I'd agree with you. One thing that has happened since divorces have become so easy, is that marriages break up much easier. Divorce has increased much since that, and the impact is on children growing up in broken homes.

One thing that has happened since divorces have become so easy, is that marriages break up much easier. Divorce has increased much since that, and the impact is on children growing up in broken homes.

As opposed to growing up in families where the parents hate each other?
This message was last edited by the player at 05:30, Sun 26 July 2009.

They don't have to hate each other. They can work on it, and try and make things better. I know I would try knowing that I am going to have to live with them.

We know this is possible Falkus. People work together, and get things done even if they don't even like each other. However, in a marriage, we already know it's possible to like each other.

I sort of thought that was the guiding principle of Christianity, actually:  "You're guilty...but I'll let you off on a technicality if you say you're christian." ;)

More seriously, on the subject at hand, though, one has to be careful not to confuse the possible/ideal with the actual/realized.  It's true that people can make their marriage 'work' if forced to by law instead of getting a divorce, but that doesn't mean everyone does or will.  In some cases, it really is worse for children to be with parents that hate each other than for those parents to divorce.  I'm not saying all cases, nor even venturing to put a number on it, I'm just making sure we're comparing apples to apples.  Saying a set of parents could make things work, and thus forcing them to stay together even when they don't make it work would be bad for their kids.

Also, there's the important question of even if they do stick together and make it "work," is that actually better than if they divorce, find new spouses, and make those marriages "work?"  Or if they just divorce and are happier not being married to each other?  I think it's worth considering if a couple really should stay together, just because they can.

We know this is possible Falkus.

And there are many cases where it isn't or the people aren't willing to try to work it out.

IMO annulment exists for those instances in which the spouse misrepresented themselves to the other. In those instances where, say, you marry someone trusting them to be who they say and it turns out that they're a compulsive liar, you should have some recourse that doesn't require you to split property or give them the time of day afterward.

I'm not saying divorce shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying no fault divorces shouldn't be allowed.

Simply that just because you don't feel good this month and don't like that you are your spouse are fighting now means it's good for you to divorce isn't a great thing for us as a society. It has resulted in numerous children raised without both parents. It's affecting us as a society.

Sure, I agree with you. But there are many more cases where they could work it out.

You go to work, and make things work, even if you don't agree with someone else. so we know it's possible to work together with people you don't particularly agree with. People don't understand the life cycle of relationships. They think after a couple years of marriage, and they have fights that the marriage is over. So they divorce, and they meet someone new, and they get those feelings of bubbles, and excitement, and love, which then makes them think they weren't really inlove before, as they are feeling it for real now. Two years go by, and they are fighting again. They think maybe this person wasn't the one after all.

People just don't get these cycles are part of growing, and that the bubbles and butterfly feelings are something that is an initial phase, but must be worked on, and worked on to keep.

There are people who get married over and over not understanding how a relationship really works.

A marriage vow is for life. How many marriage vows do you hear, "I will marry you until I don't feel like it anymore."?

The only, and I mean literally the only way it's for life is if you work on it. Even if the other person doesn't.

The law shouldn't force people to stay together, it should just be pretty darn diffucult.  "No fault" is the problem.  Marriage should be considered a legally-binding contract.  Working on the problem requires overcoming selfishness and bettering oneself, so, by definition, it is better for the people involved to make their marriages better than to just give up.  When given a choice between the difficult and the easy, the difficult is the correct decision in the majority of the cases.  When we consider the biggest reasons for divorce, we see that most of the problems are preventable with proper premarital counselling and education or correctable with marriage counselling and education.  The key factor is commitment by both people to fix the problem, which is what marriage is about in the first place.  Selfishness is the root cause of marital disfunction (and just about any other problem in the world) and can be corrected.

I would like to see evidence that kids who grow up under a disfuncional marriage are actually worse off than kids in broken homes.  I don't think there is actually a advantage because the family structure remains intact and the child is influenced by both parents on a daily or nearly daily basis.  Of course, this is another example of why married people, especially parents, need to get their act together.  It isn't just about them, it's about the children, as well.  At any rate, it is easier to fix a disfunctional marriage than to repair a post-divorce family situation.  Once the divorce is final, the damage is irrevocable and compounds as time goes on.

How easy is it to prove emotional abuse?

How acceptable is emotional abuse?

Should no-fault divorce be permitted in lieu of an "emotional abuse but I can't prove it" case?

I would think the abuser is fairly easy to recognize. The rest of the other spouse's family probably knows it long before any divorce.

I'd think it should be zero, but I suspect the majority of men and women do some form of it. Perhaps not a daily battle, but I would imagine we all do something like raise our voice in anger, or make some form of protest that shows how upset we are with our spouse. Maybe I speak for myself?

I'd say no, but then again, I'm thinking it doesn't go unrecognized.

Unrecognized does not equal "proven in a court of law." I'm sure you are aware of the difficulties in proving the intangible, even if you are aware fully of the truth of it.

