's only labor. What Dad did was more valuable to me because he was the breadwinner. Everything you did, dad could also do. The only thing Dad couldn't do is breastfeed and give birth to me. Oh but Dad could have gotten a surrogate for that, so we're back to you (mom) being just labor."

Ever heard of house husbands? You identified house chores. Let's make that clear. I didn't say that what moms do is just labor.

BTW, I personally do put a lot more value to the hardship of bearing then eventually taking care of the children. So much so, that I think it is fair to get half of what I have toiled for all these years. You see, you don't only put value to the specific task, but also to the sacrifices your partner has made. Maybe she gave up a good career in order to rear the family, maybe your kids would have been lost (no sense of direction) without her, maybe she filled in for you with the kids during the time that you were busy at work, etc. I also disagree with you that you can take care of all of your kids while still being the breadwinner. Your kids quality of life will suffer if you just leave them to a nanny the whole day versus the actual parent taking care of the kids. It's the intangibles in life that are actually valuable.

Intangibles are different from the house chores we were discussing previously. What happens to kids who were raised by grandparents? or relatives and not their direct parents? Taking care of the children in what sense. If the guy asked the woman to quit her job to take care of the kids, that's different. That's a big sacrifice if she wasn't willing to do it. But some are willing to give up their careers because they want to develop that bond and be close to their kids. Like I said before it's hard to put a price tag on that.

There are single dads out there. Quality of life is subjective. But I'm sure there are kids who became as successful as those raised by two parents with a stay at home parent. Same with both parents working.

You don't believe in marriage, that's why you keep stating that marriage is the problem and not divorce. And now you are going say you're fine with marriage? Both people think that the person they are marrying it the "right one" at the time of their marriage, its never one sided. Its what happens after marriage that makes people change their mind.

I said the problem with marriage is that it's too easy. I'm fine with it when both decide that they have found the one after searching and failing in previous relationships. They have learned what it is they want in a partner in life and made the decision that this is what i want for the present and the future. But this shouldn't be a decision made when you're in your 20's although there are some who are mature enough to make that decision. Not everyone is and the maturity varies from person to person. Even at the time of that decision, people sometimes grow apart later on.

Why are arranged marriage more lasting than those that are not? It's because they commit to the marriage. They work on their marriage. Marriage is not something that you "hope to last forever". You work at marriage to make it "last a lifetime" (it can never be forever because we eventually die). If you don't have a commitment, or if you have an escape clause then people will not work hard on their marriage. There is a way out, why do I have to work hard for it? For arranged marriage, they are in it no matter what, so they have to work hard to make it work.

I didn't say that they were more lasting. I said that they had more chances of lasting. See the difference. There are less divorces in arranged marriages. It's "probably because" they decided to marry not because they were so in love.

From http://www.everythingengagement.com/arranged-marriage-statistics.html

While divorce rates are anywhere between 40 and 50 percent in Canada and the US, arranged marriage statistics show us an average divorce rate of 4 percent.

Even if there is divorce, these arranged marriages still last. Why is that?

Edited December 28, 2012 by friendly0603

[bill_262003]

That's because your comparisons will fail. It's definitely nice not to worry about money. Unfortunately, some of us do. Quality of education for your future kids, quality of nutrition, and others are all affected by money.

 

Ever heard of house husbands? You identified house chores. Let's make that clear. I didn't say that what moms do is just labor.

 

Of course I heard of house husbands. Let me refresh your memory on what I posted and what you replied.

 

I also believe in the value of money from hardwork. But I also believe in the hardwork put up by the men/women who tend the home.

 

The value you put into the work done by women (or even men) of the house is so low. Don't you think that the partner who is not the breadwinner deserves some "compensation" for the work she put into the house? taking care of the children? cooking supper for you? making sure you go home to a comfortable home? Even if you are the sole breadwinner, you cannot do the household work without your partner?

 

It's low because it's just labor. You can pay someone to do all the house chores and you can do this yourself. This is why women/wives say that they aren't our moms or our maids. When you were living alone, didn't you have to do all these things as well?

This is the same with taking care of the children. The only thing you can't do is breastfeed and give birth to them. It's hard to put a number on that. But you can get surrogates, in-vitro, etc.

