Divorce In The Philippines

bill_262003 · December 7, 2012

I'm sure that the level of unhappiness for those who want a divorce varies from person to person. Even the person that says "la lang" could have some sort of mental illness. We just don't think it's real coz it doesn't happen to us.

What if my partner doesn't want to have sex with me anymore? What if I have ED? The partner may not cheat but you can't pursue others because you are married. If you are having sex out of obligation only, won't it suck as well? Once the love is gone, the intimacy will go as well. I may still try to be responsible for the family but am still unhappy in my hypothetical marriage which is totally acceptable for you since it's not a "bad marriage".

The problem with divorce is that it's messy. A lot of men aren't responsble for their children - legal or illegal. If you have illegal kids after getting married, aren't you supposed to be charged with adultery already? Somehow it's not common and some illegitimate children are actually famous enough to be noticed yet the government does nothing.

As long as divorce is as expensive as annulment, not many people will seek it and just separate without the legalities. If men were held liable for the cost of divorce, alimony and child support, this will most likely not fly in Phil. society.

Who says divorce is expensive? And again, your example has a valid reason. ED is a valid reason for divorce. So is mental illness. Again, just indicate it in your divorce and it is already a divorce with reason.

Why doesn't the law intervene when you want to get married but want to if you want to end it? I know we all want some sort of guarantee but life doesn't really work that way.

This is the reason why even the Pinoys who live overseas want to get married in the phils. They feel "some guarantee" because there is no divorce in the Phils. What they don't know is that they can be divorced overseas - it's just more expensive and it's still have no effect in the phils. So what? The Phil government can only implement their law in the phils anyway. It's just that not everyone can pursue other means outside the Philippines.

Because that's the way the law is. If you enter into a business contract with another party, does the law intervene? But if you breech that contract, the law intervenes. That's the way the law does it (not only for marriage but for a lot of other things). So I assume you are not married? And never will get married? Marriage is a commitment not just a guarantee. If a person doesn't believe marriage has an essence then why get married in the first place? It would spare them divorce latter on.

We have this fear that once there's divorce, the children are forgotten automatically. It all depends on what kind of parents you have and not the marriage. I'll let that go.

Try and watch "Bye Bye Love" and see a view of Rob Reiner on divorce. But I'm sure each experience will vary in divorce.

I never said the children are forgotten. I said, the children will be affected whether for the good or for the bad. That is why you owe it to them (and to your partner) to give a reason for your divorce. You are also assuming that people will have the same values as you do, and the same level of responsibility as you do. The problem with No-Fault divorce is it will get abused. And married couples will opt out of their marriage for "no reason" (given) at all. If they have a valid reason, then just state so (all of your examples thus far has valid reason for divorce).

friendly0603 · December 8, 2012

Who says divorce is expensive? And again, your example has a valid reason. ED is a valid reason for divorce. So is mental illness. Again, just indicate it in your divorce and it is already a divorce with reason.

Who says? Sir Paul McCartney, Michael Jordan, Kobe, Tiger Woods, Madonna, etc - I have a lawyer relative in the US who specializes in divorce. It certainly isn't cheap. Because these lawyers are well off from the business of divorce.

Because that's the way the law is. If you enter into a business contract with another party, does the law intervene? But if you breech that contract, the law intervenes. That's the way the law does it (not only for marriage but for a lot of other things). So I assume you are not married? And never will get married? Marriage is a commitment not just a guarantee. If a person doesn't believe marriage has an essence then why get married in the first place? It would spare them divorce latter on.

A lot of other things get resolved out of the courts/law. I see the flaws on the concept. But then again, everyone is entitled to act irrationally and believe the happiness provided by the partner and hope that it will last the test of time. If I do act like that, I hope divorce is available when reality slaps me back.

I never said the children are forgotten. I said, the children will be affected whether for the good or for the bad. That is why you owe it to them (and to your partner) to give a reason for your divorce. You are also assuming that people will have the same values as you do, and the same level of responsibility as you do. The problem with No-Fault divorce is it will get abused. And married couples will opt out of their marriage for "no reason" (given) at all. If they have a valid reason, then just state so (all of your examples thus far has valid reason for divorce).

Affected/forgotten it's just a variance of the same thing. Whatever effect it has, you are focusing on the negative. Even if parents don't separate, children are still affected.

No reason for me just means that it may be too scandalous or unacceptable so it's simpler this way. Or I want to avoid getting publicly shamed for that reason. Most likely there's always a reason - they just don't care to discuss it because it's a private matter. One reason always used is irreconcilable differences. Is that unacceptable to you? I guess the concept of blame is what you want in the breakdown in a relationship. One thing I learned early in relationships is that you can't force them to love you if the feeling is no longer there. I also learned that even the one who wants to end it doesn't know why the feeling is gone. We always want to assign a reason but it's just the way people are.

Edited December 8, 2012 by friendly0603

bill_262003 · December 8, 2012

Who says? Sir Paul McCartney, Michael Jordan, Kobe, Tiger Woods, Madonna, etc - I have a lawyer relative in the US who specializes in divorce. It certainly isn't cheap. Because these lawyers are well off from the business of divorce.

You are talking of high profile personality here. Lawyer's fee differ from one lawyer to another.

Affected/forgotten it's just a variance of the same thing. Whatever effect it has, you are focusing on the negative. Even if parents don't separate, children are still affected.

