 |
What! Your comments are so far in left field from anything I said I cannot even begin to understand how I might respond. What drugs are these that allow you such fantasy like imagination, because I would need them in order to even begin to answer your outrageous assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Did I write in pig latin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
You propose there should be a constitutional ban on marriage. You argue that saying "til death parts us" implies a legal contract which should not be able to be broken. I'm telling you "til death parts us" is not included in every marriage ceremony (you actually argue it's a law, which it isn't, but I'm going to be nice and not mention that. Whoops.). So I'm asking you, if two people getting married don't say "til death parts us" do you consider they have entered into the legal contract of marriage? If you don't say those words, are you exempt from the ban because you never really contracted? If you did say those words, but no one can PROVE you said those words, can't you lie and say you didn't in order to get a divorce?
I don't know how to dumb down crowded jails and prisons and clogged up courtrooms. I also don't know how to dumb down asking you what you think a constitutional ban would solve or fix. I also don't know how to dumb down asking you if you honestly think the "moral decay" in the world is caused by divorce.
I've dumbed it down as much as I can. If you still don't get it, well... I'm not one for name calling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
NO to the proposed amendment.
How about a different legal tactic.
Ban NO FAULT divorce:
Proof of abuse, adultery, addiction, would be required.
I think this would cut down on the; I'm leaving you for a better looking person, or I'm leaving you because so and so makes more money, kind of divorces.
PREQUALIFY for marriage to address the main causes of divorces
Education for sexual, financial, child related, religious issues.
I think STRONGER marriages would help improve society.
Grace and Peace
inthebox, in a way I agree with you about the no fault divorces, but there are still some cases in which divorce is needed when abuse, etc is not present. Someone I know married a girl who made up stories about her parents being very ill; she gave us doctor names, medical conditions, made up a lawyer she was talking to... and when her one parent "died" she had the other parent attempt suicide and end up committed to a mental institution, where that parent later died of a bowel obstruction. She planned funerals; gave us location names, dates... then found a reason to cancel the service so no one would come. Her husband had no idea these stories were made up. Oh, and she was telling her family the same stuff (more or less) was happening to her husband's family! In the end, everyone was alive and well - she was just nuts and looking for attention (we guess). Anyway, she refused to get help (which I think anyone can agree she needed) refused to get a job for the duration of the marriage and burned through all the money her husband ever earned, putting him in tremendous debt. The husband divorced her. Now maybe other people would have stuck it out, but I think in a case like that, and no fault divorce was the best option. The real kicker? She seemd totally normal before they got married, held down a job and everything.
I think if divorce was HARDER and access to marriage counseling was more readily available we might see a reduction in divorce rates.
Also, I take issue with "prequalification" because who's decision is it if you get married or not? Everyone places different values on different things, so there's no formula for the "perfect marriage".
Why is it that people feel the need to place societies problem's on things that don't really cause the problem?
I see people blaming divorces, drugs, etc. In fact, if parents learned to say no to their kids more often and taught them the difference between right and wrong, things would be OK.
If our elected leaders set examples of how to properly behave, that would be a way to learn. I have see both US and Canadian scandals from our politicians and if they can be this corrupt, why do people think that it is divorces that are the problem?
And how can one “prove” abuse. I know of someone who was abused by her husband, but it was more mental abuse than physical abuse. So how could she have left him if she had to “prove” it?
As for marriages and divorces. Yes, some people rush into marriages far too quickly, but if we pose restrictions on that, who is to set those restrictions? That is just not right.
As for divorces, banning all or even some divorces is just wrong. What right does the government have to tell anyone that they MUST continue to live with a person who they HAVE to be married to? Relationships fall apart all the time. So perhaps if you have been dating your girlfriend for over a year, should you then NOT be allowed to break up with her?
Who is to say that you can only have a child with your wife? How about just a girlfriend?
Banning divorces will not solve any problems, it will just create more problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Wow seems , like a personality disorder or schizophrenia should be considred a "fault."
:)
I'll have to look it up, but aren't the top 3 reasons for divorce = money, sex, children?
I'm just suggesting education about these issues, before marriage - sort of like a preventative step.