I have always acknowledged that men can be house-husbands. And you where the one who equated tending to homes as household chores. Tending to homes is different to tending to a house. Because a home means more than just a house. Oh and by the way, you were the one who made reference to wives and moms. Thus, my reply to try telling your mom that. Now you have shifted it to house-husband as if I haven't heard of them (when in fact all of my posts have been not gender biased - see my post above I pointed out men/women tending the home.) Now assuming your dad was a house-husband, try telling that to your dad. "Dad, what you did raising me up all these years is worthless, because it's only labor. What Mom did was more valuable to me because she was the breadwinner. Everything you did, mom could also do. You couldn't even breastfeed and give birth to me. So we're back to you (dad) being just labor."

 

How sad, the little value you put on the work men/women who tend to the home.

 

Intangibles are different from the house chores we were discussing previously. What happens to kids who were raised by grandparents? or relatives and not their direct parents? Taking care of the children in what sense. If the guy asked the woman to quit her job to take care of the kids, that's different. That's a big sacrifice if she wasn't willing to do it. But some are willing to give up their careers because they want to develop that bond and be close to their kids. Like I said before it's hard to put a price tag on that.

I agree that its hard to put a price tag on that. That's why my stand has always been that it's only fair for the other party (not working) to get half of the properties of the couple. They should have a fair share for tending the home (again not just house chores). You where the one who stated just labor and equated it to household chores, thus they are not entitled to half of the property that they had as a couple.

 

There are single dads out there. Quality of life is subjective. But I'm sure there are kids who became as successful as those raised by two parents with a stay at home parent. Same with both parents working.

 

I said the problem with marriage is that it's too easy. I'm fine with it when both decide that they have found the one after searching and failing in previous relationships. They have learned what it is they want in a partner in life and made the decision that this is what i want for the present and the future. But this shouldn't be a decision made when you're in your 20's although there are some who are mature enough to make that decision. Not everyone is and the maturity varies from person to person. Even at the time of that decision, people sometimes grow apart later on.

 

Unfortunately, they don't learn. I have already stated statistics that those who got divorce and re-married have a higher percentage of having a failed marriage again. This is a statistic which means it happened already. No what ifs, no scenarios. The fact is those who are divorced and remarried have a high likelihood to fail again in their second marriage. And by the way, that is not what you are suppose to learn (finding out what they want in a partner in life). What they need to learn is what to expect in a marriage and they should also learn what their part is in a marriage.

 

I didn't say that they were more lasting. I said that they had more chances of lasting. See the difference. There are less divorces in arranged marriages. It's "probably because" they decided to marry not because they were so in love.

From http://www.everythingengagement.com/arranged-marriage-statistics.html

 

Even if there is divorce, these arranged marriages still last. Why is that?

 

That's what I meant. More (changes of) lasting. You have to take my answer in reference to your earlier post.

 

At any rate, let me quote this from the link you posted above:

 

"While divorce rates are anywhere between 40 and 50 percent in Canada and the US, arranged marriage statistics show us an average divorce rate of 4 percent. Keep in mind that this figure is hotly debated because many point out that cultures partaking in these types of relationships do not support divorce."

 

The fact that some of these countries doesn't have divorce available. The percent would definitely be low.

 

Aside from that, another factor why they last is because they are working on things from the get go. From the start, they have to work at their marriage especially since they were not the ones who chose their partner. They work at it, they adapt to their partner, etc. As I have said, you work at marriage to make it "last a lifetime"

[friendly0603]

You have a very confused post. Just backtrack again for clarification.

 

This is your original post -

The value you put into the work done by women (or even men) of the house is so low. Don't you think that the partner who is not the breadwinner deserves some "compensation" for the work she put into the house? taking care of the children? cooking supper for you? making sure you go home to a comfortable home? Even if you are the sole breadwinner, you cannot do the household work without your partner?

Aren't most of these pertaining to household chores? - work for the house, household work, making supper. - point #1. Hence, the equated post.

 

Point #2, I just said that these household work done by women (most of the discussion is there except for some minor mention of men)can be also be done by men - that's why I injected house husbands. Because it seemed like women have the strangle hold on these tasks. I guess a higher percentage of women do this as well. If you agree that men can do it as well, then it just makes our posts in agreement.

