what are some moral basis that against legal separation?
553579
If this is pertaining to a marriage separation, you can "legally" pursue another relationship (no adultery charge).  Morrally- there is a code of ethics outlined in scripture, not hard to find.  Practically- the glue on any tape can be succesfully stuck and unstuck so many times, but,  after a while it loses the ability to 'stick'. We call those bonding issues.
1048575
Maintain a sense of reasonable doubt. Accept proofs that work beyond a reasonable doubt as real. Accept cooberated circumstantial evidence, with physical evidence.\n\nTest everything except your wife's, and God's love.
447264
The adverserial legal system is governed by rules of conduct and engagement imposed on both parties. In that sense it is ethical as it provides a structure for "fair play". However, a lawyer's job is to win a case hor his/her client. Taking advantage of loopholes in the law is one way to beat the otherside. In some cases, this may not be ethical. Nevertheless, the legal process that we have provides the best way to redress a wrong since a party that feels its claim was not handled well/fairly within the scope of the law, can in some cases seek further action through the appelate courts. This is as good as it gets folks! The alternative would be Hamurarbbi's Sheria/Law, where justice is meted out in the form of chopping off body parts.
648681
it is immoral but not illegal
454755
As long as there are conflicting interest between individual impulses and the overall needs of the community, there will be laws. Laws set boundaries so that people can interact positively, causing minimum damage to each other. Whether it's following traffic laws (e.g. who gets to go first, where each car can drive in what direction, etc. to avoid accidents) to international trade (how much different currencies are worth, how much has to be paid for items, etc.), it is all about creating a benefit for the overall community so that we all can have better lives.
404248
This is a really tough question. To answer it, it may be helpful to understand the express differences between the legal system and lawyers.\n\nThe legal system is well thought-out, well-designed, time-tested, and does its best to protect the innocent.\n\nLawyers, however, are posed with a very difficult question when they are in law school: Should a lawyer's ultimate loyalty be to justice or to the client?\n\nMost people would like to say the answer is "justice" but, technically, that is incorrect. Law students are instructed to serve justice, but are also instructed that their primary concern is the client. Their loyalty, even over justice, is to the client. This makes more sense that one would think: Clients couldn't expect to get competent service from a lawyer if the lawyer's ultimate loyalty was to justice and not the client. If the client was guilty, the lawyer would end up serving justice and not the client, and the client would lose their case no matter what. However, everyone is entitled to a fair trial and competent counsel under the Constitution. The only way for this to happen is if the lawyer's loyalty goes to the client no matter what, guilty or innocent.\n\nTo keep lawyers from going too far, though, all law students must take 2 courses and an exam (separate from the bar exam) on Professional Responsibility. In the course they are subject to learning a 2-inch-thick book of ABA Approved Professional Rules of Conduct to keep lawyers from manipulating the law in an unjust and dishonest way, while still maintaining ultimate loyalty to their client.
403163
Not all laws are correct. Our own independence came from breaking Britain's laws, and so did India's. These people that come across our borders are coming because they are in desparate need of the basic necessities of life, and they can find them here. Take any one of your loved ones, and let's say they were bleeding to death in your car and you were driving to the hospital. Now, if you were to follow the speed limit and all of the rules of the road on your way to get to the hospital, then your loved one would die. If you were to speed, and "break the law", then your loved one would live. Now, that actually happened to my best friend. He was bleeding to death and I broke the law by going 90 in a 55 zone. After I got to the hospital, I actually got a ticket for speeding even though, if I were to arrive two minutes afterwards, my friend would have been dead. There are times when breaking the law is necessary, and in those times it is ethics that guide us.
594580
Downfall of mankind n moral decay. These r mere words. Different people make judgment on a particular situation using their own moral standards. Hugging n kissing openly is acceptable to some n abhorred by others. Polygamy is perfectly legal in some c'tries n illegal in others. In some c'tries, prostitution is a legal profession. Sometimes these laws n standards coexist esp in multi-racial, religious n cultural c'tries. Coming back to your question. What standards are u using when u posed this question?
218617
i would go by whatever u and the one u'r separated from agree upon. however, most people begin before they are signed. it's often the cause of the separation
426199
If you consider your redundancy as solution to your bullying at work accept it in good faith and look for other job. If you believe in God, pray that He will rise to defend your course. If you are a moralist and you have good basis for your claim, then employ the service of a sound lawyer, if you will not be restored to office at least you will be paid your separation pay or final entitlement as early as possible.But if you win the case, be warned and be careful so that justifiable means will not be used to terminate your appointment.
