"Divorced couple", oxymoron?

spinnytop · December 2017

If they're divorced they're sure not a couple anymore are they! I only ask because I see a lot of people using that term in discussion of that thing in the new tax code where they changed how taxes on alimony work, i.e. the person receiving it no longer has to count it as taxable income, and the one paying no longer gets a deduction for it ( helps to keep the money in a higher taxable bracket, and also motivates people to not get divorced because conservatives believe that government power should be used to enforce religious norms and morality ).

biffsmackwell · December 2017

Couple just means two, so whether they're "together" or not they're still a couple of people. They're not singular because you're talking about two people who were once married, and they're not triple because they're just not.

flyingfinn · December 2017

But what if both of us are divorced, from different persons, are we still a couple?
And i like to hang out with the one part of our couples divorced person, so does that make us triple?

spinnytop · December 2017

I dunno biff if two people saw us near each other and called us a couple I don't think you'd take it too well.

beezeeze · December 2017

Oh you're a couple alright.

A couple of goons!

biffsmackwell · December 2017

^ Savage.

chaelk · December 2017

takes one to know one

revanantmorituri · December 2017

If there's alimony involved, then legally they are still bound together, even if they have no other interaction beyond money going from one to the other, hence "couple". Also may be obligated to function as a couple in a parenting sense when child-related activities require.

spinnytop · December 2017

It's better if they just don't divorce to begin with, because that's the best thing to do according to objective morality.

markhawkman · December 2017

I kinda see it as something akin to saying "This is an ex-parrot".

nevyn34 · December 2017

If two people decide that living together makes them miserable, get divorced and then find that they still want to be together then let them do them. Judging people for their lifestyle is so last century.

spinnytop · December 2017

nevyn34 said:
If two people decide that living together makes them miserable, get divorced and then find that they still want to be together then let them do them. Judging people for their lifestyle is so last century.

I dunno, our tax code makes them pay more or less based on those choices in our current century. You sure?

nevyn34 · December 2017

Am I sure about what? Taxes have very little to do with relationships and if that's why you're in one you may need counseling.

spinnytop · December 2017

nevyn34 said:
Am I sure about what? Taxes have very little to do with relationships and if that's why you're in one you may need counseling.

That has nothing to do with what I said o3o

jennymachx · December 2017

If domestic violence or adultery is something going on in the marriage, especially if it's been going on for a long time, divorce is always going to be a viable option. No amount of government intervention to try to push couples to stick together is going to change that. I'm not sure how making alimony payments non tax-deductible from the payer's end is going to help things other than make court negotiations tougher.

It definitely sucks for the children though. My parents divorced when I was 11 so I've been through it to know.

spinnytop · December 2017

jennymachx said:
If domestic violence or adultery is something going on in the marriage, especially if it's been going on for a long time, divorce is always going to be a viable option. No amount of government intervention to try to push couples to stick together is going to change that. I'm not sure how making alimony payments non tax-deductible from the payer's end is going to help things other than make court negotiations tougher.

It definitely sucks for the children though. My parents divorced when I was 11 so I've been through it to know.

Yeah, but does that make it okay for the law to try to influence you into getting married, and staying married?

jennymachx · December 2017

> @spinnytop said:
> Yeah, but does that make it okay for the law to try to influence you into getting married, and staying married?

No it doesn't. Whether or not people want to get married or stay married is a basic individual human right. Governments shouldn't be making laws to penalize people in whatever shape and form for not wanting marriage.

spinnytop · December 2017

I agree.

orangeitis · December 2017

Marriage is just a legal thing, so eople can still be together after they get divorced. Hell, being married doesn't even mean they're "together" in the first place.

championshewolf · January 2018

nevyn34 said:
If two people decide that living together makes them miserable, get divorced and then find that they still want to be together then let them do them. Judging people for their lifestyle is so last century.

Such a silly argument to make. Judging people for their life style has been the human condition for the longest time. People still do it today, and will continue to do it into the future. Attitudes like this try to make it sound that someone that chooses to be a serial killer, or a pedophile, or many other heinous activities should not be scrutinized and is just an arrogant non-statement to be backwards and deluded.

