Ship of Fools: defense of traditional marriage

Thread: defense of traditional marriage Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025237

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I have sometimes wondered why folks who say they want to defend traditional, Biblical marriage haven't been more eager to try to ban, or significantly restrict, divorce. Some GOP legislators in North Carolina have apparently decided to try.

What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

During the two year waiting period, the law would require couples to take courses designed improve communication skills and conflict resolution

Bit late in the day perhaps?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Well that kind of sucks.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.

This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.

I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.
This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.

I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.

Yes, people need to think more before marrying. ISTM a large percentage of failed marriages were entered to hastily and with little real understanding of what a healthy marriage entails.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I applaud them for at least having a bit of consistency.

And given all we've heard in recent marriage cases about the state's interest in promoting (heterosexual, procreative) marriage as a foundation for a stable society, there's at least an argument that the state should act interested when a marriage isn't working.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?

[ 31. March 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?

Darn cite easier to hold that kind of marriage together [Devil]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Couples with children would have to take a four hour course on the negative effects that divorce can have on kids.
This should perhaps be included in pre-marriage, or at least antenatal courses.

I think once you get the point of suing for divorce, the game's pretty much up. Like Hugh just said - bit late in the day.

Often yes. Although giving people the chance to take a step back and see longer term consequences, provide some support, perhaps give hope that there are alternatives to divorce - could make a difference. I would interested in any evidence to show how far such interventions impact the divorce rate.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.

In lots of countries the state just runs a parallel marriage business instead. It quite literally IS a civil union, as opposed to a religious one, but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Yep, it's how they do it in Germany. The trip from the Rathaus to the church is quite a big do.

The benefit of the civil union system is that we could talk about it without any of the religious morality that surrounds the idea of marriage. "It's just a legal thing, we ain't saying nuffink about teh gays either way," the argument could go.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?

I think they've got the proverbial snowballs chance in you-know-where of being successful. Even if passed, it would probably just significantly affect those without the resources to get a divorce in a less restrictive state. Those are the people statistically that are probably most likely to get divorced (i.e. lower end of the economic scale, etc.).

Since it was also brought up in this thread, I think calling civil unions something other than a marriage is just wordplay. I'm not specifically arguing for or against any particular position by stating that opinion. In the end, I think what we call marriage or civil union is majority enforced moral opinion. The arguments I have read for marriage equality, but for the continued disenfranchisement of other sorts of unions we find unpalatable (plural marriage, first cousins, and so on); just speak to that. This isn't about protection of individual rights. It's about what most people think is good and acceptable for society.

[ 31. March 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yep, it's how they do it in Germany. The trip from the Rathaus to the church is quite a big do.

The benefit of the civil union system is that we could talk about it without any of the religious morality that surrounds the idea of marriage. "It's just a legal thing, we ain't saying nuffink about teh gays either way," the argument could go.

Part of my point, though, is that the civil system hasn't given up the word 'marriage' in those countries. The idea that the religious folk own the word hasn't (at least in most cases as far as I'm aware) been the way that it's been handled.

Although, the Roman Catholics in France are currently doing a fairly good job of behaving as if they own civil marriage laws.

There's certainly nothing about the etymology of the word that indicates it has special religious significance. It just means joining together of 2 things, whether it be 2 people or otherwise.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

The legal contract is entered into with minimal restrictions.

To make getting out of that contract onerous in comparison strike me as daft.

I agree marriage relationships are potentially a basis for a stable society. But if we are going to make marriages more stable, we have to focus on teaching little boys to be unselfish, respectful and self aware and little girls to not let any man walk all over them cause he's got a nice smile, money, a big whillie, voodoo powers, looks like her dad, etc. etc., even though he's selfish, doesn't respect her and is unaware of his actions.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Glenn Greenwald recently tweeted that he can't stop laughing whenever Rush Limbaugh says same sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage while he is sitting next to his fourth wife.