 

Point #3, You said you can't do the household work without a partner. I said there are single dads/parents out there. How do they cope without a partner then?

I have always acknowledged that men can be house-husbands. And you where the one who equated tending to homes as household chores.

How sad, the little value you put on the work men/women who tend to the home.

I only put low value into household chores. Refer to your post again above as to why the equation to chores was started.

The fact that some of these countries doesn't have divorce available. The percent would definitely be low.

These countries have divorce. Only the philippines have no divorce. You even highlighted it - Keep in mind that this figure is hotly debated because many point out that cultures partaking in these types of relationships do not support divorce.'

They just don't support it but they have divorce. Which was point as well - the divorce law is there but their culture is still followed. The availability of divorce doesn't mean that they'll take that as option #1 as evidence by their low divorce rate.

Edited January 2, 2013 by friendly0603

[bill_262003]

You have a very confused post. Just backtrack again for clarification.

You are the one who have a confused post. You contradicted everything you said. Saying the one who is not a breadwinner doesn't deserve half of the asset/property of the couple. Then later on contradicted yourself by saying that its hard to put value on the intangibles. So does it mean the intangibles are not worth at least half of your properties?

 

This is your original post -

 

Aren't most of these pertaining to household chores? - work for the house, household work, making supper. - point #1. Hence, the equated post.

 

You failed to highlight this part of my post "making sure you go home to a comfortable home?" And also my post "I also believe in the hardwork put up by the men/women who tend the home." A comfortable home doesn't end with a clean house nor does tending the home ends with household chores. A house and a home is different. Taking care of the home (not the just the house, those are two very different things - if you can't grasp the difference of the house from the home then I guess that's why you never understood and got confused by my post).

 

Point #2, I just said that these household work done by women (most of the discussion is there except for some minor mention of men)can be also be done by men - that's why I injected house husbands. Because it seemed like women have the strangle hold on these tasks. I guess a higher percentage of women do this as well. If you agree that men can do it as well, then it just makes our posts in agreement.

Minor mention of men? Backtrack all of my posts. Everytime I mention one party I always state men/women (of course succeeding sentences don't need to always state men/women since it is redundant already). You were the one who always argued with gender bias. You were the one who brought up that the only thing women can do is breast feed? Even the task of giving birth, you stated can be done by a surrogate. Please read your posts again.

 

Point #3, You said you can't do the household work without a partner. I said there are single dads/parents out there. How do they cope without a partner then?

 

I only put low value into household chores. Refer to your post again above as to why the equation to chores was started.

Read my post again, so that you'll understand why your equation to chores was incorrect. Again Home is not the same as house. Tending to homes does not end with household chores. And work done is not only labor. It also means working hard to make the home a happy one.

 

Your understanding of my post is what made you assume that I was only referring to household chores. To help you understand, a home has a more deeper and abstract meaning. Home is actually associated with a family and the place you feel attached to. I know you know the difference and you understood that it meant more than household chores because you were the one who brought up the fact that women can bear children (that is definitely not household chores). That is part of building a home. You also argued about taking care of kids, and that is part of tending a home. Taking care of kids is more than giving them a bath, feeding them, bringing them to school, etc. Taking care of kids means teaching them values, bonding with them, giving them happy childhood memories, etc. (etc means its not limited to what I listed.)

 

I re-track my post and admit that you can build a home without a partner. I've known of a few single parents who are able to cope. But their kids eventually look for the missing father/mother. Some of them are able to cope by using their extended family (help was still needed and they didn't do it all alone). These single parents are also so stressed out, because the burden all falls on their shoulder. Let me rephrase my post then, any burden would be a lot easier if it was shared between the couple. It doesn't matter if you split it by making one be the breadwinner and the other be the one to tend to the home, or both of you share the responsibility of being the breadwinner and taking care of the home.

 

At any rate, my point is still the same, the one who is not the breadwinner also deserves half of your property for all the work he/she did in the home

 

And your point has always been that it was unfair to the breadwinner to split their asset. Then contradicted yourself by saying that intangibles is hard to put value on. More often than not, if you say its hard to put value on, then it mean that its valuable.

