A conundrum of roles in gay divorce

December 10, 2016 § 23 Comments

The main problem with gay divorce is that you can’t tell which one is the “wife” — who is awarded cash, prizes, and custody — and which one is the “husband,” who gets ejected from the home and sold into slavery to keep the cash and prizes coming.

Though I suppose a reasonable approximation is to assume that the one who files for no fault divorce is the “wife”.

§ 23 Responses to A conundrum of roles in gay divorce

  • TomD says:

    Amusingly enough, in every gay couple I’ve known, it was relatively easy (and they’d often admit it, too) to determine who the “wife” was.

    But I suppose you could argue that both are “husbands” and so all property is sold, and they are both sold into slavery to support the State.

    Or maybe you can have both be “wives” and clone the pets and award them cash and prizes from the infinite coffers of the State.

    I guess in a weird way you could argue that divorce is like bankruptcy, all assets should be sold and given to the creditors, leaving the “divorcees” with nothing.

  • tz says:

    Time for a remake
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025164/
    Not quite the same old song and dance (on the ceiling or otherwise)

  • Mike T says:

    I guess in a weird way you could argue that divorce is like bankruptcy, all assets should be sold and given to the creditors, leaving the “divorcees” with nothing.

    Oh man, I would love to see some closet shitlord Christian like Pence propose that all marriages be redone as a corporation with all property held in trust by the corporation and that divorce is will be handled as a corporation liquidation (similar in that creditors would have to be paid, right?) You’d see the cucks’ jaws collapse to the floor as suddenly irreconcilable differences disappear within a business quarter.

  • TomD says:

    It would still be a grave moral evil, but sometimes I think certain evils are “better” in that they’re more obviously evil – post-birth abortion by hammer being allowed but pre-birth abortion being forbidden would result in very few abortions, I’d think.

    Not that you can support or condone any of it.

  • @TOMD

    “post-birth abortion by hammer being allowed but pre-birth abortion being forbidden ”

    Comment of the year. Lord Moloch approves.

  • CJ says:

    With envy being one of the bedrock sins of left-liberalism, I think it’s safe to say whoever is richer will get the, er…shaft, so to speak.

  • Mike T says:

    The problem with the post-birth infanticide by hammer is that the law will always find that one woman crazy and evil enough to actually do it.

  • Our Heroine says:

    As a woman abandoned by her husband, I can tell you that (at least in the NY Metro area), the preference of Family Court judges is for as close to 50/50 custody as possible. Even if the wife is awarded “primary,” the custody ratio will still be as close to 50/50 as the judge can get it (assuming no other factors are at play like addiction or abuse).

    Oddly enough, this shift doesn’t seem to deter marital abandoners of either gender. I suppose it’s because; if you’re selfish enough to abandon your family, you really don’t love the children enough to care if you only see them 50% of the time. To the faithful spouse, however, losing access to half your children’s life is a kind of living death.

    Anyway, it’s a funny old world. The men’s rights movement justly pushed back on the old (grossly unfair) Family Court norms, but rather than fix the problem, we’ve just ensured that both faithful men AND women get scr_wed over by the system. And of course, no one cares at all about the kids (except the faithful spouse).

  • TomD says:

    Which is why God hates divorce. The Family Court is in the position of trying to treat the burn victims of Nagasaki, and nobody seems to want to point out the bomb should never have been dropped.

  • Our Heroine says:

    As a follow-up to my last comment, in case anyone should like to offer an opinion, Bai Macfarlane and I have been communicating a bit about the unfortunate position of faithful spouses within the Church.

    Bai has been working diligently, intelligently and tirelessly to get the Church to follow Her own norms when it comes to the separation of spouses and the granting of annulments. Anyone with their wits about them can see how (un)successful she has been.

    Faithful spouses are the Low Men in the Church so it doesn’t matter how many times Bai clearly and simply explains Canon Law to the clergy. We faithful spouses have already been read out of the Church population, and our rights and opinions don’t matter.