I'm not positive on that. I don't know how difficult it is. Anyone have stats? Heath might have some inside knowledge of this.

I think there are bold assumptions being made here on what constitutes a broken home. To me, a broken home consists of an environment where abuse frequently occurs. Marriage has no part in deciding that, just the conditions. There are many broken homes I can imagine that take place without a marriage, just as many can occur within one. Divorce or lack of marriage doesn't make necessarily for poor relations between the parents, just like marriage doesn't ensure good relations. From the philosophy of psychology I ascribe to, what's important for a child is that they feel loved by their parents, not whether their parents love each other.

I think there's also bold assumptions being made on what a divorce is like. There seems to be the assumption that divorce happens only between those that play on their own whims and don't take the matter seriously, completely ignoring the idea that there are thousands of cases of marriages that lasted 15, 20, 25 years or more. That doesn't sound like a whim or people who just didn't try. Sometimes, love just doesn't last, and it has nothing to do with their faithfulness or devotion. Many older marriages only stay together out of that loyalty, and nothing more. Some divorce isn't bitter either. Speaking from experience, my father and mother have great respect for one another, and still remain friends to this day; they just didn't want to be married. That doesn't sound like the broken home that seemed to be pre-determined to exist as an essential part of the process.

One's marital status plays little influence on their desire to be a good parent; they can do it, or not do it, regardless of their marriage. My grandmother and grandfather were married til the day they died but my father, uncles, and aunt hated their father with a passion; not because he beat his wife, or because he cheated on her, but because he wasn't really that interested in being their dad. You don't need divorce to be a negligent or disinterested parent. I would qualify that a broken home, within a marriage.

I agree with many conservatives nowadays who say that marriage is dying here in America, but I think homosexual or interracial marriage has much less to do with it than woman's suffrage. I think it's no mere coincidence that divorces grew far more prevalent and marriage rates dropped ever since women were introduced into the voting booth and allowed equal power in society. Prior to those developments, it wasn't just the fate of nearly every woman to be a house wife and enter marriage, it was their destiny, their purpose, the single all encompassing reason for their existence. They had little to no other choice, as having no power, no ability to hold property, no ability to enter the business world or even have a say in how your land was run, it was considered by far a merciful act to allow her to marry than live a life she would have to toil just to find a semblance of freedom most men possessed by virtue of merely being born one. Not too long ago at all, for women, marriage was a matter not of choice, but necessity.

So, it's no real surprise to me to note that once women did have these same power, were mandated the same respect, and were able to make close to what their male counterparts could make, that marriage stopped becoming a necessity and started becoming an option for those who desire it. Marriage was at a time a woman's prison. Now, liberated, each generation since chooses it less and less as the oppressive restraints of tradition lose their prevalence.

This isn't to say marriage is evil, but it's an old institution founded as the object of necessity where that the western world no longer values it as such, and defined on gender roles that are now seen as archaic. People see marriage less as an institution and more as a contract. You could allow no exit clause on principle, but I feel all that will accomplish is fewer people deciding to sigh in on the deal. The lack of marriage isn't going to stop people from making families, and if you make it less and less desirable to enter, people just start thinking around it. In my view, marriage doesn't need to try to exclude more people from entering it or exiting it. Rather, I think it needs a redefinition, to be founded on principles less on gender and more on a working agreement that actually has substantial benefits, rather than penalties to dissuade one from exiting.

Perhaps a sign of the times, but if you asked me, a member of the younger generation that's just reaching adulthood, personally, if I find marriage desirable, I say no, not in it's current form. The costs of marriage are far too great to make me want to enter it, and the chances of finding someone who seems great at first but holds some hidden form of danger is too great. That doesn't exclude me from having a monogamous relationship at all, or raising kids like I want to eventually. I don't need a contract to do such a thing. But really, tell a young person like myself, why would I want to sign to such an agreement?

I'm all for ending women's suffrage. I don't think women should suffer at all if I had anything to do with it. ;)

I'm not sure how women voting made no fault divorces possible or not. So no real comment from me on that issue. But I do know a fair amount about marriage, and have joined in on as many groups and courses as I can about making it better. I can say with confidence that you will get out of your marriage what you put into it.

I can also say with confidence that no fault divorces have make a very large impact on children raised without both parents. And we all know what the studies say about children raised in homes without both parents.

No-fault divorce is the result of recognizing marriage for what it is currently rather than what it was several generations ago. Marriage is now solely an option for those who desire it, not a necessity as it was before women had equal power and respect to men, and that includes those who want to be parents. As the younger generations see, you don't need marriage to have a family. So, according to this philosophy, there's no reason to keep people inside the contract when they don't want to be.

That's the whole point. Marriage isn't sacred anymore. There's no social stigma to force people to get married. It's a contract, and little else, and that's exactly how a good portion of the younger generation see it.

