Posted on 11/10/2005 12:28:27 PM PST by Wolf13
Excellent post
well for one thing, because it is easy to get a divorce and there is no social stigma attached to it, people enter into marriage more lightly. let's see how this works out, if it doesn't, no big deal, there's always divorce. THAT is how it impacts the institution of marriage, it cheapens it. Instead of entering into a lifelong commitment, it's a phase, something to give a whirl. there is a built in backdoor.
I think that's very overstated. Millions of people get married and have stayed married. Men with an unusal fear of marriage are probably just fearful men on balance who don't have many takers, anyway.
I want to get married and have a family. I think the divorce laws are on balance fair and have no problem with dividing community property should I decide that I don't want my bride anymore (abandonment, adultery, or other good reasons) or if my bride decides she would rather play house with the UPS guy.
Fair is fair - anything I own becomes 1/2 hers when we get married. The corollary of that is that her half is still her half should we split up. My half is still my half, though. It's fair.
Some companies offer "spouse" benefits for unmarried couples (same sex as well as opposite sex).
Unmarried couples don't want to be stigmatized. The Sex Positive agenda marches on. No moral judgements over any sexual relationship regardless of age, sex, marital status, relation, number or species of partner. If it feels good, do it.
Well "free love" isn't free.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue47/051102cul.asp
Bottom line: modern culture is destroying the very foundations of our society, including the sanctity of marriage.
One cure for shacking up might be that parents stipulate in their will that any heir living in such a relationship will be disinherited. If the child dishonors their parent's moral code, he should forfeit the right to being considered a part of the family he rejected and should not expect an inheritance.
that divorce exists doesn't undermine marriage, that divorce is no-fault, easy to get and quick and dirty, does. growing apart should not be grounds for divorce.
I basically agree with you, but it's the best course in a set of possible courses.
There is a lot of downside with no-fault divorce. There is a lot of downside in crafting a policy that forces people who can't stand each other to stay together, too.
If I were a man with a positively dreadful bride, I think divorce should be one of my options. I think a woman with a perfectly dreadful hubby should have divorce as an option, too. What's the other fair alternative, given that there are problems with all the alternatives?
That's incorrect.
Of all the kids I went to school or played with, I only recall two having divorced parents. In one case, the husband was cheating, in the other, the husband was in jail.
I hope this doesn't come as a BFO...it's not always about you.
Many will and are.
I don't believe they have any power over ME and MY decisions. I don't subscribe to the belief that personal responsibility is "only for saps".
How much thought have you actually put into it, or is it all an "I don't like this " type of thing for you?
I have literally thought about such things for decades. And one of my conclusions is that if you THINK your behavior is controlled by outside forces, then, in fact, it IS.
When society gets nudged and pushed by a detemined group of institutions, like the liberals movement folks and the MSM, for decades, with little resistance because most decent folks had no real recourse to check all the lies they were being fed..
In my experience, people believe the lies they want to believe. What happens in MY marriage has nothing to do with society. One's faith and morals is much more influenced by one's upbringing, and those habits instilled when growing up. And then there are real decisions that the individual makes. My parents are saints, yet my brother went through a divorce... and I believe the responsibility lies with HIM. If he wants to blame "society" or "MSM" or whatever, then he can, he certainly can't credibly blame his upbringing.
We still get to make choices and suffer the consequences.
But I also know that personal responsibility is not so popular these days -
no fault divorce is a modern convenience to allow you a do-over. if it weren't so readily available, if you really did have to prove fault, then people would think long and hard before entering into the marriage contract.
I agree - I am 37 and want to marry but am in no rush to.
Most of the people I know who married before age 25 are either divorced or at least one partner is miserable. Most of the people I know who married past age 30+ are much more content and still together.
Most of the people in this evaluation are men, I have to admit. I don't know if thats important or not to point out.
well for one thing, don't hook up with someone in vegas and go to an allnight wedding chapel, know who you are marrying so as to avoid a DREADFUL BRIDE ; ) (being as you live there)
i was 28 when we got married, we had both graduated from law school, passed the bar and gotten jobs. i think the fact that we were settled into who we WERE, and not in some state of flux has contributed to the longevity of our marriage.
HEY, getting married in a drive-through by an Elvis impersonator to a cheap flooize has a certain oldschool charm, you know. ;-)
dang good chance of getting someone DREADFUL that way, ; )
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.