Warren jeffs is in Jail;The way he setup the system for the FLDS, They cannot perform marriages without Warren Jeffs presiding over it, Its likely they will adopt a new "guru" to lead the herd soon.
Goes to show the gullibility of people when it comes to religion and how easily they can be herded like someones cattle surrendering their minds and free will, Isolation and shunning of former members is a trait of a abusive mind control cult, Another is illegalizing independent thinking and research.
How many world religious figures may have been like Warren jeffs or David Koresh? Buddha,Jesus,Mohamed? Definitely Mohamed if you read Islamic tradition he certainly exhibits the traits of a petty egotistic cult leader, The cartoon bullshit is certainly further proof of it.
Interesting that the branch Davidians existed from a schism within a group that also broke away from the seventh day adventists church in a schism. Allot of cults such as the one I grew up in ,Although not as sinister or extreme as David Koresh or FLDS , But like them it also had its roots with the seventh day adventist church, as apocalyptic doctrines are certainly central to their tenets.
If you haven't noticed I went from a xtian fundie who tormented Darunia with charges of Bolshevism, too a fucking Atheist exactly like Darunia no arguing the against the very stereotypes I once conjectured, If I haven't said it I apologize to the King of Gorons for my past stupidity.
Orthodox Mormonism is Hilarious and looney in itself! "it came to pass exceedingly"!!
Sorry ABF but I can't share your opinion that it's "okay to lie to put away people like that". That's more or less how a LOT of very bad things have happened to innocent people. These aren't innocent people mind you, but falsely reporting crimes is not a good way to do things. You can't have people running around falsely accusing, say, actually innocent people and completley disrupting their lives just because they had a gut feeling they were up to no good.
Either way the government is going after the person who made the false report so hopefully they don't go easy on her just because it led to the breakup of that sect. It would set a bad precedent if they let the false accuser go but I don't think that will happen with the coverage this case is getting.
Eh, I don't really care for polygamy, but whether it should be illegal is another matter entirely. If it's kept on a small scale (and considering our culture and our values, I don't see it spreading outside some religious wackos, like the church of the LDS), what's the big deal?
Obviously, forcing a minor to marry someone or engage in sexual activity that violates federal/state law is another matter entirely. I otherwise don't feel the need for government intervention into polygamy, as I believe that any engagement agreed upon between consenting adults should not be impeded by legislation that intends to inflict certain types of morality upon the population. Protection for the minority is one of the ideals this country was found upon (but ironically enough, freedom of religion was not really consistently supported, and state-endorsed religion varied by each state when we began with the first 13 colonies; Quakers, for instance, were persecuted very badly in some states based on religious principles).
Quote:Eh, I don't really care for polygamy, but whether it should be illegal is another matter entirely. If it's kept on a small scale (and considering our culture and our values, I don't see it spreading outside some religious wackos, like the church of the LDS), what's the big deal?
Because they oppress the people inside their cults, of course! How should we allow groups to treat people as horribly as the FLDS does its members, particularly women? Have you heard any of the stuff they say? It's incredibly creepy...
This is an entire society which is told that girls should be married in their early teens into polygamous marriages with older men. Women should have no contact with anyone outside the cult, and men should have as little contact as possible. Education, schooling, work, equality... none of those things apply.
Quote:Obviously, forcing a minor to marry someone or engage in sexual activity that violates federal/state law is another matter entirely.
That is one of the cores of their faith. It is also going to be the centerpiece of the case against them.
Quote:I otherwise don't feel the need for government intervention into polygamy, as I believe that any engagement agreed upon between consenting adults should not be impeded by legislation that intends to inflict certain types of morality upon the population.
"Consent" really doesn't apply here, I'd say... and anyway, polygamy is inherently wrong because it is, at its core, unequal: multiple women, one man? There is no way such a relationship can be fair.
Quote:Sorry ABF but I can't share your opinion that it's "okay to lie to put away people like that". That's more or less how a LOT of very bad things have happened to innocent people. These aren't innocent people mind you, but falsely reporting crimes is not a good way to do things. You can't have people running around falsely accusing, say, actually innocent people and completley disrupting their lives just because they had a gut feeling they were up to no good.