I am not focusing on the negative. As I said, children will be affected whether for the good or bad. It will be a life changing decision for the children. Now, shouldn't the life changing decision warrant a good thought and a reason?

I also learned that even the one who wants to end it doesn't know why the feeling is gone. We always want to assign a reason but it's just the way people are.

Again, don't you owe it to yourself and to the people affected (good or bad), to know why the feeling is gone? Maybe if that person thought it over, he/she will find out the reason and the reason can be remedied? That's the responsibility I am taking about. You have a responsibility to those people and even to yourself. We are not talking about forcing people, but be responsible enough to work things out before filing for divorce. And if things can't really be worked out, be responsible enough to know the reason. If there is no accountability on the person filing for divorce, then divorce can be abused.

Again, I am not against divorce, just the "no-fault" divorce.

We are going in circles here. So let us just agree to disagree.

Edited December 8, 2012 by bill_262003

friendly0603 · December 8, 2012

You are talking of high profile personality here. Lawyer's fee differ from one lawyer to another.

These are known examples. If I gave someone who isn't a celebrity, would you believe it? I know someone who loses a house in every divorce (he's had 3). I know that fees differ. Are annulments cheap or expensive for you? Divorce should be the same if not more expensive. This is the reason why if annulment applies, they would seek it rather than divorce. But if you can provide proof that divorce is cheap, all you've got to show is some semblance of proof that is common.

I am not focusing on the negative. As I said, children will be affected whether for the good or bad. It will be a life changing decision for the children. Now, shouldn't the life changing decision warrant a good thought and a reason?

I think when we highlight something it's because the negative is there. If we highlight the positive, it's certainly obvious. But if they are equally affected, then there's no need to highlight. This is just my view so maybe you didn't think that when you stated it.

There are screwed up kids who aren't from a broken home as well. I'm sure that a responsible person will provide that reason. Unfortunately, responsibility isn't required when you get married. There are parents who give up their children or leave them (legit or not). Are these people required to provide a reason for the life changing event?

Again, don't you owe it to yourself and to the people affected (good or bad), to know why the feeling is gone? Maybe if that person thought it over, he/she will find out the reason and the reason can be remedied? That's the responsibility I am taking about. You have a responsibility to those people and even to yourself. We are not talking about forcing people, but be responsible enough to work things out before filing for divorce. And if things can't really be worked out, be responsible enough to know the reason. If there is no accountability on the person filing for divorce, then divorce can be abused.

Was there a reason to have the feeling there in the first place? If you knew that, then probably it's automatic that reason is the one that is no longer there. Maybe? But it could be a different reason. Sometimes there are just no reasons.

That's a big maybe there. For me, every person is different. I just want to know what reasons are allowed for you. What if the reason isn't acceptable to the other person? Is marriage counseling for a year enough for you? If the counselor still can't make the marriage work, have they established the responsibility requirement that you want? I certainly think marriage is abused but that's not a problem - only divorce.

Again, I am not against divorce, just the "no-fault" divorce.
We are going in circles here. So let us just agree to disagree.

The problem is you haven't identified a list of reasons to allow divorce and to disallow it (whether "no-fault" or not). It is their lives and it is up to them to do what they think is right and not what we think for them.

The only thing I hate is the gold diggers that gain so much in divorce. But that's a reality in divorce. I approve of pre-nups.

I'm fine with your no-fault stance. I just find it difficult to put a requirement for responsibility or think that it would be cheap. I know divorce won't be a reality in the Phils for a long time.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts on this.

Edited December 8, 2012 by friendly0603

johnnydrama · December 9, 2012

These are known examples. If I gave someone who isn't a celebrity, would you believe it? I know someone who loses a house in every divorce (he's had 3). I know that fees differ. Are annulments cheap or expensive for you? Divorce should be the same if not more expensive. This is the reason why if annulment applies, they would seek it rather than divorce. But if you can provide proof that divorce is cheap, all you've got to show is some semblance of proof that is common.
I think when we highlight something it's because the negative is there. If we highlight the positive, it's certainly obvious. But if they are equally affected, then there's no need to highlight. This is just my view so maybe you didn't think that when you stated it.

There are screwed up kids who aren't from a broken home as well. I'm sure that a responsible person will provide that reason. Unfortunately, responsibility isn't required when you get married. There are parents who give up their children or leave them (legit or not). Are these people required to provide a reason for the life changing event?
Was there a reason to have the feeling there in the first place? If you knew that, then probably it's automatic that reason is the one that is no longer there. Maybe? But it could be a different reason. Sometimes there are just no reasons.

These arguments make sense...what's pushing for divorce's gradual acceptability in Philippine society is the mitigation of the once-strong stigma attached to annulled individuals in this country. Part of it has to do with media mileage given to local celebrities or political figures who break up. If Sen. Chiz can, if Kris A. can, why not Juan and Juana dela Cruz???