After all, there's driver's ed and a driving test before legally being able to drive.
A good study may be to compare divorce rates between Roman Catholics that had Pre cana vs those couples that did not.
Grace and Peace
inthebox I recently looked up the top reasons for divorce and it seems like it changes depending on who does the reporting. Generally speaking though, it has to do with "incompatibility" which can be anything from how to discipline the kids, how to budget, or how often to have sex. So that's sort of a broad word to describe all of those things. Of course, logic tells us that of course people get divorced because they are "incompatible" because other wise there's no reason for it!
I see your point about "classes" before getting married, and I'm aware Catholics do that sort of thing. I think it's not a bad idea, as long as at the end you don't have someone giving you a pass/fail on if you can get married or not.
The classes you go through as a catholic really just focus on how to live with each other... its the same stuff you would learn from having a room mate. There needs to mbe more than that in a class. :) My hubby and I went through those classes when we were married, and we thought it was funny, because we had lived together for a year prior, and all they talked about was the things we learned through that time... there is a whole new set of issues to consider in the actual "marriage" lol... I agree with the classes or somehting to make it more difficult to et married on the fly.
The only thing I wonder is if you have two kids who are dumb and in love, a class (or whatever) might not dissuade them from getting married. They might also not ever apply what they learn to real-life.Quote:
Jesushelper76 agrees: No one gets a pass or fail, but you get to learn what differences you have and how to deal with them. Also what is similar. There is more to it then that of course.
I don't know, I still think education and example are the best ways to reduce the divorce rates.
I find it simply divine that so many posters spend all their energy trying to find methods of dealing with divorce rather than how to end divorce…just as people who try to find methods like welfare to deal with poverty, rather than trying to end poverty.
As I was reading the posts, I noticed some things were said about "If parents raised their kids right" -
Is that to say that if parents did their job then these kids wouldn't get into trouble? They would know the difference of right and wrong - and if they don't act like they do - then the parents messed up?
I think that is crazy (on a certain level). My parents have been married for over 42 years. They are very much in love and show it. They are a wonderful example of what a marriage looks like. As individuals, they are also great examples of what a good person, living a good, clean life looks like. I am very blessed to have the examples that I do.
Saying that - I, as well as my siblings, have gotten into trouble in the past. We have tried drugs, alcohol, etc. I skipped school as a teen, was rebelious.
My brother is divorced.
Did my parents not do their job?
I am a parent now. I am trying to do my very best everyday. When my child is old enough to make decisions for herself, I hope she makes the right ones. If she doesn't - have I failed? I hope not.
I think saying "parents should do their job" is a cop out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I know - we can end divorce by not allowing marriage. :D
Our "war on.." drugs or poverty or intolerance or a war to end all wars or insert human flaw here ______ is going so well. :p
Grace and Peace
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
You still haven't answered MY question back to you: How would making divorce illegal actually fix things?
To answer my original question in the OP- no! A ban on all divorces would not change the social decay in America, nor would making it harder to obtain be the solution to all our societal woes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
But what might lower the over 50% marriages that end in divorce would be such things as making marriages harder to obtain, not to end.
Forget the marriage counseling just before divorce and make it mandatory before marriage, higher ages of consent, require a marriage license, and then a waiting period before the ceremony, close drive-through "chapels-o-love", It almost seems obvious that the solution is to make marriages harder to obtain, not to end. Statistics support this claim too: the younger the couple was when they married, the more likely they are to divorce.
:p
You should be commended for trying, but I think your logic here is a bit flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
If you make it harder to “marry”, that doesn't solve anything.
So perhaps my girlfriend and I won't marry. Instead we will just live together, have kids together. 15 years from now when we separate, we aren't divorcing, because we never married. Yet, how is that any difference since our kids now have their parents living apart?
So what if the divorce rate is 50%?
If my girlfriend and I marry and in 5 years divorce, and we have no kids, who are we hurting by getting a divorce?
The real problems is when 2 people (whether married or just living together), break up, and they share kids together…that is what hurts society far more than 2 people with no kids who divorce.
Ohhh Captain, you just go ahead an do what-ever it is you people do, and don’t fret none over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainForest
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 PM. |