These people should have been shut down nationwide over 50 years ago, at least... if this is what it takes to finally give one state an excuse to act (and shut them down because of their crimes, the evidence for which can only be found once the investigation has begun -- DNA testing to prove that girls were having children before it is legal, marriage "licenses", etc. I can't really condemn it... but yeah, she shouldn't get off just because a good thing happened in bringing down this group. If this is true, she did something illegal too and should be punished for it.
I was watching an interview with some of the women from the sect on CNN the other night and it was pretty scary. They all spoke in soft tones, gave quick answers, and when one gave an answer they all repeated it. They almost seemed like they didn't have any free-will left.
Quote:I was watching an interview with some of the women from the sect on CNN the other night and it was pretty scary. They all spoke in soft tones, gave quick answers, and when one gave an answer they all repeated it. They almost seemed like they didn't have any free-will left.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was talking about. Creepy and somewhat terrifying, really... and people want to just allow this kind of thing? (Most sure did for a long time, given how long they've been around and how little overall has been done!)
A Black Falcon Wrote:Because they oppress the people inside their cults, of course! How should we allow groups to treat people as horribly as the FLDS does its members, particularly women? Have you heard any of the stuff they say? It's incredibly creepy...
I don't know what type of oppression is going on, aside from forcing girls to marry men. Certain religious practices should be made illegal, I think, to stop the spread of cults (Scientology comes to mind), but as long as no one's getting hurt, people should believe whatever they choose.
It depends on how people are being oppressed, but I'm sure whatever example you give, I'll agree that it should be illegal.
Quote:This is an entire society which is told that girls should be married in their early teens into polygamous marriages with older men. Women should have no contact with anyone outside the cult, and men should have as little contact as possible. Education, schooling, work, equality... none of those things apply.
This stuff is indeed creepy, but how much of it should be illegal? Girls being forced/coerced into marrying older men, that's definitely wrong. Cult insiders having no contact with the outside world is creepy, but shouldn't be illegal. People born inside the cult should be given the option to stay or leave (actually, the option to stay or leave at any time should be granted to all members).
Quote:"Consent" really doesn't apply here, I'd say... and anyway, polygamy is inherently wrong because it is, at its core, unequal: multiple women, one man? There is no way such a relationship can be fair.
People who enter a relationship with others define for themselves what they believe to be fair, what the relationship consists of, etc. They should be able to practice that without interference from the law. A vast majority of people agree that a relationship should be between only two people, with the responsibilities/roles of each person evenly divided, and will continue to do so. If a woman doesn't mind having the attention from her husband divided between other wives, who are we to say she can't? The same can apply on the inverse, a woman could have multiple husbands if the husbands are okay with it. If they don't like it, they can find someone else.
Quote:That is one of the cores of their faith. It is also going to be the centerpiece of the case against them.
Quote:These people should have been shut down nationwide over 50 years ago, at least... if this is what it takes to finally give one state an excuse to act (and shut them down because of their crimes, the evidence for which can only be found once the investigation has begun -- DNA testing to prove that girls were having children before it is legal, marriage "licenses", etc. I can't really condemn it... but yeah, she shouldn't get off just because a good thing happened in bringing down this group. If this is true, she did something illegal too and should be punished for it.
If I heard more of the crimes this cult has committed, I'd probably agree that they should be shut down, but they shouldn't be shut down for polygamy alone (not that polygamy alone was ever the reason, it's obviously more to do with consent/minors/abuse/etc).
If it's a truly consensual thing, then sure, it's their business. However in this case consensuality is the last thing these relationships represent.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:I don't know what type of oppression is going on, aside from forcing girls to marry men. Certain religious practices should be made illegal, I think, to stop the spread of cults (Scientology comes to mind), but as long as no one's getting hurt, people should believe whatever they choose.
It depends on how people are being oppressed, but I'm sure whatever example you give, I'll agree that it should be illegal.
This stuff is indeed creepy, but how much of it should be illegal? Girls being forced/coerced into marrying older men, that's definitely wrong. Cult insiders having no contact with the outside world is creepy, but shouldn't be illegal. People born inside the cult should be given the option to stay or leave (actually, the option to stay or leave at any time should be granted to all members).