About the second argument re screwed up kids, that is further exacerbated when one or both parties is abusive toward the child/children, but law prevents separation of both parties even if its for the children's welfare.

romanticlove · December 11, 2012

in my opinion i would say... they should push the marriage contract with expiration date :rolleyes: placing an expiration date doesnt mean you guys dont trust each other but it just opens up an opportunity for everyone to rationalize at least once in a while if they are still happy with each other or will it affect others or what not. and its way cheaper than filing a divorce or annulment

bill_262003 · December 26, 2012

These are known examples. If I gave someone who isn't a celebrity, would you believe it? I know someone who loses a house in every divorce (he's had 3). I know that fees differ. Are annulments cheap or expensive for you? Divorce should be the same if not more expensive. This is the reason why if annulment applies, they would seek it rather than divorce. But if you can provide proof that divorce is cheap, all you've got to show is some semblance of proof that is common.

First of all, he probably lost his house to his ex-wife more than to the lawyer's fee. Second, why the hell did he go through three marriages? Which brings me to my earlier point, if divorce is so easy, then marriage losses its essence (of being a contract/commitment between two adults). Then marriage now becomes as easy as being the "flavor of the month". If you think that marriage is abused as it is now (without divorce), then marriage will all the more be abused with divorce.

If you think that people go in to marriage without so much as a thought, then wait until divorce is easily available. Just ask your friend who has divorce laws at his disposal. He went through three marriages and three divorces because it is too easy for him. Marriage is not a hard decision for him anymore because he can get divorce anytime he wants. Cost did not make him think twice (as you have argued earlier that cost will make people think twice). Heck, he even went through three of them. And I assume he is on his fourth marriage by now.

Which is why, the statistics of failed marriage after divorce is so high. With divorce at their disposal, marriage now becomes too easy for them.

Now with regards to the cost, again the cost is actually more of the parties protecting their assets. Cost of filing divorce per se, ranges from $350 to $450 (different from state to state). And if both parties are amicable to the division of property then all they need to pay for is the filing fees stated above. But again, that is where the divorce gets ugly. When both parties are trying to get as much from their "conjugal assets" as much as they can. Then it starts to get expensive. And using your friend as an example, it will not be a factor in deciding to file a divorce.

The only thing I hate is the gold diggers that gain so much in divorce. But that's a reality in divorce. I approve of pre-nups.

That is why your friend lost his three house after three divorce. Even if your friend's ex-wife/ex-husband is not a gold digger, she/he will get the most out of the finances when they get a divorce. That is why divorce seems "costly".

Now, imagine if there was no-fault divorce. A gold digger can marry you then file for divorce without even the need to specify a reason, and run away with half of your money. Gold diggers will all the more be prevalent with divorce.

<snip>
I certainly think marriage is abused but that's not a problem - only divorce.

For those who do not believe in marriage, then they should just live in together with their partner of choice. That way, when they loose interest in each other, then they get to leave each other without having to deal with the problems that divorce entails.

Again, when you enter a marriage, you expect a certain level of commitment from the other party. Such commitment should not be unfairly terminated by one party without a valid reason.

For me the valid reasons for divorce should be limited to when one party is aggrieved by the other. Its as simple as that. You may be aggrieved due to physical abuse, you may be aggrieved due to his/her unfaithfulness, you may be aggrieved by his unwillingness to provide, etc.

Again, we are going to go in circles here.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bill_262003

friendly0603 · December 27, 2012

First of all, he probably lost his house to his ex-wife more than to the lawyer's fee. Second, why the hell did he go through three marriages? Which brings me to my earlier point, if divorce is so easy, then marriage losses its essence (of being a contract/commitment between two adults). Then marriage now becomes as easy as being the "flavor of the month". If you think that marriage is abused as it is now (without divorce), then marriage will all the more be abused with divorce.

It's not about the lawyer's fee per se but the overall cost of the divorce that I'm saying is expensive. Because he's a fool and he thinks the next girl is the one. The guy is hoping he's found the one. I think it's the women who wants to leave him. He doesn't want the divorce.

Marriage is already abused because it's so easy to obtain. It's not because the escape clause is available.

If you think that people go in to marriage without so much as a thought, then wait until divorce is easily available. Just ask your friend who has divorce laws at his disposal. He went through three marriages and three divorces because it is too easy for him. Marriage is not a hard decision for him anymore because he can get divorce anytime he wants. Cost did not make him think twice (as you have argued earlier that cost will make people think twice). Heck, he even went through three of them. And I assume he is on his fourth marriage by now.

Again you are wrong. See earlier reply so I don't repeat it. Nope, he's in the process of losing/selling his third house. I think he has learned not to get married again. hopefully.

Which is why, the statistics of failed marriage after divorce is so high. With divorce at their disposal, marriage now becomes too easy for them.
Now with regards to the cost, again the cost is actually more of the parties protecting their assets. Cost of filing divorce per se, ranges from $350 to $450 (different from state to state). And if both parties are amicable to the division of property then all they need to pay for is the filing fees stated above. But again, that is where the divorce gets ugly. When both parties are trying to get as much from their "conjugal assets" as much as they can. Then it starts to get expensive. And using your friend as an example, it will not be a factor in deciding to file a divorce. That is why your friend lost his three house after three divorce. Even if your friend's ex-wife/ex-husband is not a gold digger, she/he will get the most out of the finances when they get a divorce. That is why divorce seems "costly".
Now, imagine if there was no-fault divorce. A gold digger can marry you then file for divorce without even the need to specify a reason, and run away with half of your money. Gold diggers will all the more be prevalent with divorce.

Do you agree it's costly or not?