There's a fine line to get involved in such things. An obvious abusive relationship, for instance, is a point when people need to get involved. To say their life style choice is their own is just arrogant and full or ignorance as a claim. Or are you the type to ignore the kid that comes in bruised and bloodied to school everyday because their parents have a life style choice?

biffsmackwell · January 2018

That was quite a leap there, Errol Flynn.

themightyzenith · January 2018

Missed the landing spot by about two continents also.

spinnytop · January 2018

orangeitis said:
Marriage is just a legal thing, so eople can still be together after they get divorced. Hell, being married doesn't even mean they're "together" in the first place.

That's fine, I just think it shouldn't be part of the tax code.

nepht · January 2018

beezeeze said:
Oh you're a couple alright.

A couple of goons!

nevyn34 · January 2018

championshewolf said:

nevyn34 said:
If two people decide that living together makes them miserable, get divorced and then find that they still want to be together then let them do them. Judging people for their lifestyle is so last century.
Such a silly argument to make. Judging people for their life style has been the human condition for the longest time. People still do it today, and will continue to do it into the future. Attitudes like this try to make it sound that someone that chooses to be a serial killer, or a pedophile, or many other heinous activities should not be scrutinized and is just an arrogant non-statement to be backwards and deluded.

There's a fine line to get involved in such things. An obvious abusive relationship, for instance, is a point when people need to get involved. To say their life style choice is their own is just arrogant and full or ignorance as a claim. Or are you the type to ignore the kid that comes in bruised and bloodied to school everyday because their parents have a life style choice?

This just in: supporting alternative relationship lifestyles = supporting murderers, abusers and child molesters. Up next: eating McDonald's = supporting Nazi's.

Is serial killer a relationship category? Is parents beating their children an adult relationship? Can you register at Tiffany's for juniors daily beating? Let me know if you really think that. Now, you can argue that pedophilia is a relationship but I wouldn't. A relationship is between two or more consenting people. Pedophilia by its nature is sexual relations with someone who can't consent and that's where the law picks up because any relationship there would be illegal. The problem I was trying to address before you threw some silly examples of behaviors that can and should be judged by the public my way is that a relationship between consenting adults is not anyone else's business. If it was gay marriages wouldn't be legal now in the US. It's a prime example of societal views on things changing and things that used to be "wrong" no longer being seen as so. You have to be careful with judging things like that else you end up being on the backend of history.

spinnytop · January 2018

nevyn... I think you just stepped on the irony train u3u

nevyn34 · January 2018

Whats ironing? Ok, that's too tongue in cheek.

I don't actually see any irony in what I posted. Maybe if someone beat me over the head with faulty logic and I recieved enough brain damage to actually understand people here I might.

spinnytop · January 2018

It has to do with who you're responding to, and the content of your response. You're lecturing someone about alternative lifestyles who... well, I'll let them reveal that if they choose to

nevyn34 · January 2018

spinnytop said:
It has to do with who you're responding to, and the content of your response. You're lecturing someone about alternative lifestyles who... well, I'll let them reveal that if they choose to

Lecturing is a strong word. It's more like I got a lecture from someone and it was full of assumptions. I also don't give to shakes about anyone's lifestyle, it's none of my business. Which is kind of my point. I can play LGBTQ bingo with anyone who wants to check my street cred though. Check out my punchcard under panromantic, bisexual, war veteran married to an asexual woman who lets me go home with the occasional stray.

pantagruel01 · January 2018

spinnytop said:
It's better if they just don't divorce to begin with, because that's the best thing to do according to objective morality.

There we go, oxymoron found. "objective morality" is a category error.

spinnytop · January 2018

nevyn34 said:
Lecturing is a strong word. It's more like I got a lecture from someone and it was full of assumptions. I also don't give to shakes about anyone's lifestyle, it's none of my business. Which is kind of my point. I can play LGBTQ bingo with anyone who wants to check my street cred though. Check out my punchcard under panromantic, bisexual, war veteran married to an asexual woman who lets me go home with the occasional stray.

The irony is only increasing in strength o3o

pantagruel01 said:
There we go, oxymoron found. "objective morality" is a category error.

Rock pony \o/

"Divorced couple", oxymoron?

Comments