People who enter a relationship with others define for themselves what they believe to be fair, what the relationship consists of, etc. They should be able to practice that without interference from the law. A vast majority of people agree that a relationship should be between only two people, with the responsibilities/roles of each person evenly divided, and will continue to do so. If a woman doesn't mind having the attention from her husband divided between other wives, who are we to say she can't? The same can apply on the inverse, a woman could have multiple husbands if the husbands are okay with it. If they don't like it, they can find someone else.
If I heard more of the crimes this cult has committed, I'd probably agree that they should be shut down, but they shouldn't be shut down for polygamy alone (not that polygamy alone was ever the reason, it's obviously more to do with consent/minors/abuse/etc).
How to identify a cult.
France really went hard cracking down on cults after the solar Templar knights ( not related to free masonry group) committed mass suicide after their founder had passed on;The canadian branch also killed themselves alongside the ones overseas. France has more or less criminalize any sect that inst part of the mainstream.
1.Things that define a cult;Members have restricted association with those outside of the cult.To me this is the biggest sign of a cult restricted fellowship.
7.Most cults have a "guru" figure who is often viewed as sole Intercessor for "god" or whatever divine authority, Generally they are treated like they are infallible.
2.Independent thinking is forbidden, You are obligated to believe every doctrine and tenet without question; If you spread your doubts and unorthodox views you will be regarded as a apostate, Possibly banished.Second sign of a cult.
6.Members are are obligated to give a portion of their earnings to the organization. (not necessarily a cult practice , but to me a legitimate religion would make it a voluntary decision to donate and not a mandatory one) as is the case with $cientology.
3.Shunning of former members; Even worse possible persecution and violence towards those who have denounced the cult and left. As is the case with $cientology and the FLDS, Orthodox Islam under sharia law consider leaving to another faith equal to treason and punishable by death.Third sign of a cult.
4.Exclusivist beliefs; Only members of the cult gain salvation and to leave the cult is to be damned.
5.Extreme Isolation , The cults separates itself from the rest of society and limits interaction with the outside world as is the case with the FLDS and Jim Jones.
8.Dangerous activities that could threaten the life of the worshipers, Refusal of medical care,dangerous rituals, Violation of rights and liberties.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:If it's a truly consensual thing, then sure, it's their business. However in this case consensuality is the last thing these relationships represent.
Right, on that basis they should be shut down and prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. I guess I wasn't entirely clear before. I was simply arguing that polygamy in itself isn't something I disagree with.
hahahaha that happened up the road from me, god dammit :D
lazyfatbum Wrote:hahahaha that happened up the road from me, god dammit :D
Their all ugly!
WTF I didn't say I was interested! I said god dammit because it happened UP THE ROAD FROM ME.
Unless you just meant Texans in general which is only half true.
lazyfatbum Wrote:WTF I didn't say I was interested! I said god dammit because it happened UP THE ROAD FROM ME.
Unless you just meant Texans in general which is only half true.
Well the polygamous inbreed so no surprise there ! Ive never been to Texas and most Texans I've met were not ugly.
Send us pictures if it goes Waco down there!
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Right, on that basis they should be shut down and prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. I guess I wasn't entirely clear before. I was simply arguing that polygamy in itself isn't something I disagree with.
Quote:People who enter a relationship with others define for themselves what they believe to be fair, what the relationship consists of, etc. They should be able to practice that without interference from the law. A vast majority of people agree that a relationship should be between only two people, with the responsibilities/roles of each person evenly divided, and will continue to do so. If a woman doesn't mind having the attention from her husband divided between other wives, who are we to say she can't? The same can apply on the inverse, a woman could have multiple husbands if the husbands are okay with it. If they don't like it, they can find someone else.
I really cannot imagine an argument in favor of polygamy.
Most importantly, polygamy in practice virtually always means polygyny (one male, multiple females), not polyandry (one female, multiple males). This makes sense, given the male domination of pretty much all cultures. Polygamy (polygyny) makes that worse.
Should we ignore injustice just because the people being oppressed don't realize that they are being oppressed? Those women in the FLDS don't realize it, because they've been brainwashed from birth. But going in there and stopping that behavior is the right thing to do anyway because, while morals are something that vary between cultures, I'd say that there are things that are pretty clearly unfair, and polygamy is definitely one of them. Forced isolation and brainwashing are more of them, of course. People certainly should be allowed to choose for themselves, but when it's something which is to their own detriment, is inherently unfair, is almost always tied closely to sexism... I don't know if it would be truly possible to make such a relationship fair.