    What I have been wondering is whether or not it is possible for the Low Man to graduate from his status? Are their morally acceptable ways to get a little victim cred (especially when abandoned spouses really are victims)?

    Because unless and until we graduate from Low Man status, I don’t see Bai or anyone else making headway with the Church or the State to preserve faithful spouses and their children from the ravages of divorce.

  • TomD says:

    The Low Man par excellence, the Victim, died and rose again. We can hope that He will come again.

    He is our Hope, and in Him we must trust – anything else just results in the continuation of the liberal man/low man dichotomy.

  • Zippy says:

    Our Heroine:

    The labels “man” and “woman” can mean anything we want them to mean these days, seemingly. It does seem somewhat fitting, though at the same time probably kind of insulting to genuinely feminine women, to refer to the minority of men who initiate no-fault divorces as effeminate.

    Though we could compromise and just label them bitches.

  • Karl says:

    LMBO!!!

    Thank you, Zippy, I need that!!

  • Karl says:

    Dear Our Heroine,

    No, at least in the Catholic Church it will NEVER be possible for anything remotely just to be integral in its pastoral practices.

    I know Bai. I lurk at her group. But some find me too radical so I rarely comment.

    The Catholic Church, DOES NOT GET, THAT ITS JOB SHOULD BE TO WORK, TIRELESSLY, TO HEAL WOUNDED MARRIAGES, RATHER THAN POINT WOUNDED SPOUSES TO TRIBUNALS AND DIVORCE COURT.

    THE BISHOPS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD, DO NOT HAVE THE HUEVOS, TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND SOME OF THE FOLKS FROM BAI’S GROUP.

    THEY JUST MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING AND, GOD HELP THEM, THEY SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE THAT!!!!!!!

  • Terry Morris says:

    The “wife” is the one who is victimized, mentally and physically tortured, oppressed, tyrannized, forced to work outside the home against “her” will, or otherwise relegated to menial domestic duties depending on “her” preference; “she” is the “husband’s” slave; “she” is the one secretly writing “her” Senators and Congressmen lobbying for new language to be added to VAWA protecting gay “wives” against spousal abuse; “she” is the one who sneaks time on social media where “she” eventually meets “her” soul mate who is kind, gentle, affectionate, loving, and whose own “girlfriend” treats him like a piece of trash and won’t respond to him sexually unless “she” wants something.

  • Well, call me crazy, but rather than fantasizing about bashing children over the head with a hammer and lamenting the horrors of cash, prizes, and slavery, I just ran off with the stable boy and lived happily ever after.

  • Mike T says:

    Sounds like someone is channeling Lucrezia Borgia from the HBO series.

  • The Family Court is in the position of trying to treat the burn victims of Nagasaki, and nobody seems to want to point out the bomb should never have been dropped.

    ABS heard one Glenn Beck praise the U.S. for dropping the bomb on Nagasaki because it was an industrial center.

    Glenn Beck is quite an amusing show…

  • MarcusD says:

    With envy being one of the bedrock sins of left-liberalism, I think it’s safe to say whoever is richer will get the, er…shaft, so to speak.

    That and resentment.

  • Terry Morris says:

    In the case of lesbian “marriage,” I guess they’re both referred to as the “wife.”:

    http://kfor.com/2015/09/04/woman-killed-after-being-run-over-by-car-in-nw-oklahoma-city/

    One would tend to think that the more feminine looking “partner” would most probably be the “wife” (if it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, and all that), but in this particular case we have an exception that makes a distinction impossible I guess.

    Whereas in another recent case in ultra-conservative OKC, a 13 year-old girl was removed from her home by DHS on evidence she was abused by her lesbian “father.”

    It’s all very confusing!

  • Peasant says:

    I believe that in Chinese, the receptive partner in sodomy is referred to as a “man who plays the part of the woman”. So I would say that in a male-male divorce, that’s how you tell who the “wife” is – whoever plays the part of the woman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading A conundrum of roles in gay divorce at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: