Posted on 11/08/2005 8:01:14 AM PST by TBP
Before the divorce rate began its inexorable rise in the late 1960s, the common wisdom had been that, where children are concerned, divorce itself is a problem. But as it became widespread -- peaking at almost one in two first marriages in the mid-1980s -- popular thinking morphed into a new, adult-friendly idea: It's not the act of divorcing that's the problem, but simply the way that parents handle it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I dont care about the gov knowing...although as your tax advisor I would maybe say its a good thing financially to get married. (depending on peoples circumstances)
But I would say that its tougher for me to get over the fact that we arent on a secluded island somewhere and that a confession of love/committment between yourselves and a fellowship of believers is a good thing...one you neednt deny yourself.
Dont take these comments as a "judging" thing...
Thanks! My native language is not English, and whether to use "who" or "whom" was always a complete mystery to me. Nobody had ever explained it like that to me before! Thanks, again.
These are the issues that to me can be really hypocritical.
Commitment..
I lived next to some people about 12 uears ago, I was single at the time and I would always talk to them it so happens the *Husband* would come over to my house and at first it was nice and friendly, then he started to pur his heart out and tell me that he was totally *Committed* to his wife that he was a devout catholic and would not divorce BUT his wife no longer was interested in sex and he wanted to see if I would help him out so to speak???
Couples beyond their child-bearing years? The public purpose is that it channels sexuality in a positive way. It helps prevent fornication/adultery and the transmission of disease.
Additionally, it's also possible for them to adopt.
Is it pretty generally accepted among believing Christians that alcoholism is grounds for divorce when the addict refuses to get help? I am struggling with this issue right now, and I want to do what's best for our two-year-old daughter.
That is a crock. You get married to share life with someone. What about a couple that can not have children. Should they get a divorce.
That being said, marriage is a sham. The only good thing that has come out of mine is my two beautiful children.
My first piece of advice to my sons will be: DON'T GET MARRIED. Period.
Alcoholism would be considered a form of addiction, wouldn't it? It's one thing if the alcoholic is willing to treat the problem -- through AA or some other means -- but an unwillingness to deal with it would, I think, be premissible grounds for divorce.
When divorce is necessary, it's good to do it as amicably as possible, but no divorce -- amicable or otherwise -- is good for children.
Remain friends with your step child, but don't bother with your ex other than to be "cordial". If you had communication problems before, they won't improve with distance. I tried for years to save my marriage, encourage counseling, bring in religious support to no avail. Keep your dignity, keep it clean and if you can let that child know you'll always be there.
----
I would like to do so. At present she will not talk to me. With caller ID it makes it impossible to call her. Have sent emails and get no response. It's hard on me as well.
Yep, they don't care for the kids, but an inlook into your homes to find an excuse to seize assets and the kids for the benefit of the government.
I think a divorce is better than staying married to a pedophile spouse or a fornicating one having a pedophile boyfriend around... yet our courts will side with the trouble maker because they want to encourage divorce so as to pay judges and lawyers.
Unless divorce becomes a federal issue "divorced" from the local conflict of interests of counties who think through them they can own people, we are dead. Then again our Federal School system is no good either, but at least interstate commerce would not be hampered by a bunch of ugly feminist lawyer money bags
In Christian marriage, the couple confers the sacrament. But marriage also serves a concommitant natural and public purpose, i.e., the perpetuation of society through the generation of children, and also the healthy channeling of sexuality. Marital separations involving children are inevitable, as are disputes regarding custody of children. It is the duty of the State to resolve these disputes, necessitating public (legal) recognition of marriages.
You want to Federalize divorce laws? That is a bad idea, marriage is a state issue and should remain that way. Enforcing a divorce law that works in Maryland may be disasterous for Texas, for example. I trust my state legistlators for make proper laws re marriage and divorce over Congress.
There are no rules in the Bible against divorce.
Matthew 19:6-9
This is some wisdom from Dennis Prager (oft quoted by Freeps)
source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/prager_same_sex_marriage.php3
One of the most frequently offered arguments by proponents of same-sex marriage is that it is not gays wanting to marry a member of the same sex that threatens the institution of marriage, it is the high divorce rate among heterosexuals.