One other question, if you don't accept that, is the issue of how many people are hurt. If the only person hurt is the person doing it, society is likely to let people do things. But once it starts to affect others too in a negative way, society wants to restrict that action. So cigarette smoking is cracked down on, I would say, mostly for the fact that the smoke poisons other people, not because of how it hurts the smokers (though convincing them to stop is a side benefit). Polygamy does cause social problems. The only way it could not is if the gender imbalance was so bad that the loss of women (or in rare cases men) to polygamous relationships wasn't so much so as to affect the possibilities for the rest of the population to marry, because having a large number of people (usually young men) who have no marriage prospects really isn't a good idea.
A Black Falcon Wrote:I really cannot imagine an argument in favor of polygamy.
Most importantly, polygamy in practice virtually always means polygyny (one male, multiple females), not polyandry (one female, multiple males). This makes sense, given the male domination of pretty much all cultures. Polygamy (polygyny) makes that worse.
Should we ignore injustice just because the people being oppressed don't realize that they are being oppressed? Those women in the FLDS don't realize it, because they've been brainwashed from birth. But going in there and stopping that behavior is the right thing to do anyway because, while morals are something that vary between cultures, I'd say that there are things that are pretty clearly unfair, and polygamy is definitely one of them. Forced isolation and brainwashing are more of them, of course. People certainly should be allowed to choose for themselves, but when it's something which is to their own detriment, is inherently unfair, is almost always tied closely to sexism... I don't know if it would be truly possible to make such a relationship fair.
One other question, if you don't accept that, is the issue of how many people are hurt. If the only person hurt is the person doing it, society is likely to let people do things. But once it starts to affect others too in a negative way, society wants to restrict that action. So cigarette smoking is cracked down on, I would say, mostly for the fact that the smoke poisons other people, not because of how it hurts the smokers (though convincing them to stop is a side benefit). Polygamy does cause social problems. The only way it could not is if the gender imbalance was so bad that the loss of women (or in rare cases men) to polygamous relationships wasn't so much so as to affect the possibilities for the rest of the population to marry, because having a large number of people (usually young men) who have no marriage prospects really isn't a good idea.
Most women wouldn't go for gangbangs ; Most men wouldn't share one women.
The FLDS have been known to just randomly expel young boys without cause , Solely to ensure more girls for the older men . These young boys are completely cut off from their families; Growing up isolated and forced out into a scary alien world they know nothing but lies about.
The FLDS have inflicted abuses on all their young ones not just the girls.
Shutting down the FLDS and outlawing the group seems as a wiser resort.
Another means is to stop welfare and social assistance to polygamous wives ,Who are classified as single mothers when they are not. Forcing the male to support the expense of so many wives may help discourage it.
The FLDS isn't just a American problem; Out in B.C Canada there is a enclave.
Quote:The FLDS have been known to just randomly expel young boys without cause , Solely to ensure more girls for the older men . These young boys are completely cut off from their families; Growing up isolated and forced out into a scary alien world they know nothing but lies about.
Absolutely true, many men suffer as well.
Quote:I really cannot imagine an argument in favor of polygamy.
Civil liberties?
A Black Falcon Wrote:Should we ignore injustice just because the people being oppressed don't realize that they are being oppressed? Those women in the FLDS don't realize it, because they've been brainwashed from birth.
Polygamy itself, imo, is not necessarily an inherent oppression to women. The women in this cult are oppressed because they're forced to marry into polygamous relationships, not because they're allowed to marry into polygamous relationships.
Quote:But going in there and stopping that behavior is the right thing to do anyway because, while morals are something that vary between cultures, I'd say that there are things that are pretty clearly unfair
True.
Quote:and polygamy is definitely one of them.
Untrue. ;) I wouldn't say it's
definitely one of them. I certainly can see how a woman would feel oppressed in a polygynous relationship, and if I were a woman, I know I'd never enter one (I wouldn't even want to enter one as a man, which runs contrary to what most other young men would say :D). On the other hand, as a social libertarian, it seems worse to me to force people what to do in this case.
Quote:Forced isolation and brainwashing are more of them, of course.
Agreed.
