Subject:
|
Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:44:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
501 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Richie Dulin wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> >
> > > The relationships that make a family a family are property. Of course
> > > existence of the kids and wife themselves is property held by them. I
> > > know it sounds very impersonal, but it's not. I'm arguing that the
> > > personal connection is every bit as valuable as any other piece of
> > > property.
> >
> > So if my wife wanted to end our marriage, I should be able to sue her for
> > loss of my relationship 'property'?
>
> I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law.
> I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex
> for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but
> there certainly are cases which seem to be good candidates. Of course
> there's also the consideration of the conditions under which the
> relationship "property" is given. The ex wife taking that relationship
> away is far different than a murderer taking it away (and an adulterator
> taking it away is somewhere in the middle).
Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away?
Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away?
> Of course I've also been a strong proponent for the view that the only
> proper government view of marriage is that it is a contract. If religion
> wants to tack it's own meaning on top, that's fine, but the religious
> baggage should not affect the law. If the government's view of marriage
> is just a contract, then the wife withdrawing the relationship can be
> dealt with under contract law.
I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the
'relationship' a property. Surely a contract of marriage would be a property
in addition to the relationship. The wife withdrawing from a relationship
would therefore be under the termination provisions of the contract AND be
additionally liable for destruction of the husband/wife relationship.
Cheers
Richie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
| (...) I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law. I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but there certainly are cases (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