 

These countries have divorce. Only the philippines have no divorce. You even highlighted it - Keep in mind that this figure is hotly debated because many point out that cultures partaking in these types of relationships do not support divorce.'

They just don't support it but they have divorce. Which was point as well - the divorce law is there but their culture is still followed. The availability of divorce doesn't mean that they'll take that as option #1 as evidence by their low divorce rate.

 

Ok then. Let's take a closer look at your example. India is the country with the highest percentage of arranged marriage. In India, 90% of their marriage are arranged. Only 1.1% end up in Divorce. They may have divorce, but it is not easy, and they don't have no-fault divorce. Their allowable reasons for divorce are also few (just like our number of grounds for annulment). In India the allowable reasons for divorce are Adultery, Desertion, Cruelty, Impotency and Chronic Diseases. All of this must be with proof and the burden of proof is in the one filing for divorce. On the average it takes 4 to 5 years to get a divorce in India.

 

Now let's compare this with U.S. which has the highest divorce rate and has no-fault divorce. Their divorce rate is at 40%-50%. On the average they can get a divorce in three to nine months. The three months are for the No-Fault divorce that are uncontested. The nine months are for those that are contested.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have annulment/legal separation statistics here in Philippines. Someone made an estimate based on the number of divorces (as published in the newspaper) versus the number of people married in 2008 and it is roughly same as that of India (1.4%). This may be due to the fact that our Annulment/legal separation proceedings would likely average the same number of years as that of India. And our grounds is as few as that of India.

[friendly0603]

You are the one who have a confused post. You contradicted everything you said. Saying the one who is not a breadwinner doesn't deserve half of the asset/property of the couple. Then later on contradicted yourself by saying that its hard to put value on the intangibles. So does it mean the intangibles are not worth at least half of your properties?

Clarification - I said it isn't right to automatically declare half is the correct amount. I didn't contradict myself because value on intangibles isn't determinable. So why is half = undetermined value?

You failed to highlight this part of my post "making sure you go home to a comfortable home?" And also my post "I also believe in the hardwork put up by the men/women who tend the home." A comfortable home doesn't end with a clean house nor does tending the home ends with household chores. A house and a home is different. Taking care of the home (not the just the house, those are two very different things - if you can't grasp the difference of the house from the home then I guess that's why you never understood and got confused by my post).

You listed so many things and this one item should be the major point? Nope, I know the difference. That's why I didn't refer any of my posts to your comfortable home post. Why? Because you aren't defining what constitutes a comfortable home or what taking care of the home entails? Define those/that first.

Minor mention of men? Backtrack all of my posts. Everytime I mention one party I always state men/women (of course succeeding sentences don't need to always state men/women since it is redundant already). You were the one who always argued with gender bias. You were the one who brought up that the only thing women can do is breast feed? Even the task of giving birth, you stated can be done by a surrogate. Please read your posts again.

Read the original post again - here is the mention of men "(or even men)" to what I replied to. You just added more and more with each reply. That's why you think it's not minor. The gender bias is to show what women can physically do that men can't (giving birth, breast feeding, etc).

Read my post again, so that you'll understand why your equation to chores was incorrect. Again Home is not the same as house. Tending to homes does not end with household chores. And work done is not only labor. It also means working hard to make the home a happy one. Your understanding of my post is what made you assume that I was only referring to household chores. To help you understand, a home has a more deeper and abstract meaning. Home is actually associated with a family and the place you feel attached to. I know you know the difference and you understood that it meant more than household chores because you were the one who brought up the fact that women can bear children (that is definitely not household chores). That is part of building a home. You also argued about taking care of kids, and that is part of tending a home. Taking care of kids is more than giving them a bath, feeding them, bringing them to school, etc. Taking care of kids means teaching them values, bonding with them, giving them happy childhood memories, etc. (etc means its not limited to what I listed.)

I understood and replied to what was posted. Going into deeper/abstract meaning would mean various interpretations of what is a "happy" "home". I just listed items that I am discussing with you. Bearing children or having children is building up your progeny/gene pool and if not in your gene pool you can adopt. Choosing to have kids is part of making a family (whatever various forms of family are now available) - not necessarily pertaining to a home. There are childless homes.