For those who do not believe in marriage, then they should just live in together with their partner of choice. That way, when they loose interest in each other, then they get to leave each other without having to deal with the problems that divorce entails.

How many girls are there that don't love going to weddings? Don't believe in being swept off their feet? Don't believe in having a dream wedding?

Don't you know that living-in in other countries constitute a common-law marriage? There's no way out for fighting over assets and rights. It's just that in the philippines, women have no rights if they aren't married. But in other countries, that isn't the case.

Again, when you enter a marriage, you expect a certain level of commitment from the other party. Such commitment should not be unfairly terminated by one party without a valid reason.
For me the valid reasons for divorce should be limited to when one party is aggrieved by the other. Its as simple as that. You may be aggrieved due to physical abuse, you may be aggrieved due to his/her unfaithfulness, you may be aggrieved by his unwillingness to provide, etc.
Again, we are going to go in circles here.

So if you no longer want to be with the other person, you need to become the cause in order to have a divorce. Is that it? That's what you want?

Then there will be no amicable divorce.

Edited December 27, 2012 by friendly0603

bill_262003 · December 27, 2012

It's not about the lawyer's fee per se but the overall cost of the divorce that I'm saying is expensive. Because he's a fool and he thinks the next girl is the one. The guy is hoping he's found the one. I think it's the women who wants to leave him. He doesn't want the divorce.
Marriage is already abused because it's so easy to obtain. It's not because the escape clause is available.

Again, if marriage is already abused (as per your argument). Don't you think it will all the more be abused with an escape clause easily available? I have already given you statistics in failed marriages in other countries (I won't repeat it here). I have given you an analogy too. If you were to buy an item and there is a no return, no exchange policy in the store, wouldn't you think twice? Now if the store has a return/exchange policy which says you can return/exchange at any time even if the item is not damaged. Wouldn't you be more careless in buying your item because you can easily exchange them? In fact, some even buy clothes use it for one party then return it the next day just because the store allows the exchange of merchandise even without reason. It is not the buying process that is too easy, it is the return/exchange policy.

Do you agree it's costly or not?

Divorce itself is not costly. Let's take a look at two perspective. From the point of view of the breadwinner it may seem costly. From the point of view of the one who is not the breadwinner it is not costly. In fact, for the one who is not the breadwinner, he/she will get a windfall from the divorce. Again, divorce itself is not costly. If you are pertaining to the splitting of assets, that is not a cost/expense. It is merely a splitting of your assets. It will still eventually end up with either of the two of you. So it is not an expense per se. If it is paid to a third party (other than the ones married), then that is an expense. And any form of separation (annulment, divorce, etc) will entail the same splitting of assets. So you cannot say divorce in itself is expensive.

How many girls are there that don't love going to weddings? Don't believe in being swept off their feet? Don't believe in having a dream wedding?

It is really so sad when your concept of marriage is just the wedding ceremony. The dream wedding, the reception, the church, etc. Now I understand why you say getting married is so easy.

Don't you know that living-in in other countries constitute a common-law marriage? There's no way out for fighting over assets and rights. It's just that in the philippines, women have no rights if they aren't married. But in other countries, that isn't the case.

Living-in does not constitute a common-law marriage. Living-in is a pre-requisite (requirement) to be recognized as a common-law marriage. There are other pre-requisites such as, but not limited to: using the same surname, filing joint income tax, intent to get married, living in for a specified number of years, etc. So living-in alone does not constitute a common-law marriage. And you forgot the most critical requirement. There has to be an intent on both parties to be recognized as being in a common-law marriage.

friendly0603 · December 27, 2012

Again, if marriage is already abused (as per your argument). Don't you think it will all the more be abused with an escape clause easily available? I have already given you statistics in failed marriages in other countries (I won't repeat it here). I have given you an analogy too. If you were to buy an item and there is a no return, no exchange policy in the store, wouldn't you think twice? Now if the store has a return/exchange policy which says you can return/exchange at any time even if the item is not damaged. Wouldn't you be more careless in buying your item because you can easily exchange them? In fact, some even buy clothes use it for one party then return it the next day just because the store allows the exchange of merchandise even without reason. It is not the buying process that is too easy, it is the return/exchange policy.

Marriage and buying from stores isn't a fair comparison and you know it. If they were apples to apples comparison, then the marriage contract would be simpler.

Maybe buying a house would be a better comparison (overseas - not a cheap house). One wherein the loan would last the rest of your working life. That's a big decision but even then you can sell the house if you are unhappy so it's still not a fair comparison. We've already discussed so many comparisons that faltered.

Divorce itself is not costly. Let's take a look at two perspective. From the point of view of the breadwinner it may seem costly. From the point of view of the one who is not the breadwinner it is not costly. In fact, for the one who is not the breadwinner, he/she will get a windfall from the divorce. Again, divorce itself is not costly. If you are pertaining to the splitting of assets, that is not a cost/expense. It is merely a splitting of your assets. It will still eventually end up with either of the two of you. So it is not an expense per se. If it is paid to a third party (other than the ones married), then that is an expense. And any form of separation (annulment, divorce, etc) will entail the same splitting of assets. So you cannot say divorce in itself is expensive.

How much would you say a normal divorce is (just for the divorce cost)? Is the splitting of the assets not a part of the divorce process? How much does annulment cost? How many can afford annulments? If you have no assets to speak of, would you say it's still affordable to get a divorce and pay legal fees?

It is really so sad when your concept of marriage is just the wedding ceremony. The dream wedding, the reception, the church, etc. Now I understand why you say getting married is so easy.

I know the concept of marriage. I'm just saying that this is almost every girl's dream. The marriage process is easy that's why I say it's easy. Can you understand that? Getting married is easy because I can see that happening for anybody. Get the girl pregnant and offer marriage and boom - you are married or just offer a ring (maybe big) and she'll accept. There are mass weddings for free. Some people cannot afford to be divorced or annulled. But anybody can be married. That's how easy it is.

Living-in does not constitute a common-law marriage. Living-in is a pre-requisite (requirement) to be recognized as a common-law marriage. There are other pre-requisites such as, but not limited to: using the same surname, filing joint income tax, intent to get married, living in for a specified number of years, etc. So living-in alone does not constitute a common-law marriage. And you forgot the most critical requirement. There has to be an intent on both parties to be recognized as being in a common-law marriage.

I was thinking of de-facto. Even if it doesn't constitute a complete common-law marriage, you can be considered as such if you live together (for a number of years). Don't people living-in sometimes have joint accounts? etc? Anyway, this isn't what girls dream about or will be happy about? They want marriage

Let's see we are dating for a number of years and i'll offer living-in as a possible future for us and that's it. I'm not offering marriage. How many girls do you think will stay with that kind of relationship offer? Realistically?

Edited December 27, 2012 by friendly0603

bill_262003 · December 27, 2012

Marriage and buying from stores isn't a fair comparison and you know it. If they were apples to apples comparison, then the marriage contract would be simpler.
Maybe buying a house would be a better comparison (overseas - not a cheap house). One wherein the loan would last the rest of your working life. That's a big decision but even then you can sell the house if you are unhappy so it's still not a fair comparison. We've already discussed so many comparisons that faltered.

Why isn't it a fair comparison? Why do you always equate things to cost? You always indicate the cost as what will deter people from filing divorce.

How much would you say a normal divorce is (just for the divorce cost)? Is the splitting of the assets not a part of the divorce process? How much does annulment cost? How many can afford annulments? If you have no assets to speak of, would you say it's still affordable to get a divorce and pay legal fees?

I already answered this. The cost of filing a divorce is around $230 to $350 in the states (let's use that as a baseline). And if you don't have assets to divide, then you could actually file the divorce yourself. Its that easy to file a divorce. You only need lawyers if you have assets you want to "protect" from being claimed by your ex. Even if you have assets and you both agree on how it will be divided then all you need is the filing fee of $250/$350 and you won't need the services of a lawyer.

Splitting of the assets is part of the divorce process but it is not a cost. You both have 1 million pesos. After you divorce you are left with 500 thousand pesos and she gets 500 thousand pesos. Don't tell me your cost of the divorce is 500T pesos when you both owned that 1 million pesos. Nobody lost 500T pesos because it was really both your property. Now, the money you paid for your lawyers and the filing fee, that is the true cost of the divorce.

I know the concept of marriage. I'm just saying that this is almost every girl's dream. The marriage process is easy that's why I say it's easy. Can you understand that? Getting married is easy because I can see that happening for anybody. Get the girl pregnant and offer marriage and boom - you are married or just offer a ring (maybe big) and she'll accept. There are mass weddings for free. Some people cannot afford to be divorced or annulled. But anybody can be married. That's how easy it is.

Hehehe of course I undsertand that. You are thinking about the wedding ceremony being cheap and easy. I am talking about the decision of getting married being not easy (well it used to be not easy and I still believe people think things through before offering that big ring (why are you so engrossed with material aspects: big ring/reception/cost/expense, etc).

I was thinking of de-facto. Even if it doesn't constitute a complete common-law marriage, you can be considered as such if you live together (for a number of years). Don't people living-in sometimes have joint accounts? etc? Anyway, this isn't what girls dream about or will be happy about? They want marriage

Just living together doesn't constitute a marriage and no legal binding will come out of it. That is why if you live together you can easily split and live on your own without filing any paperworks.

Let's see we are dating for a number of years and i'll offer living-in as a possible future for us and that's it. I'm not offering marriage. How many girls do you think will stay with that kind of relationship offer? Realistically?

Its good that you asked this. Why do you think they (women and even some men) are not satisfied with just the proposition of living together? What is it in marriage that they want? Your answer to this question is exactly what I have been pointing out all along.

Edited December 27, 2012 by bill_262003

friendly0603 · December 27, 2012

Why isn't it a fair comparison? Why do you always equate things to cost? You always indicate the cost as what will deter people from filing divorce.

Things you buy from a store doesn't last the rest of your life. The return/exchange policy is normally for a month or a week in the philippines and up to 60 days and some to a year. At that point in time, the honeymoon stage in your relationship is probably on-going. And so, return policy no longer applies. Divorce most likely will happen a few years and one or more kids down the track.

The cost is the same thing that affects annulments as well as the lengthy process. It is an expensive process. Most annulments take a long time even if there are cases like Kris Aquino which was quick. If you knew that the money you worked so hard for would be lost because of divorce, won't that affect your decision for marriage? I grew up to learn the value of money from hardwork. Money doesn't grow on trees. The reason why people don't go thru these and just separate without the help of the court is because of costs. Almost everything has a cost. No one wants to marry a bum or a beggar.