Quote:People certainly should be allowed to choose for themselves, but when it's something which is to their own detriment, is inherently unfair, is almost always tied closely to sexism... I don't know if it would be truly possible to make such a relationship fair.
I don't know, it depends on how you define "fair". "Fair" is a pretty subjective term, and it seems to me that it depends on the person what they find to be acceptable in a relationship. I can pretty much guarantee, though, that with feminism as strong as it is today, that a woman entering a polygynous relationship would be frowned upon by most people. However, there are some women who don't mind. I remember seeing a newscast of a woman in a polygynous relationship, and she was telling the journalist about its benefits, how there's always another mother/wife to help out, etc. Different strokes, I guess.
It's tied to sexism, yeah, but so are dom/sub relationships. Should dom/sub relationships be outlawed? And if so, what other types of consensual, sexually deviant relationships would you find to be unsuitable for society?
Quote:Polygamy does cause social problems.
Only if it's practiced on a wide-enough scale. Like ASM said, most women wouldn't go for "gang-bangs". :)
Quote:The only way it could not is if the gender imbalance was so bad that the loss of women (or in rare cases men) to polygamous relationships wasn't so much so as to affect the possibilities for the rest of the population to marry, because having a large number of people (usually young men) who have no marriage prospects really isn't a good idea.
I don't see this happening. Hell, women tend to outsurvive men, so maybe in a sense, this will be balancing things out? :D Like I said, I don't see it happening. Victimless "crimes" tend to remain the same in terms of how many people partake in them, regardless of the law. What matters more is the cultural view of the action, which in this case will be frowned upon by most people.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/15S0g8pG6HU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/15S0g8pG6HU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Why does he remind me of Foghat.
ABF, this ranch is clearly a terrible situation. However, consider a polygamy situation where it isn't the "harem" scenario. Consider that all of them actually love each other and it's basically one big marriage. Granted this is a rare scenario, and to be honest it's hard enough to develop a balanced relationship between TWO people without the nightmare arguments that could develop with three, but there are those willing to go that far, and well, let 'em.
Its a tradition thousands of years old, even before Christ, across every major continent.
It's still messed up though :D
I think that the "traditional" version is the messed up "one person in charge of everyone else" form. That I'm opposed to.
Yeah, I really don't care if something is old or not, if it's new or not, just if it actually is good for us.
"Chinese medicine" (and I'm not talking about chinese MRIs and heart transplants, which aren't "western" at all, what a racist viewpoint that science is a "western" concept that those far eastern people can't grasp) for example may be thousands of years old, but if it doesn't work, I don't care. That just means it's a thousand year old scam, which happens to be endangering species like tigers.
Kingship has been around for a long time too, but I wouldn't recommend it as a policy of government. For some reason though, all fantasy novels seem to really get all romantic over the idea of a noble lineage and finding someone's "birthright to rule". Seriously it's an epic story, but I'm pretty sure at some point I'd have to say "Princess Peach, what have you ever actually DONE for your people to deserve to live in a big castle? Don't you just spend half your time being kidnapped by every threat we've ever faced?". Oh, and King Bowser is even worse of course. I mean he's constantly sending his troops to invade the mushroom kingdom but has no good strategy for actually taking over, the troops aren't well trained, half of them are unarmed, and he never seems to want to admit defeat. If he spent half the time he did just trying to take care of his own people maybe his land wouldn't be a barren rocky wasteland eternally covered in night. Oh yes, he's a terrible father too. What ever happened to the koopa kids?
Sure we may be the result of genes and their blind mutations and selection through the ages, but that doesn't mean our "goal" in life is to serve them. That may be in their best "interests", but who cares? We can rebel against them, and there's no particular reason not to. Genes have no capacity for forsight after all, and many species have gone extinct because they evolved into a dead end and the niche shrivelled up. That's just how it happens. Natural selection only acts on what will cause the greatest survival of the genes in the present moment. The concept of taking a hit to survivability in a minor way now in order to drastically improve the survivability in the future doesn't work in evolution. However, we humans for the first time are actually capable of forsight and gene manipulation. We can do better than nature, and should. Evolution may be a wonderous process intellectually, but it's really not something anyone should draw ethics from, and we can do better.