I can also say with confidence that no fault divorces have make a very large impact on children raised without both parents. And we all know what the studies say about children raised in homes without both parents.

Can you provide studies showing the effects on children in families where the parents should have gotten a divorce but didn't?

@ Vexen

I would have to agree with many of your assertions.  To me the problems with marriages are really a symptom of our society and my faith teaches me to expect this.  Marriage is an institution created by God as the base unit of a godly society.  As the western world falls further and further away from the will of our Father, it is only to be expected that more people cohabitate, have children out of wedlock, have disfunctional marriages, and divorce at a higher rate.  These are all things that damage people, their devolpment, their relationships, their ability to do good works, and, as a result, society as a whole.  I know that I cannot have high expectations for lost sinners to have healthy relationships beause they are sinners - they wreck their lives, it's what they do.  I also know there is very little that can be done governmentally, as that restricts freedom.  Even if that freedom is to screw up your life and put your children at a disadvantage, that is your freedom.  All I can say is what the truth is and what the ideal is and encourage correct behavior.  I will fight a "redefinition" of marriage all that I can because a nationwide legal endorsement of deviancy and sexual disfunction will be one of the final nails in the coffin for our nation, but I fear it is inevitable.  This world cannot escape entropy.  I can only pray for a revival and start with myself and my family, encouraging others along the way.  Warfare never ends for soldiers of the King.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:21, Mon 27 July 2009.

I know that I cannot have high expectations for lost sinners to have healthy relationships beause they are sinners - they wreck their lives, it's what they do.

That is, by far, one of the most insulting things I've seen posted on this forum.

Amen golden!

I don't have those numbers handy. Do you? I think there may be some confusion here Falkus. I don't think children should be beaten or abused by their still married parents. No fault divorces simply made divorces easier. Divorces weren't impossible before this, so I don't see the relevance.

If you're saying abuse is bad, I agree with you.

Falkus, remember the source. Is it said out of intent to make you feel bad, or said out of a desire to wish what is best for people?

Divorce is not a positive experience for anyone. It is a sign of a failure to make things work.

I can see what Falkus is saying. It's one thing to say "Do marriage my way or God won't be happy with you." Some could find that insulting, but ultimately, it deals with one's personal belief on God and matters we cannot observe so easily, and if that's what they believe, so be it. It's quite another to say "Do marriage my way, or you will live a hollow sham of a relationship that holds no intrinsic meaning." Because it's a slap in the face of anyone else who actually has a happy relationship that does do it a different way. It's a rather chauvinistic way of looking at things, and it makes no recognition to the fact that there are plenty of happy relationships that last out there without doing marriage in a traditional manner (or marriage at all). You can say that it'll lead to unfortunate consequences in the afterlife. I'd dispute that, but I wouldn't be offended if you said that. However, to say that "you're not really happy, you're just pretending to be" in the face of loving families that coexist for decades seems like someone either delusional, or being really mean spirited.

@dgolden

I find it rather interesting that you agree with my basic premises, but still find that you'd prefer traditional marriage over a more modernized one. I have to ask, is it the Will of the Father to force women into marriage and lead that to be the only realistic way to survive in society? Do you feel that the position women had but little more than a century ago, that they should only concern themselves with the family and leave all wealth and power in society to men was what God wanted? More to the point, seeing as we both seem to agree that women's liberation lead to the dissolution of marriage is a fundamental aspect of society as we had seen it previously, if given the choice, would you choose not to take away women's right, but never to had allowed it to exist in the first place? If you could had stopped woman's suffrage from happening, in order to preserve marriage as you feel it should be, would you had?
This message was last edited by the player at 01:50, Mon 27 July 2009.

So people are allowed to believe in their faith, but they just can't share their view of it?

Seriously, this is a religious forum isn't it? Has the title changed? If you cannot speak of a subject applying your belief of truth, then what forum does allow that?

Did I ever say you couldn't say it? Yes, I said such a statement would probably stink of insult, and I couldn't really blame anyone being upset with you for implying that, just because they don't do things the way you do, that their life or relationship is somehow less than yours, even when the party seems rather happy with their existence. But I never said you couldn't say it. And for that matter, I didn't see where Falkus did either.

If you think you should be allowed to say anything you want, and not have anyone offended when you phrase something in the way to insult and degrade their way of life, then no, I don't think you have that right.

Maybe I didn't see it; who said "don't talk about your religion"?

All I caught was people's reactions to others' views.  I'm sure quite a few people find my own beliefs abhorrent, and wouldn't mind telling me so.  But that too, is a statement of belief, not a cease-and-desist order.

If I say "your view on (blahblahblah) is chauvinistic.", that's not telling you not to express your view.

But on the same hand, the statement alone isn't enough to really debate, unless you want to debate whether it's Chauvinistic or not.
---------------

Another strong influence of increasing divorce rates is our Culture's high value for Autonomy.  To be independent, successful, and strong.  We preach this to men and women now, and you can't appear to be any of those things if you're playing second-fiddle.