Recently it looks like the arguments against same sex marriage in the U.S. are winding down. When it comes down to court cases, all the opponents against gay marriage have is bible thumping and that doesn't play well in a U.S. court.

So the loud voices against gay marriage are changing the topic to how all they want is to keep Christians from being persecuted. See Dead Horsed for this topic.

The US theoretical separation of church and state may make this different then in other countries. Is this a dead horse topic as well? It does seem like a sea change rather than another lap on a dead equine.

[ 31. March 2013, 19:36: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Are they really going for traditional marriage? Where the wife is her husband's property, with no rights over money she earns or inherits?

As always with “traditional” it depends upon your start point. King Solomon, assuming much*, would probably have regarded the current definition as counter-intuitive, revolutionary and an affront to his deity-ordained status.

*Starting with his existence - though I imagine questioning that to be a somewhat dodgy career move for an NC politician.

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In lots of countries the state just runs a parallel marriage business instead. It quite literally IS a civil union, as opposed to a religious one, but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'.

I really dont understand what you mean by

quote:
but they still get away with calling it 'marriage'

I have said this before but my understanding is that there are only 3 essentials to marriage and two options extras:

Essentials
a) sex
b) commitment to each other
c) public declaration

Optional Extras
d) state registration - to get civil benefits
e) religious blessing - to get blessing/spiritual dimension

The OT is so full of marriages which only have a, b & c that I don't see how d &e can be essential to a 'Biblical' union even if they may be beneficial.

That being said, even if a Biblical Union is only a, b &c; I do see divorce being greatly discouraged - which was the original question. Personally I lived many years believing that, as a Christian man, I should do everything to avoid divorce and my faith was shaken by by ex leaving and having to come to terms with divorce. I feel both that hanging on in there allowed us to provide a good home and upbringing for the children but at some personal cost especially in the final years. Maybe traditionalists like me regard staying in the marriage as ideal but understand human fraililty and pragmatically accept, at least in this society, there is a limit and that in some circumstances it is better to divorce. I don't see that as incompatible.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

MT, "getting away with" was a reference to the (erroneous) idea that churches dictate what is a marriage, with the State piggy backing onto an existing religious institution.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But if we are going to make marriages more stable, we have to focus on teaching little boys to be unselfish, respectful and self aware and little girls to not let any man walk all over them cause he's got a nice smile, money, a big whillie, voodoo powers, looks like her dad, etc. etc., even though he's selfish, doesn't respect her and is unaware of his actions.

and to teach both boys and girls that marriage is more than being in lurve, and that you actually have to work at it. One might point out that the promises made are about things that you will co in the future ("I will") rather than about how you happen to feel at the moment.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Not sure, but this seems to me to be a bit cultural. (beware of my over-generalization). The clear trend where we live is for those who (1) are getting post-secondary education (2) waiting to get real jobs in the rather difficult, "I've got a BA (or BSc), can I get you anything with that latte", to cohabit, and not even consider marriage until they are pushing 30 or 35 and thinking of children. And maybe not even then.

The other group seem to get married in their early 20s, have kids early, and consider divorce 10 years later. The rules here are (1) they must take parenting education before family court will proceed with any decisions regarding children - mostly this involves the understanding of loyalty conflicts and typical effects on kids of divorce, (2) wait one full year after living separately. The rules apply to all married couples, including traditionally married gay and lesbian people, which seems only fair.

I'm wondering if this 'no fault divorce' structure is really that different, even within an area where we have a lot of cohabitting couples, who also have to take the parenting education if they split after having kids.

My final, more direct response is that I am not sure what exactly traditional marriage is. My mother had to stop working when she got married (1950s), and certainly women were generally let go when pregnant. They stayed home and were homemakers. Is this then a component of traditional marriage? Economic dependency, lack of independent decision making. Birth control was illegal here until sometime in the 1960s - wondering if this is also included? If we go back to biblical times, which is where 'traditional marriage' discussions often lead, but without adequate consideration of what is exactly meant. Are we considering that women are essentially property such that Jacob could earn two sisters to have as his wives?