So yeah, things being old don't make them better. Neither does them being new of course.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:ABF, this ranch is clearly a terrible situation. However, consider a polygamy situation where it isn't the "harem" scenario. Consider that all of them actually love each other and it's basically one big marriage. Granted this is a rare scenario, and to be honest it's hard enough to develop a balanced relationship between TWO people without the nightmare arguments that could develop with three, but there are those willing to go that far, and well, let 'em.
That's the problem, really, though. Such cases are so rare... and make it legal and you leave it wide open for groups like the FLDS to exploit it. I understand the point, and if there were a way to separate the two I'd consider it (skeptically), but is there really such a way?
And besides, as I said, even if it is mutual, I have trouble seeing how there isn't core inequality there unless they're all bisexual or something.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:It's tied to sexism, yeah, but so are dom/sub relationships. Should dom/sub relationships be outlawed? And if so, what other types of consensual, sexually deviant relationships would you find to be unsuitable for society?
That's not marriage, though. The core of the issue here (beyond the sexism) is the marriage aspect, because marriage has significant legal meaning. This is why the gay marraige issue isn't just semantic... it legally means a lot.
(Also, of course, something like that kind of relationship (dom/sub) wouldn't be something generally publicly known, so it's not like the government could easily ban it even if they wanted to...)
Still, yeah... people should be allowed to do what they want, within the limits of law. The issue really is how bad a situation people should be allowed to willingly put themselves in...
But really, the issue, in America, is the "polygamy" here almost always means fundamentalist, anti-female Mormonism. Not anything equal in any sense of the term. That's why it was originally banned, and that's still the focus of the effort, because that's where the problem is. And what they're doing is just so bad...
What I have a problem with here is that people who are living without hurting someone have to suffer because of the actions of the (admitted majority) of those who ARE hurting people.
We have to think from the perspective of the individual here. ABF, I understand your legitimate issue and I agree with it, but each issue must be treated seperatly. Even without a legal system in place for it, this sort of abuse is going to take place. The proper solution should have been for people to more closely observe this ranch. Clearly a lot of abuse was going on and the reports coming in from before this recent one were more than enough grounds to issue a warrent for spying on them. I would even go as far as to say that abuse that the victim doesn't recognize as abuse or call abuse should still require the arrest of the abuser. This is already accepted in the case of children, but for example spousal abuse victims will often refuse to press charges on their own behalf and the law has no method of keeping the abuser in check in those instances.
In this case, all that would be needed is to have people keep track for signs of abuse and get that reported so that any illegal cases could be taken care of.
The fact is, yes one can SEE the inherent sexual imbalance of a polygamist scenario (remember there are many variations of course, not just one man to many woman, but the reverse and the full gamet of ratios in between, including 1:1), but though a power balance is possible it is not always necessary that it's exploited. Case in point: pregnancy. Right from the start the woman is in a worse position than a man. They have already invested the cost of an egg, greater than a sperm, and now have the cost of bearing the child to term and the process of birth. The man has an easy power balance solution right in place, and that's to ditch the very moment he finds out about the pregnancy. That's why there are a number of legal options set in place to protect against that. Such things could be applied here too.
However, I'd like to add one other thing. I think that the idea of legally recognized marriage really just muddles everything up. Maybe it would be for the best if the law didn't regognize marriage at all, or give benefits as such just for a ceremony. I think there is an alternative, to protect the "homebody" that would emerge in that relationship, and further protect those in all sorts of other relationships, including room mates and whatever deals they make with each other and all sorts of stuff I'm not really able to imagine right now. This solution would be to protect those in the weaker position in any sort of situation where two or more people are living with each other. By weaker I mean financially weaker. The idea would be those with less money would be protected from threats of being walked out on by the one with more. There would be a time limit in place and so on, but it could work better.
Incidentally, I think that sometimes people handle divorce in a way that's far too messy. They treat it like zero sum, but they could both benefit if, for example, they only hired ONE lawyer to work out the paperwork and worked WITH each other to manage the divorce reasonably. Working together in the relationship was for the best, why not work together during the seperation? Then again, for most people by the point it's reached divorce their emotions are too high and lawyers working "against" each other, constantly getting fees by dragging out the proceedings with constant "counter-demands" they both know the other side would never agree to over the course of years, rather than over the course of say a week or so.