 

Teaching values, bonding, memories - etc these are all abstract - different point of discussion which is separate and I didn't have any reference too nor do I have any problem with. You are adding all these in instead of this being your main point and the chores being insignificant. That's what I'm saying the chores isn't the significant item in the home discussion. If you highlight chores, then it's significant. You actually didn't need to mention the chores if your point is the abstract.

 

I re-track my post and admit that you can build a home without a partner. I've known of a few single parents who are able to cope. But their kids eventually look for the missing father/mother. Some of them are able to cope by using their extended family (help was still needed and they didn't do it all alone). These single parents are also so stressed out, because the burden all falls on their shoulder. Let me rephrase my post then, any burden would be a lot easier if it was shared between the couple. It doesn't matter if you split it by making one be the breadwinner and the other be the one to tend to the home, or both of you share the responsibility of being the breadwinner and taking care of the home.

At any rate, my point is still the same, the one who is not the breadwinner also deserves half of your property for all the work he/she did in the home

And your point has always been that it was unfair to the breadwinner to split their asset. Then contradicted yourself by saying that intangibles is hard to put value on. More often than not, if you say its hard to put value on, then it mean that its valuable.

Good at least we are agreement there. It may be tougher but not impossible.

 

Again you are equating "work in the home" to physical value/assets. If you are saying the intangibles are equal to half the assets, then it would still depend on what kind of intangibles that is. What kind of values you impart as the-non breadwinner? That's difficult to put value on. What if you are poor? Half of nothing is what?

If these actions (work in the home) instill good values, happy/content outlook/disposition, others, it will still be worth more than physical things/assets. But you are equating that should be ok to be half. The actual value of what you imparted to your kids actually is invaluable.

 

Don't you think that there are parents out there who actually don't provide those intangibles even if they're the non-breadwinner? They just performed the biological function of being parents. But they are still allowed to get half? If you married Anna Nicole Smith, Hugh's latest wife, and the likes, you really want to make it automatic half of what you got to these women? But hey it's ok, coz you are entitled to half of what these women got (which is what exactly?).

 

Ok then. Let's take a closer look at your example. India is the country with the highest percentage of arranged marriage. In India, 90% of their marriage are arranged. Only 1.1% end up in Divorce. They may have divorce, but it is not easy, and they don't have no-fault divorce. Their allowable reasons for divorce are also few (just like our number of grounds for annulment). In India the allowable reasons for divorce are Adultery, Desertion, Cruelty, Impotency and Chronic Diseases. All of this must be with proof and the burden of proof is in the one filing for divorce. On the average it takes 4 to 5 years to get a divorce in India.

 

Now let's compare this with U.S. which has the highest divorce rate and has no-fault divorce. Their divorce rate is at 40%-50%. On the average they can get a divorce in three to nine months. The three months are for the No-Fault divorce that are uncontested. The nine months are for those that are contested.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have annulment/legal separation statistics here in Philippines. Someone made an estimate based on the number of divorces (as published in the newspaper) versus the number of people married in 2008 and it is roughly same as that of India (1.4%). This may be due to the fact that our Annulment/legal separation proceedings would likely average the same number of years as that of India. And our grounds is as few as that of India.

Low divorce rate should be enough proof of chances are higher for arranged marriages.

 

It doesn't change the fact that India has divorce and Philippines doesn't. Annulment doesn't equal divorce. Are those allowable reasons for divorce in India also allowed for annulment? I think not. Legal separation is useless because you cannot get married again anyway (if you wanted to).

 

Does India have all these fears of having no fault divorce like you? You are pre-empting the worst fears of what could happen. Nobody ever said that let's adopt US divorce straight away. Let's start with having divorce first. Even at 40-50% divorce rate, why don't the all the other countries change the divorce laws so that they can be like India if low divorce rate should be the goverment's goal?

 

Now if you are saying that low divorce rate in india is because of the time it takes (4-5 years), why not make that the time it takes for people to get married as well? Maybe most of these marriages won't actually continue if it takes that long and it's that difficult to get married

 

Even if it's difficult, allow a way out which is divorce. Right now, that option isn't available and legal separation and annulment aren't true alternatives.

If the person you married is really the one you want to build a future/family/home with, divorce doesn't prevent you from marrying the same person again and fix your divorce mistake.