(Personal note. Been married 30 years. I consider this 'conventional' versus traditional.)

[ 01. April 2013, 02:50: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.

My counterproposal is that since most of the aspects of marriage are handled by the state these days, it's religions that should "get out of the marriage business". They can call it a "religious union" or whatever and can apply whatever crazy regulations and restrictions they like (which they can already do in most jurisdictions), while the state can go about business as usual issuing marriage licenses that are universal across its jurisdiction.

As far as the proposed bill goes, for situations of spousal abuse it just draws the process out a lot longer and provides the abusive party an additional legal tool with which to metaphorically beat their estranged spouse a few more times. For instance, suppose an abuser refused to take the "courses on (i) improving communication skills and (ii) conflict resolution." Does that mean the divorce can essentially be held hostage by one of the parties? Once again the party of "smaller government" shows that "smaller" just means "small enough to fit in your bedroom".

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

from the article:

quote:
It would also strike from the current law a provision that says “isolated incidents of sexual intercourse” don’t count against the one-year waiting period. It’s not clear if that means an occasional fling with your estranged partner does count against you under the proposed law.

How about isolated instances of black eyes or broken bones? Would either of those count for months or years off the process?

ETA: Interesting crosspost.

[ 01. April 2013, 04:27: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

When people start talking about "traditional marriage" as being of just one type throughout the history of the world, I wonder if they've ever bothered to look into it.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

My link above was to Wikipedia's "Types of Marriage" page. Here is the main marriage page, with more detail.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Is ever possible to do a controlled experiment to determine just how damaging divorce is to minors ?

I mean, is using kids to guilt-trip two people into living out the rest of their natural lives together , when both know they are unhappy, a good idea ?

Understandably it all gets a bit blurred once you're onto degrees of 'unhappiness' and degrees of 'damage'. Which is why simplistic proposals such as banning divorce find favour I guess , rather like alcohol prohibition . We know how successful that wasn't.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My link above was to Wikipedia's "Types of Marriage" page. Here is the main marriage page, with more detail.

Especially the history section of this link.
This has been referenced in marriage debates on the hip before. But the references highlighting how small a part religious officials have played in traditional western culture is generally ignored by the "traditionalists."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's said on every marriage thread, but I'm going to say it this time: stuff like this is pretty compelling evidence that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. Let people file for civil unions for taxes and benefits and all that, but if people want to enter the state of matrimony they can go to their church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole for the show.

Agreed on the role of the state. But if we're really going to change anything than the church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole has gotta up our game as well. We need to stop allowing ourselves to become agents of the consumerist culture and turning marriage into a TLC (tedious American cable channel devoted to exploiting freak culture) consumerist orgie/ "My lost weekend". We've got to suggest that marriage is about more than just a $30K wedding. We've gotta do some pretty counter-cultural things, which has always been our calling but has never been our long suit.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreed on the role of the state. But if we're really going to change anything than the church/synagogue/mosque/Asherah pole has gotta up our game as well. We need to stop allowing ourselves to become agents of the consumerist culture and turning marriage into a TLC (tedious American cable channel devoted to exploiting freak culture) consumerist orgie/ "My lost weekend". We've got to suggest that marriage is about more than just a $30K wedding. We've gotta do some pretty counter-cultural things, which has always been our calling but has never been our long suit.

I think you mean "religious unions". [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Those countries with high divorce rates have a culture of divorce, and it would require a cultural shift to change things, not just tweaking a few laws in one part of the country, as is being proposed here. Is there much sign of a cultural shift in the USA?

Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed. Or, presumably, if the parents have simply 'grown apart'.) Nevertheless, divorce is an every day reality now, so children should probably be taught how to deal with it as a matter of course.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).

I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).

I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".

