BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.

Subject: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:34 PM

Instead of worrying about marriage between same sex couples - wouldn't the best way to save traditional marriage be to just do away with divorce? "For better for worse - 'til death do us part"??

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

… 'til death do us part

Execute adulterers?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket being serious for once
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:52 PM

Who is worrying about marriage?

If it happens to you, invite me to the stag night. If it happens to someone else, nothing to see here.

Marriage is traditional. Those getting married are all getting married to each other for the first time, although a couple I know divorced and years later got hitched again.

No, to your question. The first Mrs Musket would have had no choice but to shoot me. Til death might be the only way out. We have been far better friends since not having to put up with each other. Also I wouldn't have met my responsible adult. That would never do....

What about abusive dangerous marriages... Divorce is, to use a phrase, a godsend. Before it became respectable, many people were trapped in loveless and often violent marriages.

Banning divorce doesn't save marriage. It makes marriage a huge gamble.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps the vows should be modified to "so long as we feel like staying together", with a proviso that if you prefer you can opt to the traditional version, but that means no option for divorce.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

I got a better idea. Eliminate the scourge of pre-marital and extra-marital sex...and the need for divorce...by bannin' marriage! Just eliminate the institution of marriage and all the other issues cease to BE issues. Divorce lawyers will also have to get real jobs or else starve if this is done.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:07 PM

I'm quite certain that Wesley suggested this in all seriousness, without the least bit of sarcasm....

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:15 PM

the best way to save traditional marriage

- ? You must specify what exactly you want to save, and whether it exists at all. Catholic marriages cannot be divorced, so there you are.

What I would like to be publicly fostered is responsible parenthood. (I would not like to save it because there has never been enough of it - least of all in marriages that only exist on paper.) Any other forms of living together, including man and woman without offspring, should be at the partners' choice, with or without formal contract. Public appreciation will vary - as it does with conventional marriages.

BTW, did you know that the Catholic church actually endorses same sex partnership, with an arbitrary number of simultaneous partners, and some even wearing golden rings?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:16 PM

What makes anyone think "traditional marriage" is in need of "saving"?

Some folks have way too much time on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:20 PM

Frogprince: I have the T-shirt that says "National Sarcasm Society - Like we need your help"

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:21 PM

Yeah, Greg...people like you and me. ;-D

Grishka - "Catholic marriages cannot be divorced"

Oh? Are you sure? I know of a number of Catholic marriages that ended in divorce, so it's certainly not impossible. The church may not like it, but it's been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:23 PM

Wesley - LOL! I bet their meetings are a lot of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM

I'm with Greg on this. Who says marriage needs saving?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 01:43 PM

There are churches - I would suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is one of them - where a marriage cannot be officially broken by divorce, in the sense that *they* believe/assume that manmade dicta cannot alter a union that God hath made.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:00 PM

"Married" homosexuals cannot get divorced on grounds of adultery, as the law is unable to define "gay adultery"

MORE re-definition required I think.....madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM

Ake, since when?

"'Gay' adultery" can easily be defined—and, in fact, IS defined—as when one member of the married couple has sexual relations with someone other than the person to whom they are married.

Adultery is adultery. So what's the problem?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM

For those who think divorce is too easy, there is something called a "covenant marriage" in which the couple imposes *on themselves* significantly more obstacles to getting out than the law normally does. Yeah, well, and lotsa people also think pre-nups are a bad idea. (Wisht I'da had one...)

Personally, I think more married gay couples will be good for the lot of us, since there will likely be fewer unattached gays milling around and making general mayhem.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:42 PM

Don.

The problem is Akenaton.

He is all for marriage so long as those queer bastards don't have any rights. They are sub human you see.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:54 PM

About Catholic marriages, we best ask Joe Offer. I realise that the OP is not serious, but in order to qualify for good sarcasm, he should be more specific.