Edited January 2, 2013 by friendly0603

[bill_262003]

Clarification - I said it isn't right to automatically declare half is the correct amount. I didn't contradict myself because value on intangibles isn't determinable. So why is half = undetermined value?

 

You listed so many things and this one item should be the major point? Nope, I know the difference. That's why I didn't refer any of my posts to your comfortable home post. Why? Because you aren't defining what constitutes a comfortable home or what taking care of the home entails? Define those/that first.

You actually referred to my post. You called them intangibles. Intangibles can't be measured nor can it be defined. That's why they usually call intangibles as X factor. Intangibles or X-Factor generally means the unknown factor or the unexplainable thing which adds a certain value to that object or person.

 

Read the original post again - here is the mention of men "(or even men)" to what I replied to. You just added more and more with each reply. That's why you think it's not minor. The gender bias is to show what women can physically do that men can't (giving birth, breast feeding, etc).

Look back at my post.

 

"But I also believe in the hardwork put up by the men/women who tend the home. The value you put into the work done by women (or even men) of the house is so low."

 

Just one sentence before the "(or even men)" and I have been stating men/women tending the home ever since. So why reply with "Ever heard of house husbands?" As if I have never considered men to also tend the home.

 

Granting your gender bias was to show what women can physically do that men can't (giving birth, breast feeding, etc.). So does that mean you value these contribution that the women can give that men can't? If you value then why post this: "But you can get surrogates, in-vitro, etc." As if to dismiss the thing that women can do as something that can be replaced.

 

I understood and replied to what was posted. Going into deeper/abstract meaning would mean various interpretations of what is a "happy" "home". I just listed items that I am discussing with you. Bearing children or having children is building up your progeny/gene pool and if not in your gene pool you can adopt. Choosing to have kids is part of making a family (whatever various forms of family are now available) - not necessarily pertaining to a home. There are childless homes.

 

Teaching values, bonding, memories - etc these are all abstract - different point of discussion which is separate and I didn't have any reference too nor do I have any problem with. You are adding all these in instead of this being your main point and the chores being insignificant. That's what I'm saying the chores isn't the significant item in the home discussion. If you highlight chores, then it's significant. You actually didn't need to mention the chores if your point is the abstract.

 

From my post: "taking care of the children? cooking supper for you? making sure you go home to a comfortable home?" only cooking supper is a chore. And you have to take my post in context given the statement before that. "I also believe in the hardwork put up by the men/women who tend the home." Which you already acknowledged that you understood to be intangibles. My only mistake was the I didn't nail the the correct term in my first post. Even if I didn't use that term, you understood it. Hence, you referred to it as intangibles in your reply.

 

Good at least we are agreement there. It may be tougher but not impossible.

Yes I agree. And good that you acknowledge that it is tougher too to do it on your own.

 

Again you are equating "work in the home" to physical value/assets. If you are saying the intangibles are equal to half the assets, then it would still depend on what kind of intangibles that is. What kind of values you impart as the-non breadwinner? That's difficult to put value on. What if you are poor? Half of nothing is what?

If these actions (work in the home) instill good values, happy/content outlook/disposition, others, it will still be worth more than physical things/assets. But you are equating that should be ok to be half. The actual value of what you imparted to your kids actually is invaluable.

Then you agree with me that the intangible of tending to the home is actually invaluable. Which has been my point. We don't need to argue about me listing the intangibles because that would be pointless. If it is invaluable, then your post of "What did she do to earn 500,000 pesos if you were the sole breadwinner?" as a blanket statement no longer holds true. Because the partner who is not the sole/breadwinner may have contributed something far more valuable.

 

Don't you think that there are parents out there who actually don't provide those intangibles even if they're the non-breadwinner? They just performed the biological function of being parents. But they are still allowed to get half? If you married Anna Nicole Smith, Hugh's latest wife, and the likes, you really want to make it automatic half of what you got to these women? But hey it's ok, coz you are entitled to half of what these women got (which is what exactly?).

Yes, I would agree that there are partners who actually don't provide the intangibles even if they're not the bread winner. But majority would or at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they would. Celebrities can't be good examples because most of them are not good role models.