It's a distinction the Roman Catholic Church has had to deal with for decades (if not centuries). Ever since the widespread legalization of divorce (and, more critically, remarriage thereafter) there's been an ever-growing number of marriages the RCC doesn't recognize as legitimate. That might be a useful model for any sect dealing with changes in civil law that aren't to its liking.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I have sometimes wondered why folks who say they want to defend traditional, Biblical marriage haven't been more eager to try to ban, or significantly restrict, divorce. Some GOP legislators in North Carolina have apparently decided to try.

What do you think? Can they put the genie back in the bottle? Should they try? Why or why not?

Whether this passes or not probably depends on the economic impact on divorce attorneys.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I've recently been seeing a lot of Facebook posts pointing to the distinction between "marriage" (a civil, legal contract, according to these posts), and "Holy Matrimony" (a religious sacrament).

I can go with that. I agree with whoever posted that government should stay out of the "marriage" business altogether. but that's not going to happen. attacking it from the opposite side may work better... leaving "marriage" as a civil form but "holy matrimony" up to religions makes sense, and may help certain religious types deal with the recent changes. after all, the government won't be recognizing "holy matrimony", just "marriage".

Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?

There is therefore a problem trying to separate religious marriage from secular marriage - unless we all become atheists (or Quakers, or Unitarians - but steer clear of any religion which is on the government Thought Police's black list.)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?

As I noted earlier, this is not a new problem. For example, Hank and Annie consider themselves to be married, and the state considers them married, but the RCC considers Hank to be married to his first wife Kate (and Annie to be his adulterous mistress). You could say their marital status changes as soon as they walk in a church, but it's more accurate to say they disagree with the church on this issue.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The RCC not only refuses to let divorcees marry, it refuses to recognize the marriages of people that have left the RCC and desire to marry according to their own rites, even if there is no other impediment to a valid marriage.

I hit on that little fact during my canon law course, and hell if I can understand it. Surely the person that left probably shouldn't care, but calling him or her a fornicator for it just seems spiteful.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The RCC not only refuses to let divorcees marry, it refuses to recognize the marriages of people that have left the RCC and desire to marry according to their own rites, even if there is no other impediment to a valid marriage.

I hit on that little fact during my canon law course, and hell if I can understand it. Surely the person that left probably shouldn't care, but calling him or her a fornicator for it just seems spiteful.

Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.

In a pluralistic society it's going to be impossible to create a concept of marriage that everyone agrees with. Maybe it's time that we took that as read and worked with it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.

They're not a special case, but they're probably the best known one. One could just as easily cite Christian Identity's opposition to interracial marriages, or the weird stuff that goes on with the FLDS, but then a lot of time would have to be spent explaining what Christian Identity or FLDS actually are. That's a pretty big waste of time when there's a well-known example ready to use.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Of all the problems I see in it, the emotiveness of the words isn't one of them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most Catholics probably wouldn't use such an emotive word, but in any case, I think we need to stop seeing the RCC as special on these matters. It's just a religious group. Yes, it's a very big one, but it's still just one among may others. If you don't care what some random sect thinks of your marital arrangements then you don't have to care about the RCC either. Their spite, or whatever, is quite irrelevant.
They're not a special case, but they're probably the best known one. One could just as easily cite Christian Identity's opposition to interracial marriages, or the weird stuff that goes on with the FLDS, but then a lot of time would have to be spent explaining what Christian Identity or FLDS actually are. That's a pretty big waste of time when there's a well-known example ready to use.

I don't know about Christian Identity's oppostiion to interacial marriage, but so long as such opposition only applies to their inner circle and has no force in secular law, then that's their business. It's the same with whatever the RCC chooses to believe about divorce and remarriage, or about Pentecostal weddings, etc. Problems will only arise if these groups try to influence secular law, as they often do; but arguing under the banner of their religion surely undermines their case if they're claiming to speak on behalf of everyone.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed.

Yeah, been there .
To be fair the real guilt-trip kicked in once I'd walked . At least that's something I've been able to deal with without the kids having to witness it .
Looking back ? I'm sure it hasn't been easy for them, yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite.

This is from someone who used to be a firm believer in traditional marriage, (of the secular variety) . I've drawn no satisfaction from signing up to the divorce culture .