I already answered this. The cost of filing a divorce is around $230 to $350 in the states (let's use that as a baseline). And if you don't have assets to divide, then you could actually file the divorce yourself. Its that easy to file a divorce. You only need lawyers if you have assets you want to "protect" from being claimed by your ex. Even if you have assets and you both agree on how it will be divided then all you need is the filing fee of $250/$350 and you won't need the services of a lawyer.

Splitting of the assets is part of the divorce process but it is not a cost. You both have 1 million pesos. After you divorce you are left with 500 thousand pesos and she gets 500 thousand pesos. Don't tell me your cost of the divorce is 500T pesos when you both owned that 1 million pesos. Nobody lost 500T pesos because it was really both your property. Now, the money you paid for your lawyers and the filing fee, that is the true cost of the divorce.

You will still need the services of a lawyer. What if your ex-partner sues you after? You need to guarantee that property division was agreed upon legally with documents.

What did she do to earn 500,000 pesos if you were the sole breadwinner? How much is a marriage license/minister in comparison to filing a divorce? I have a friend who got married in vegas in 2001 or 2002 and that cost less than $100. Which is cheaper? If you file for divorce, is it over at that stage? If that is so, then even at $350 - that is reasonable.

What if I bought the house before I met my future ex-spouse? But you lived together in that house or no pre-nup, doesn't that entitle her to half of that property?

Hehehe of course I undsertand that. You are thinking about the wedding ceremony being cheap and easy. I am talking about the decision of getting married being not easy (well it used to be not easy and I still believe people think things through before offering that big ring (why are you so engrossed with material aspects: big ring/reception/cost/expense, etc).

Yes, the legality of the process is cheap and easy. Yes, the decision is easy for most women and men. Why is it easy? Because it only affects two people at the time of making that decision. What is the percentage of women that turn down marriage proposals? The big ring is an in your face example of something that most women cannot say no to. Just saw an episode of Bones where they were picking a ring and the size/cost equates to how much they value the woman they want to marry. A cheap ring = don't propose

If you read thru the thread why men don't want to marry - money is always being said as a factor. The cost is always there. Why would you want to marry someone when you don't think that you can provide a future (financial considerations)? But hey, if money ain't a consideration for you - then you must be filthy rich then and losing half your wealth is ok on making a dumb ass decision (not really thought out properly) at the time.

Why is it difficult to decide on divorce? Because your decision affects your kids/families/friends. When you got married, the decision was to join just the two of you. Breaking the marriage in whatever form affects more than the two of you. That's why breaking/ending a marriage is more difficult.

Just living together doesn't constitute a marriage and no legal binding will come out of it. That is why if you live together you can easily split and live on your own without filing any paperworks.

In the Philippines and US, yes. If you aren't in a serious relationship, of course. But in other countries, it can be considered de-facto similar to common law. Read here - http://www.law4u.com.au/cgi-bin/factsheet_right.asp?article_id=476.

Effectively it's almost the same as getting married in other countries if you live together for a certain number of years. Read below.

Example from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/08/law.gender

In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, unwed partners can expect a much better deal when relationships break down. In New Zealand, women in long unmarried relationships have won substantial shares of the assets built up while they were cohabiting. One - worth only £34,000 at the end of a 22-year relationship, while her partner, working full time, had amassed £830,000 - got one-third of the assets. The other, after 24 years, won a share that included 25% of her partner's pension fund. A Canadian woman who split up with her partner after 12 years was awarded his house.

Its good that you asked this. Why do you think they (women and even some men) are not satisfied with just the proposition of living together? What is it in marriage that they want? Your answer to this question is exactly what I have been pointing out all along.

Because they want a guarantee. That's why Pinays even in other countries want to get married in the philippines because there is no divorce. In relationships, there are really no guarantees because you cannot ensure what is in the future.

You never answered the question about becoming the cause if that is what's acceptable to you. It will still be used as long as it can be used just like psychological incapacity is always used for annulment because it is what is available for them.

bill_262003 · December 28, 2012

Things you buy from a store doesn't last the rest of your life. The return/exchange policy is normally for a month or a week in the philippines and up to 60 days and some to a year. At that point in time, the honeymoon stage in your relationship is probably on-going. And so, return policy no longer applies. Divorce most likely will happen a few years and one or more kids down the track.

60 days versus 1 year life of a typical merchandise. Now typical lifespan of a human being is 70 years old. So that's 12 years. Usually if your on your 12th year of marriage it will already last the life time. So it's still a fair analogy. Just use different time lines.

The cost is the same thing that affects annulments as well as the lengthy process. It is an expensive process. Most annulments take a long time even if there are cases like Kris Aquino which was quick. If you knew that the money you worked so hard for would be lost because of divorce, won't that affect your decision for marriage? I grew up to learn the value of money from hardwork. Money doesn't grow on trees. The reason why people don't go thru these and just separate without the help of the court is because of costs. Almost everything has a cost. No one wants to marry a bum or a beggar.

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.

You will still need the services of a lawyer. What if your ex-partner sues you after? You need to guarantee that property division was agreed upon legally with documents. What did she do to earn 500,000 pesos if you were the sole breadwinner? How much is a marriage license/minister in comparison to filing a divorce? I have a friend who got married in vegas in 2001 or 2002 and that cost less than $100. Which is cheaper? If you file for divorce, is it over at that stage? If that is so, then even at $350 - that is reasonable.