 

Low divorce rate should be enough proof of chances are higher for arranged marriages.

 

It doesn't change the fact that India has divorce and Philippines doesn't. Annulment doesn't equal divorce. Are those allowable reasons for divorce in India also allowed for annulment? I think not. Legal separation is useless because you cannot get married again anyway (if you wanted to).

 

Does India have all these fears of having no fault divorce like you? You are pre-empting the worst fears of what could happen. Nobody ever said that let's adopt US divorce straight away. Let's start with having divorce first. Even at 40-50% divorce rate, why don't the all the other countries change the divorce laws so that they can be like India if low divorce rate should be the goverment's goal?

Who also said I was against divorce. I made that clear from the start. I was reacting to other posters saying that they want divorce so that it would be easy and faster to separate. When you say easy divorce, it usually is the no-fault divorce. How easier can that be. Just file and in three months you'd be out of your marriage with no need to prove anything.

 

Now if you are saying that low divorce rate in india is because of the time it takes (4-5 years), why not make that the time it takes for people to get married as well? Maybe most of these marriages won't actually continue if it takes that long and it's that difficult to get married

I guess we are in agreement then. Lets have divorce but not make it too easy. For you its not easy because of the cost (expense involve) for me its not easy because you need to prove that there is a valid reason for the divorce. You just used cost as the point of making it not easy. For me it should be the reason that makes it not easy.

 

If we pattern our divorce to India, then I would be all the more agreeable. In fact I even think divorce in India is still a bit limited. The valid reasons are too few. But at least there is the need for a valid reason. Which has been my stand ever since. Yes to Divorce, no to "No-fault" Divorce. I even think that the 4-5 years as being too long especially if you have a valid reason. 4 to 5 years might already mean wasting the prime of your life.

 

Even if it's difficult, allow a way out which is divorce. Right now, that option isn't available and legal separation and annulment aren't true alternatives.

If the person you married is really the one you want to build a future/family/home with, divorce doesn't prevent you from marrying the same person again and fix your divorce mistake.

 

We are in agreement here. That has been my stand since my first post. Make divorce not easy by putting the burden of proof on the person/couple filling for divorce.

Edited January 3, 2013 by bill_262003

[coolsi]

sana hindi mangyari sakin to!

[lordbaal]

Divorce should be allowed in Pinas. Its so backwards not to have it or some equivalent. Say you've been married 7 yrs and your wife does a couple stupid ass mistakes along the way:

 

 

1. Gamble all our saving

2. Flirts with Guys

3. Is a compulsive liar (as in even nonsense things its always lies)

4. Has an affair and is continuing to have one with some loser who is 7 yrs younger and is financially unstable and mentally unstable and is also a woman beater

5. Is considering tomboys as a possible partner

6. Obviously does not love you and probably never will

7. Not even a hands-on mom with the kids

8. Lazy as hell, all she wants to do is have a good time

 

Is it fair to be stuck with such a person? I mean just because we don't have a law/s to support it. How fair is that for the matino na partner db?

[RichardCo]

Should have divorce in the Philippines.

[Edmund Dantes]

Natatawa ako sa argument na pag naisabatas na daw divorce, bababa antas ng moralidad ng pilipinas. Komidyante ba ang simbahan? Sino ba nagsabing napakataas ang antas ng values at morality natin? Bakit kasi palasimba tayo? Ayaw natin ng RH Bill at Divorce? Pero talamak naman ang nakawan sa gobyerno. Talamak ang bentahan ng mga bastos na DVD sa bangketa. May scandal video na kung ano ano. So how is not having divorce in this country would evelevate yung pinagmamalaki nilang moral standards na yan?

 

Anyway, I am in favor of this. Reality is marami naman sa ayaw at sa gusto ng simbahan magasawang hiwalay na. Di nga lang magawang legal yung paghihiwalay dahil walang batas.

[dinibdib]

i beg to disagree

[happy rider]

DEFINITELY A SOUNDING YES, WHY PROLONG THE AGONY!!!

[prettyxian]

Agree if both are not happy anymore with each other

[Little John]

It's about time Congress pass a Divorce Law.

[theofasas]

Yes. If your wife is getting tired of you always being at espa ktv mp then this would be a good thing for her.