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Re children, many studies seem to suggests that children do seem to be worse off after divorce, particularly if the home environment wasn't an especially traumatic one for them before the breakup. (E.g., if a parent is having an affair but manages to maintain a facade of normality at home until the affair is discovered or revealed. Or, presumably, if the parents have simply 'grown apart'.)

Studies are problematic. Unless someone invents a device to monitor multiple universes and compare couples who split in one, but not another.
The post divorce children's well being is largely affected by the parent's subsequent relationship with each other.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nevertheless, divorce is an every day reality now, so children should probably be taught how to deal with it as a matter of course.

As I think the parents are the single biggest factor, good luck with this.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite...

My siblings and I still carry the emotional scars from growing up with parents who stuck together, but probably shouldn't have. True, it was an earlier generation when divorce was scandalous, but that didn't make it easier on us.

While it may very well be the case that children of divorced parents, on average, have more problems than those of those whose parents remained married, the real comparison that needs to be made here is whether children of disfunctional relationships are better off if the parents divorce or stay together.

Otherwise you are distorting the statistics by including functional relationships where the parents aren't considering divorce.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

lilbuddha and rolyn

I understand that lots of factors are involved in the outcome of divorce, so it's not a case of saying that divorce = children's lives blighted. However, I also suspect we're all tempted to look at the issue in a way that best supports our prior position, or that justifies our own decisions or interests. That's just human nature, and there's no point in any of us getting too pious about it. In any case, as I say, it is what it is. Marriage, divorce and family breakdown is something that teachers of social studies (PSHE in England) could cover in schools. Maybe some schools already do this.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
...yet honestly I believe my daughter and son were headed for more problems had I tried much longer to maintain the facade of normality while, inside, feeling gut-wrenchingly shite...
My siblings and I still carry the emotional scars from growing up with parents who stuck together, but probably shouldn't have. True, it was an earlier generation when divorce was scandalous, but that didn't make it easier on us.

While it may very well be the case that children of divorced parents, on average, have more problems than those of those whose parents remained married, the real comparison that needs to be made here is whether children of disfunctional relationships are better off if the parents divorce or stay together.

Otherwise you are distorting the statistics by including functional relationships where the parents aren't considering divorce.

This reminds of the famous line from Larkin's poem: 'They f*** you up, your mum and dad.' Perhaps the truth is that whether parents stay together or separate, they make a mess of their children, one way or another! This is original sin in its most obvious form! Would Freud et al have agreed?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Marriage, divorce and family breakdown is something that teachers of social studies (PSHE in England) could cover in schools. Maybe some schools already do this.

I agree with you there .
Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea . I know many will start jumping up and down saying -- This will only make matters worse, (I would have been one of them).

Also it would be quite difficult to say to school kids you may feel like such an such if ever your parents split. I imagine it's like bereavement, you never really know until you've had it happen.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

I think if they really want to have "biblical" marriage, they should also allow men to have more than one wife, not to mention all the concubines he can care for. And while we are at it, can we also stone adulterers and make rapists marry their victims? I'd also like to see it made law again that when a man dies without children, his widow has to marry his male next of kin. Let's have REAL biblical marriage!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?

That would be "unmarried unrepentant fornicators [Big Grin]

"

Or there's the reverse - people that are married in the eyes of their church, but not the state. This certainly applies to the plural marriages in some of the LDS offshoots.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I agree with you there .
Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea . I know many will start jumping up and down saying -- This will only make matters worse, (I would have been one of them).

There is a balance here. There is a chasm between seeing divorce as simply part of a relationship cycle and stigmatizing it. I don't care for either. Understand, I do not advocate making it difficult.
I know I am hopeless, but I think emphasis on what makes a good marriage is a way to reduce the incidence of divorce.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Taking away the taboo and stigma of divorce in this day and age would be a good idea.