In fact the "gay marriage" discussion shows us once more that western societies, apparently "enlighted", have largely failed to work out their moral foundations. One of the most common fallacies is to confuse the distinct notions of sex, genetic parenthood, partnership, and responsibility.

Akenaton, indeed we may hear people saying "my fathers-in-law do not like my mothers at all, but my husband is glad to have a husband like me!" But we already got used to "on Tuesdays I am with my father, and on Wednesdays I am with my dad."

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:38 PM

Ban divorce and increase separation by murder and the incidence of adultery.

"More fun, more people killed," as the old children's rhyme states.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:50 PM

Ban divorce and participants will find other exit strategies:

Come live with me and be my love
And we will all the pleasures prove
Of a marriage conducted with economy
In the Twentieth Century Anno Donomy.
We'll live in a dear little walk-up flat
With practically room to swing a cat
And a potted cactus to give it hauteur
And a bathtub equipped with dark brown water.
We'll eat, without undue discouragement
Foods low in cost but high in nouragement
And quaff with pleasure, while chatting wittily,
The peculiar wine of Little Italy.
We'll remind each other it's smart to be thrifty
And buy our clothes for something-fifty.
We'll stand in line on holidays
For seats at unpopular matinees,
And every Sunday we'll have a lark
And take a walk in Central Park.
And one of these days not too remote
I'll probably up and cut your throat.

Ogden Nash

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:18 PM

"To expect a young couple to marry and live with each other til the end of their days is not realistic." (Margaret Meade,anthropologist, paraphrased).

I am not the same person I was when I married the first time at the age 0f 21. I was not the same 21 year old when I remarried at the age of 50, and I am not the same person I was when I married at the age of 70. My wives were not the same people either.

Is there no room for logic and reality? Hell, I don't even know that guy! I was a republican when I was 30, now I look back and wonder, "What the hell was I thinking"?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:20 PM

The problem is the rigidity of marriage. And the disgusting nature of people. If everybody had a conscience it would be easy. I hear more and more stores about other people's ex-partners that make me think that there are too many people on this earth who do not deserve to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:33 PM

In the UK Don, the ruling is that "married" homosexuals cannot commit adultery as they do not have proper sexual intercourse as defined in law.

Perhaps Richard could throw a little light on the issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:56 PM

I suppose it would make more sense if people stopped talking about the stuff said in weddings as "vows", and called them "aspirations" or "hopes". Vows by definition are irrevocable.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:59 PM

Ebbie - "There are churches - I would suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is one of them - where a marriage cannot be officially broken by divorce, in the sense that *they* believe/assume that manmade dicta cannot alter a union that God hath made."

Uh-huh. But they are overlooking the possibility that God can alter that union...by working through the will and consciousness of individual human beings to do so. The Church is blithely assuming that they KNOW in advance what God's will is and what it continues to be...and they don't. ;-D

This is essentially the argument Joan of Arc had with the Church. She said, in effect, that a person's individual, personal connection with God (direct contact with God without any clerical intermediaries to do it for you) overrules what the Church might have to say about it, because the Church may represent God...but it isn't God! Her first loyalty was not to the Church Militant (the earthly institution and its officials) but the Church Triumphant (God and God's Angelic messengers). This is not to say she didn't love the Church. She did. But she did not regard it as the highest spiritual authority...rather one's own direct connection with God had to be the highest form of guidance.

The Church of the time, of course, was profoundly upset by what she was saying! It threatened their temporal power and control, so they convicted her of heresy on no real evidence of any such thing, thus allowing the English Army to conveniently get rid of a very dangerous enemy by executing her. However, she proved even more powerful in death than in life, as often happens with great martyrs, and the English got kicked out of France within five short years of her death...managing to hang on to nothing but the port of Calais.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:05 PM

The principle of freedom under the law requires that logic and reality, as appreciated by individual citizens, take precedence over authoritarian or moralistic dictates based on some hierarchical make-believe power structure.