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?

If you file a divorce and it is amicable and no dispute over property, the it is over at the cost of $350. Which is really reasonable.

What if I bought the house before I met my future ex-spouse? But you lived together in that house or no pre-nup, doesn't that entitle her to half of that property?

The same also goes with her property, you also get half of her property she had before you got married. So its a fair shake. And you could always enter into a pre-nup if you really want.

Yes, the legality of the process is cheap and easy. Yes, the decision is easy for most women and men. Why is it easy? Because it only affects two people at the time of making that decision. What is the percentage of women that turn down marriage proposals? The big ring is an in your face example of something that most women cannot say no to. Just saw an episode of Bones where they were picking a ring and the size/cost equates to how much they value the woman they want to marry. A cheap ring = don't propose

Ummm that's a TV episodes.

Women don't commit just because you give them a big ring. Women are actually more sensible than that. And yes, I have heard of marriage proposals turned down by women. Some of the reasons include, they are not yet sure. They want more time (in their careers) so they turn you down or ask you to postpone it for a few more years. Some are just not really into you.

Now, that is just the women's side. The men also do a lot of thinking before even proposing. Don't tell me every guy proposes to every GF you have? Guys also gauge their women if they are just GF material or wife material. That in itself is putting a lot of thought into it. So don't tell me it's just an easy decision to make.

If you read thru the thread why men don't want to marry - money is always being said as a factor. The cost is always there. Why would you want to marry someone when you don't think that you can provide a future (financial considerations)? But hey, if money ain't a consideration for you - then you must be filthy rich then and losing half your wealth is ok on making a dumb ass decision (not really thought out properly) at the time.

Hmmm why do you think of loosing your half your money at the start of the marriage? If you do think that way, then get a pre-nup. Also, it means that you are already doubting your marriage from the start. And not all people who get married make dumb ass decisions. Hehehehe. But this number of dumb ass decision will grow if you make divorce easily accessible.

So they do think things over before getting married. They think if they could provide. So this defeats your first claim that getting married is easy. And since you also stated that money is hardwork. Then getting married is also hard work. Yes, cost is always there, but it's not the only factor that people consider when getting married.

Why is it difficult to decide on divorce? Because your decision affects your kids/families/friends. When you got married, the decision was to join just the two of you. Breaking the marriage in whatever form affects more than the two of you. That's why breaking/ending a marriage is more difficult.

In the Philippines and US, yes. If you aren't in a serious relationship, of course. But in other countries, it can be considered de-facto similar to common law. Read here - http://www.law4u.com.au/cgi-bin/factsheet_right.asp?article_id=476.

Effectively it's almost the same as getting married in other countries if you live together for a certain number of years. Read below.
Example from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/08/law.gender

Please read your link carefully. Living together for a certain number of years is not the only pre-requisite for your relationship to be considered de-facto marriage. Other requirements include: whether you intend the relationship to be permanent; whether outsiders see you as "de facto"; etc. You keep on forgetting the most important part. The intent. Your live-in relationship is not automatically considered as "de-facto" just because you have been living together for a certain number of years.

Because they want a guarantee. That's why Pinays even in other countries want to get married in the philippines because there is no divorce. In relationships, there are really no guarantees because you cannot ensure what is in the future.

They want commitment. BTW, commitment and guarantee is different. Guarantee means that you expect everything to be the same until the end of time. Commitment means that you expect the other person to commit to (work at) your relationship thru good or bad.

It is obvious that you are not a believer of marriage. I respect your opinion on that, but a lot of people here do believe in marriage.

You never answered the question about becoming the cause if that is what's acceptable to you. It will still be used as long as it can be used just like psychological incapacity is always used for annulment because it is what is available for them.

You can become the cause, but you still need to prove it to a certain extent. True you can circumvent it if you do it that way, but the burden of proof is now in the couple.

You are cynical about marriage. I get that. But not everyone is.

Edited December 28, 2012 by bill_262003

friendly0603 · December 28, 2012

60 days versus 1 year life of a typical merchandise. Now typical lifespan of a human being is 70 years old. So that's 12 years. Usually if your on your 12th year of marriage it will already last the life time. So it's still a fair analogy. Just use different time lines.

You can buy more of the same item in a store. You can get newer items from the store even before the typical merchandise life is over. You can't get more marriages at the same time Anyway, I'll disagree with you on this. There's no way that you stretching the comparison will make it truly comparable.

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.

If you file a divorce and it is amicable and no dispute over property, the it is over at the cost of $350. Which is really reasonable.

That's a big if.

The same also goes with her property, you also get half of her property she had before you got married. So its a fair shake. And you could always enter into a pre-nup if you really want.

Assuming she has property before you met her. What if she doesn't? Most of the time, men go for younger women.

Ummm that's a TV episodes.

- Yes, but doesn't it reflect life? I know women will brag about that engagement ring. Even a guy I know is asking how much should a "decent" engagement ring cost?

Women don't commit just because you give them a big ring. Women are actually more sensible than that. And yes, I have heard of marriage proposals turned down by women. Some of the reasons include, they are not yet sure. They want more time (in their careers) so they turn you down or ask you to postpone it for a few more years. Some are just not really into you.