1007173
Yes, in most states only one party needs to desire a separation/divorce, generally based upon irreconsilable differences.  If you have children you might want to consider counseling first and do what you can to keep your marriage for the sake of the children.  If this is not possible, you may very well have a quite complicated situation Good Luck.
410898
Nowhere does it say (even though Jefferson said it in private or so called public papers)that church & state should be separated to the point where you remove any reference to God, the Ten Commandments, prayer, Nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc. from all schools, government buildings, etc.  The meaning of separation is that the Federal Government will NOT force anyone to believe or practice the Christian religion, like if you don't want to pray while others are, or recite the pledge of allegiance saying "under God", fine.  You don't have to.  You can even leave the room & come back after they're finished.  But it doesn't mean the government should stop anyone from praying, displaying the Ten Commandments, pledging "under God", displaying Nativity scenes, showing Christmas trees, etc. You should also be allowed to wear any symbol of your religion while attending school--as long as it does not promote violence against others.  Just because you oppose homosexuality does NOT mean that you are violently opposed to it.  Also, homosexuals have no right to FORCE anyone to live their lifestyle or commit homosexual acts with them.
884742
The legal dissolvment of a marriage
199509
This could be best described by the term "Family Values".  What this means to one family is not the same for the other family.\n\nThis is that it is unclear what is moraly correct and what is not.  To even recognize that there is moral ambiguity means that someone is putting thought into something.  The lines are not clear.  Choosing A.  will benefit one group, while choosing B. will clearly benefit the other group.\n\nThere usually is no "all win situation" someone or something will always be effected by your actions.
788484
u gotta go thru a process to protect everyone's rights, you, the other person, the insitution.  wheneven a person canno0t handle their own affairs it is time to take action.  if a person goes along, not much of a probelem just follow procedures.  if person does not, then you gotta get a court order
948274
Every time you spend money which is a government entity there is no separation. Every piece of money says IN GOD WE TRUST. It's what this country was built from. There should be no separation.
462494
What Jesus said about "divorce and remarry" would apply to everyone.  But the Ministers just look the other way, why?  Because if they enforced what Jesus said, they would have very few at their meetings, & there would be no money coming in.\n\nDIVORCE AND SEPARATION\n\nGod, the Originator of marriage, designed it to be a permanent union. But is there any Scriptural reason for a person to divorce his or her mate—and one that would allow for the possibility of remarrying? Jesus addressed this matter by declaring: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) Sexual infidelity by a mate is the only ground for a divorce that will allow the innocent mate to remarry.\n\nIn addition, the Bible’s words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, while encouraging marriage mates to stay together, allow for separation. Some, after trying very hard to preserve their marriage, feel they have no choice but to separate. What can be acceptable Scriptural grounds for such a step?\n\nOne is willful nonsupport. When getting married, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and children. The man who willfully fails to provide the material necessities of life “has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible.\n\nAnother is extreme physical abuse. So then, if a mate physically abuses his wife, the victim may separate. (Galatians 5:19-21; Titus 1:7) “Anyone loving violence [God’s] soul certainly hates.”—Psalm 11:5.\n\nAnother ground for separation is the absolute endangerment of a believer’s spirituality—one’s relationship with God. When a mate’s opposition, perhaps including physical restraint, has made it impossible to pursue true worship and has imperiled the believer’s spirituality, then some believers have found it necessary to separate.—Matthew 22:37; Acts 5:27-32.\n\nHowever, if divorce is pursued under such circumstances, one would not be free to enter a new marriage. According to the Bible, the only legitimate ground for divorce that permits remarriage is adultery or “fornication.”—Matthew 5:32.\n\nThe Bible allows only one reason for getting a divorce that frees a person to remarry, and that is fornication (Greek, porneia, gross sexual immorality). If fornication is committed, then the innocent mate may decide whether to get a divorce or not.—Matthew 5:32.\n\nAfter telling the Pharisees that the Mosaic concession of divorcing their wives was not the arrangement that had prevailed “from the beginning,” Jesus said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.” (Mt 19:8, 9)