Individual make-believe is JUST as powerful as organized make-believe.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:11 PM

Yes! It is. On an individual basis. What worries me, though, is how organized make-believe can mobilize vast temporal power and millions of people to do its unholy work FOR it...as is done by governments all the time when they wage war.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:17 PM

Aspirant Pharaoh, take me to your ruling.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:25 PM

Say what? Are you having those visions again, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:40 PM

What worries me, though, is how organized make-believe can mobilize vast temporal power and millions of people to do its unholy work

Now there's overwhelming bullshit in spades.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 06:51 PM

Could you elaborate on that for a few pages, Greg? ;-) It's a slow day here, and I hang on your every word. I was thinking, for instance, of how Hitler mobilized millions of Germans around his various forms of organized make-believe...just to give a single example of what I'm alluding to. History is loaded with other examples of it, but that one is one of the most spectacular cases in more recent times.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 07:44 PM

Marriage is a civil contract to make provision for inheritance of property and provision for children.

If a couple then decides to have a religious ceremony, they should probably follow the precepts of that religion.

Not all Christian denominations find homosexuality to be sinful and a number ordain non-celibate homosexuals...and also have no objection to gay marriage. And some denominations are split (and, since in some of those denominations, the congregation rules, congregations will have differing beliefs from each other).

I really wish that the leaders of gay inclusive Christian denominations would be as vocal as some of the hate-spewing denominations. Some of those hate-spewing denominations would find Curmudgeon's and my marriage to be suspect because we, by choice, never had children and had no intention of having children at the time we married. There are those who would say we are not truly married since they believe the only purpose of marriage is procreation (and that sex for any other purpose is sinful).

Sometimes, too, it's just a matter of someone looking at what has been a tradition in one's culture and actually thinking about it. Change isn't necessarily bad...and sometimes that change is going back to an earlier tradition. Marriage in both concept and ritual has evolved in the early years of the Christian church. http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:33 PM

Ake, "proper sexual intercourse?"

I was always under the impression that adultery was improper sexual intercourse.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:53 AM

Not just me then.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:16 AM

I got married in 1971, and I got married for life in a Catholic wedding. I think my bride expected a lifelong marriage, too; but within a year it was clear that she was profoundly unhappy. We had three kids and did our best to raise them and to preserve our marriage and our family, but I started expecting my wife to kick me out of the house in 1978. We lasted until 1992.

My ex filed a petition for a Catholic Church annulment of our marriage on the grounds of "psychological unpreparedness," and the annulment was granted. She was married and divorced twice after that, and she's now single. I got married about ten years after my divorce, and I'm still happily married - and my ex and my current wife get along very well. I also have a nice relationship with my ex-wife. We had three children together, so it's important that we maintain some sort of relationship.

I think the reason for my divorce, was that my wife suffered from depression and anxiety - and I suppose I was the most obvious person to blame for that, whether I was responsible or not. I still believe in lifelong marriage, even though mine didn't work. I'm glad I was able to get an annulment and marry again in the Catholic Church, but I think the Catholic annulment process is duplicitous. I think that churches must preserve the ideal of lifelong marriage, but they should recognize that some marriages fail despite the best efforts of the people involved. I think it would be best if churches would recognize divorce, but require a long period - at least a couple years - before remarriage.

Pope Francis, are you listening?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 05:48 AM

He may very well be listening, Joe. Just strikes me as that kinda guy.

Some very good points of discussion. Interesting reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM

OTOH my first wife Valerie & I were both atheists, she of Anglican & I of Jewish extraction, married in a Register Office, did a bit of CofE churchgoing in middle age as a sort of keep-up-traditions thing to see if it had anything to offer us, but, as she put it, it never took.

And we were married for nearly ½C ~~ over 48 years ~~ until death us did part. Lots of friends & relations divorced around us, as people do these days. But we had agreed when we got engaged that we didn't believe in divorce and never would. And never did.