One reason this argument is so often made is that it appeals to the religious as well as the secular, to conservatives as well as liberals.
This is too bad, because the argument is a meaningless non sequitur.
First, while divorce ends a given marriage, it does not threaten marriage as an institution. Of course, many marriages fail and end in divorce — while some other marriages fail and do not end in divorce — but why does this threaten marriage as an institution?
To understand the foolishness of the argument "divorce threatens marriage," let's apply this principle to other areas of life. Let's begin with parenthood. It is undeniable that vast numbers of people fail — and have always failed — as parents.
Yet, no one argues that the many parents who fail to raise good children threaten the institution of parenthood. Why, then, do marriages that fail threaten the institution of marriage?
Likewise, few people are calling for the redefinition of parenthood because parents so often fail to raise good children. Why, then, redefine marriage because many marriages fail?
When we think of parents failing, we think of ways to improve parenting, and we discourage people from becoming parents before they are ready. Why, then, don't we do the same regarding divorce — think of ways to improve marriages and discourage people from marrying before they are ready? Why must we radically redefine it? That redefinition is what threatens marriage.
There is a second reason the divorce-rate-threatens-marriage argument is disingenuous: If gays marry, they will divorce at least as often as heterosexuals do. That is why the divorce issue is entirely unrelated to the question of whether we should redefine marriage. The only reason the argument is even offered is because gullible people will buy it. The gullible include well-intentioned centrist Americans who think, "Hey, that's a good point. Straights sure haven't done such a great job with marriage; why not let gays have a crack at it?" And the gullible include well-intentioned religious Americans whose loathing of divorce overwhelms their critical thinking.
A third flaw in the argument is that it presupposes that every divorce constitutes a failure of a couple's marriage. Sometimes this is true; sometimes it is not. I know a couple married for 30 years who made a beautiful home for their three now-married children. The couple divorced last year because they had both concluded that they had drifted too far apart to continue living together in any meaningful way (one aspect of the drift was one partner's increasing devotion to religion and the other's decreasing interest in it).
Who has the hubris to call their marriage a failure? Their children surely don't think their parents' marriage was a failure. It produced three wonderful married adults, and it provided them a beautiful and loving home in which to grow up. One can only wish all marriages so "failed."
It is simplistic to maintain that the one criterion of success or failure in marriage is permanence. There are marriages that provided years of comfort to a couple and a fine home to their children that eventually end; and there are permanent marriages that have provided neither comfort to the couple nor a loving environment for their children. If the end of something renders it a failure, every one of our lives is a failure, since they all come to an end.
Finally, marriage is threatened not by divorce, but by people not marrying in the first place — as is increasingly the case in the two European societies that have redefined marriage to include couples of the same sex. Our present high divorce rate is not stopping the vast majority of Americans from wanting to marry. Nor should it.
Nothing provides the antidote to narcissism, or the environment for the healthy raising of children, or the way for people to take care of one another, as does the marriage of a man and a woman. And while most divorces are terribly sad, divorce itself no more undermines the institution of marriage than car crashes undermine the institution of driving. In fact, the vast majority of people who do divorce deeply wish to marry again; painful divorce has not undermined marriage even among those who have divorced.
Whom is correct because it is always used in reference to a preposition (for in this case).
A good example is that we use "to whom" it may concern in official writing, and not "to who".
As I said I do not believe that a legal marriage is necessary without children.
"I would like to do so. At present she will not talk to me. With caller ID it makes it impossible to call her. Have sent emails and get no response. It's hard on me as well."
Hard as it sounds, let go. Pray. Give yourself time to heal.
One of my best friends lost her husband she acquirred alot of material wealth, she is a wonderful godly person, she does not want to be married again HOWEVER she met a man who she does love but he comes with alot of debt from a horrible divorce, they are together hurting no one, they will not marry and I doubt they are going to hell for it..
I believe the article reports that about two-thirds of divorces are from low-conflict marriages; i.e., marriages that can't really be defined as a 'bad situation' except from the narcissistic viewpoint of the parents.
Sheesh...what a buzzkill you are.
Why deny your children something that could be wonderful for them?
Dont let them grow up thinking your just some bitter grump that just because marriage didnt work for you it couldnt work for them.
Child of divorced parents here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.