Is there really much so much stigma now? In an age and a country where almost half of all babies are born outside of marriage anyway? I suppose it depends on where you live; maybe there are still a few old-fashioned middle class suburbs and close-knit villages where divorce is frowned upon, but most children in most places now will surely have classmates who live outside of the nuclear family unit. Maybe you're living in the wrong place! There's obviously a price to be paid for living in a 'nice' area...!

[ 01. April 2013, 17:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Won't that mean that a couple walking along the street consider themselves as "married", the people that pass them by see them as "married", but as soon as they walk into a church they have to consider themselves "unmarried"?

There is therefore a problem trying to separate religious marriage from secular marriage - unless we all become atheists (or Quakers, or Unitarians - but steer clear of any religion which is on the government Thought Police's black list.)

But this is already the case. And for that matter, it won't be the case for couples who have had both.

I for example was not in a state of "holy matrimony" for a number of years when I was married. the reasons are multiple, but it was a choice I made.

Nothing would change, really. Many (I thought all, but I guess not so) Christian groups don't recognize marriage unless it is performed as a christian ceremony. Some recognise marriages if they were entered into before one or both of the spouses "converted". many won't even recognise the marriages performed in other denominations of christianity, let alone non-christian marriages. when my sister married a jew in a jewish ceremony, the Orthodox church did not consider her to be married. She was not able to commune for a while. Eventually, somehow, it was resolved, basically by a confession, when she wanted to have her first child baptized. I'm not sure what the logic was...

as for divorce, I heard a quote once: never marry someone you wouldn't want to be divorced to. The intent of the quote is to point out that once you get married, assuming you have children, you are bound together for life. how you deal with a divorced other parent of your children will play a HUGE role in how the divorce impacts them.

I figure it's bad for kids who have parents who can't get along, and who fight over every little thing, or even who give the silent treatment to each other.. and that it matters less whether those parents are married or divorced. it's how they act that maters, not their legal status, or whether they live together.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Yow. Too much thread to read, so sorry if I cover old ground (and then look at my wall of text... [Hot and Hormonal]

).

My folks separated when I'd just turned 16. It had devastating effects on everyone except my Dad, who has lived the rest of his life in relative ease and comfort. My mother, never really that stable to start with (having been raised by an abusive alcoholic and an over-controlling mother) never recovered either psychologically or economically. My sister, who would turn 13 a month after Dad took off, was spotted as vulnerable by a wicked school counselor who forcibly raped her repeatedly. I came out second-most unscathed as I was off to college in a couple of years (on my own steam - my father refused any sort of support for school and my mother was impoverished).

In most churches, when people get married, they vow before God a lifetime commitment. But as usual, being young, etc, they don't always have the tools; they are tempestuous, aggressive, and the legendary first couple of years as the reality of life with another sinner sinks in leads to a lot of struggle... and most marriages have a crisis a few years in that really tests the commitment of both parties - those that make it through often find a deeper and more peaceful relationship on the other side. My dad had an affair while my mother was carrying my sister, for instance, but I'm not sure that damage was ever undone. "Forgiveness" with occasional reminders, that sort of thing, and my dad's continuing philandering...

I've also watched the effects of easy divorce on my granddaughter, as her mother refused to try to save the marriage and could not be forced to. She was not held accountable for her care of my granddaughter even after it was revealed that the 7 year old had been molested over several years by a 13 year old son of her grandfather's new wife.

But my take on it is that yes, divorce should be much harder to obtain. Vows were made; those aren't empty words. Children could end up impoverished and on public support, or just impoverished, and in general it seems to me that overall are made more vulnerable. My mother was forced into the workplace; we were on our own in more ways that just physically. One reason my sister gave for never telling her was (1) her rapist's threats and (2) the effect it would have on our already frail mother; we realized years later how we'd moved into a "parenting" mode with her following the breakup. Same with my granddaughter, with mom off to work she had to put her somewhere; against her own word she allowed her to stay where she ended up being molested.

I'm no shining star of sinlessness - but it just seems to me to be the nature of the case that most of the time, and especially so when children are involved, that the woman and the children end up on the short end of the stick. And we marry young, and often we need outside support, both to give us coping skills, learn how to handle conflict, and sometimes to say "Not so fast here! You gave your word!" I'm not saying divorce should be impossible, sometimes it is necessary - but the church should step up to help troubled families, and the law should require some accountability besides "we just can't get along." IMHO, YMMV.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
when my sister married a jew in a jewish ceremony, the Orthodox church did not consider her to be married. She was not able to commune for a while. Eventually, somehow, it was resolved, basically by a confession, when she wanted to have her first child baptized. I'm not sure what the logic was...

I'm guessing the logic went something along the lines of "either we can have a new congregant, or the synagogue next door will".

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
when my sister married a jew in a jewish ceremony, the Orthodox church did not consider her to be married. She was not able to commune for a while. Eventually, somehow, it was resolved, basically by a confession, when she wanted to have her first child baptized. I'm not sure what the logic was...
I'm guessing the logic went something along the lines of "either we can have a new congregant, or the synagogue next door will".

weeeeelll.... yeah. except that this was her "home" church (one she herself was baptized in, whereas she lives on the opposite coast. but the principle still stands... in that "one more of US" vs one more of "them".

Just as an OT aside... this was one of the fun-est weddings I've ever attended. not just the Jewish aspect of it (although that was my first), but rather the combination of the two cultures celebrating! Russians dancing the Horah, Jews dancing Russian folk dances.. both sides getting fairly drunk.. it was a blast! although at first the two groups were eyeing each other somewhat suspiciously across the patio (outside wedding and reception), it didn't take long before the ice broke and everyone just treated everyone else like family. awsome. reminds me just a bit of that one scene in "Fiddler on the Roof", only more fun.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:

as for divorce, I heard a quote once: never marry someone you wouldn't want to be divorced to. The intent of the quote is to point out that once you get married, assuming you have children, you are bound together for life. how you deal with a divorced other parent of your children will play a HUGE role in how the divorce impacts them.

I figure it's bad for kids who have parents who can't get along, and who fight over every little thing, or even who give the silent treatment to each other.. and that it matters less whether those parents are married or divorced. it's how they act that maters, not their legal status, or whether they live together.

Great wisdom, and very true, but hardly the romantic view! When you're young and starry-eyed...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

An interesting take on traditional marriage from blogger John Holbo:

quote:
Defenders of ‘traditional marriage’ insist 1) that their position is, well … traditional; wisdom of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the history of Western Civilization, etc. etc.; 2) they are not bigots. They are tolerant of homosexuality, and the rights of homosexuals, etc. etc. Maybe they watch the occasional episode of “Will and Grace”, in syndication (even if they didn’t watch it back when it started.) They are careful to distance themselves from those Westboro Baptist Church lunatics, for example.

It’s gotten to the point where one of the main, mainstream arguments against same-sex marriage is that legalizing it would amount to implying that those opposing it are bigots. Since they are not just bigots (see above), anything that would make them seem like bigots must be wrong. Ergo, approving same-sex marriage would be a mistake. Certainly striking down opposition to it as ‘lacking a rational basis’ would be a gross moral insult to non-bigoted opponents of same-same marriage.

This ‘anything that implies we are bigots must be wrong’ argument has problems. But that’s old news. Here’s the new argument. Grant, for argument’s sake, that contemporary arguments against same-sex marriage have been scrubbed free of bigotry. Doesn’t it follow that these arguments must not be traditional but, somehow, quite new?

All the old arguments were steeped in bigotry, after all. We can hardly maintain that anti-homosexual attitudes 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, were always already scrubbed free of bigotry to the high standards of “Will and Grace”. It’s hard to see how any argument against same-sex marriage that is genuinely traditional will not be a bigoted one, since it’s hard to believe it could be utterly disconnected from our traditions.

The same argument also applies to insisting on "traditional" gender roles in marriage. If you get rid of the sexism and homophobia, the view isn't that "traditional" anymore.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0