Not sure what this proves, if anything. I simply state it anecdotally, with no suggestion of any conclusion to be drawn.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM

Is marriage itself on the way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:01 AM

Wary as I am about getting involved in cultural poitics, I believe in both marriage and divorce. The score's 2-1 and I sincerely hope it will stay that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:03 AM

Of course a sure-fire way to eliminate the awful stain of divorce plaguing our society, would be to ban marriage..

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: GUEST,Musket being rude so look away now
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:20 AM

Whilst we are at it, lets ban virginity to dissuade people from fucking. Sorry, just following the logic of this thread.

I have a similar story to Joe's. like Joe, i am lucky to have a friend still at the end of it and our reasons for divorce were our own but mutual. Pressure to drag out unhappy or in many cases violent or abusive marriages exists and ones from religious objections in the main.

19th century. Being pious was a virtue.
20th century. Being pious was a personal attribute.
21st century. Being pious can exacerbate society's issues.

My wife's family are active Christians. Her brother reckons we are not married because a) I have been married before and b) we didn't marry in a church but a hotel. I wonder, just wonder how much his sister hurts because of his despicable putting his faith before the feelings of his family? I know the answer of course. Many people are so blind to their faith they are blind to what their faith reckons to promote...

We see it in the bigotry around gay marriage. Akenaton states above that anal sex isn't sex so gay people can't commit adultery. Just read what he put before putting me down for attacking his views will you all?

I suppose anal sex with the woman next door isn't grounds for divorce then? (An aside, when I was an apprentice, the men I worked with referred to anal sex as Greek contraception. It was a different world back then......)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM

No marriages = No divorces.

Problem solved.

Marriage is an outdated concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 11:57 AM

Background checks before marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 11:59 AM

Sorry, I'd meant that to be a blue clicky...must have gotten distracted.

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University's history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)."

Early Christian History

BTW, I posted that on Curmudgeon's and my 31st wedding anniversary. He and I both had 10 year "apprenticeships" before we met and married. He's on excellent terms with his ex as am I. I haven't heard from my ex for about 30 years and that's a good thing -- he was an alcoholic who tried to kill me to keep me from leaving him. I last saw him when they carried me out of the house on a stretcher. I knew first hand about how many rights a woman gives up to marry, so Tom knew how much I trusted him in order to marry him. (Yes, before meeting him, I had sworn I'd never be so stupid as to marry again.)

Linn

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM

According to Glen Beck - now that gay marriage is "legal" - the next step is polygamy. "It's the next logical step - just you watch and see".

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:25 PM

'now that gay marriage is "legal" - the next step is polygamy. "It's the next logical step'
.,,.,.

I fear the 'logic' eludes me.

Pray expound.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:32 PM

Polygamy? And why not? It's been a well-respected custom in a number of cultures.

People only object to things which they find unusual (or which are quite painful/physically harmful), generally speaking. If they're accustomed to something, then they find no reason to object to it.

Along this general line of thought...suppose we had had a custom in all human societies for the last thousand years to remove a child's left little finger just after birth? (And who cares why? People make up reasons for all kinds of arbitrary things, and then they obey them.) If we did have such a custom...I bet none of us here would have a left little finger, we wouldn't find that remarkable at all, but we'd be a bit shocked if we encountered someone who still HAD their left little finger! It would play merry hell with guitar technique to be missing the left little finger, of course, but I'm sure people would find ways to adapt to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:35 PM

Anyway, I take a different view of it than Glenn Beck does. I think the next logical step is to acquire a Dachshund. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:45 PM

You want ME to explain Glen Beck's logic??? Not even Glen Beck can do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Defend Marriage? Ban Divorce.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 02:22 PM

Don't particularly 'want' anything, Wes; but I presume if you quote him you have some reason for doing so. Otherwise why do it? Now it appears you despise his opinions as being random & illogical. But yet you cite them as if some sort of authority to be taken into consideration.

Are you feeling OK, my dear fellow?

Didn't even know, btw, who this Mr Beck was till I googled him on wikipedia. Seems big on radio over there, but not any sort of name to conjure with around these parts.

~M~