Of course I know that, but women have things to consider - biological clock, fading looks, etc. I know proposals can be turned down but that is not the norm. Look at your batch/classmates, how many are unmarried and how many are married? Isn't it true that there are less singles than there are married? The ones that are really not into you will breakup with you early even before you consider proposing.

Now, that is just the women's side. The men also do a lot of thinking before even proposing. Don't tell me every guy proposes to every GF you have? Guys also gauge their women if they are just GF material or wife material. That in itself is putting a lot of thought into it. So don't tell me it's just an easy decision to make.

Sure, there is some thought. Just as there is thought into ending a relationship. Do you think people don't think when they decide to go for annulment/divorce? Even those who are on their xth marriage are still finding out what they truly want in a marriage.

Hmmm why do you think of loosing your half your money at the start of the marriage? If you do think that way, then get a pre-nup. Also, it means that you are already doubting your marriage from the start. And not all people who get married make dumb ass decisions. Hehehehe. But this number of dumb ass decision will grow if you make divorce easily accessible.

Is pre-nup the norm in the philippines? Anyway, the pre-nup is there for divorce which we don't have. Everyone should be doubting. Yes - just half of those who get married end up in divorce, right? Divorce is already at 40-50% rate, isn't it (outside the philippines)?

So they do think things over before getting married. They think if they could provide. So this defeats your first claim that getting married is easy. And since you also stated that money is hardwork. Then getting married is also hard work. Yes, cost is always there, but it's not the only factor that people consider when getting married.

\

Yes, you think a little but you are young. You think you can eventually get there and be optimistic like your attitute about getting married. That's still easy to make. Even some of those who are burdened with providing for siblings still get married instead of finishing their obligations to the family first.

Please read your link carefully. Living together for a certain number of years is not the only pre-requisite for your relationship to be considered de-facto marriage. Other requirements include: whether you intend the relationship to be permanent; whether outsiders see you as "de facto"; etc. You keep on forgetting the most important part. The intent. Your live-in relationship is not automatically considered as "de-facto" just because you have been living together for a certain number of years.

Yes, I read that link - most for US consideration. Check the other countries comment please - I have already quoted in my previous reply.

They want commitment. BTW, commitment and guarantee is different. Guarantee means that you expect everything to be the same until the end of time. Commitment means that you expect the other person to commit to (work at) your relationship thru good or bad.

They are hoping for a marriage that will last forever (as long as they live). Why they want to have that marriage in the philippines? Commitment is easy enough to give for a few years. For a lifetime? That's something you do not know when you do your vows or even when you are contemplating them.

It is obvious that you are not a believer of marriage. I respect your opinion on that, but a lot of people here do believe in marriage. You can become the cause, but you still need to prove it to a certain extent. True you can circumvent it if you do it that way, but the burden of proof is now in the couple.
You are cynical about marriage. I get that. But not everyone is.

I'm fine with marriage. But in a world full of billions of people, how do you know you chose the "right" one? You are bound to make the wrong choice. Even if you think you chose the right one, she may not think you are the right one. I guess you believe in making the person you chose the "right one". Arranged marriages are different and have more realistic chances of lasting. They know why they got into the marriage compared to those believing they've found the one.

Most of the time people don't just want to end up alone and jump at the chance to get married "hoping that it's forever". Better to have loved and lost, isn't that the saying?

I lost my naivety a long time ago. Sometimes the more you think about it, the higher the chance that you'll miss the boat.

I'm just realistic in these modern times.

Edited December 28, 2012 by friendly0603

bill_262003 · December 28, 2012

We are running in circles in the rest of the points. I guess we have different priorities thus different opinions about life. When I was younger I also used to put money as one of my top priorities. My priorities have shifted (maybe because after toiling hard throughout the years I have grown filthy rich as you stated ) or maybe I have learned that what's the use of all of my money if I cannot share it with the people I care about.

I won't comment anymore on the rest of the points because your reply would just be the same. Each man has his own life experience thus each has their own way of thinking.

I just had to comment on these:

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 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."

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.

I'm fine with marriage. But in a world full of billions of people, how do you know you chose the "right" one? You are bound to make the wrong choice. Even if you think you chose the right one, she may not think you are the right one. I guess you believe in making the person you chose the "right one".

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.

Arranged marriages are different and have more realistic chances of lasting. They know why they got into the marriage compared to those believing they've found the one.

Most of the time people don't just want to end up alone and jump at the chance to get married "hoping that it's forever". Better to have loved and lost, isn't that the saying?
I lost my naivety a long time ago. Sometimes the more you think about it, the higher the chance that you'll miss the boat.

I'm just realistic in these modern times.

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.

Edited December 28, 2012 by bill_262003

friendly0603 · December 28, 2012

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 · January 2, 2013

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 · January 2, 2013

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 · January 2, 2013

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 · January 2, 2013

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 · January 3, 2013

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 · May 13, 2014

sana hindi mangyari sakin to!

lordbaal · September 19, 2014

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 · September 19, 2014

Should have divorce in the Philippines.

Edmund Dantes · September 19, 2014

Natatawa ako sa argument na pag naisabatas na daw divorce, bababa antas ng moralidad ng pilipinas. :lol: 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.

Recently Browsing

Divorce In The Philippines

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

joshua_sx1

miss_b

gig0l0

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation