M-13 - Marriage, Divorce & Society

[leenielou]

I did try to search for anything like this and nothing specific came up, but if it is contained elsewhere then I apologise.

We all know that divorce is a bitter and sometimes painful subject; it isn't easy to either be the divorcing couple or the children of the marriage. But what do you think has prompted the seven year long rise in the divorce rate?

Last year, the amount of divorces was quoted (http://society.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,7838,1031569,00.html) as being 13.3 in every 1000 couples married. It may not look a lot on paper, but that would be around 26 couples divorcing in just a small town or village.

My own personal theory is that the declining church-going rate has contributed to this. I can't find any information on these rates (although it did apparantly improve in the last few months) but it is logical. Christianity preaches marriage as a union before God, and encourages life-long monogamy and no divorce. Although the Church of England does allow divorce, it isn't exactly hyped up as the most excellent thing. If less people attend church, then less people hear this message...less people take marriage seriously...more divorces.

Of course, there must be many other factors, so what does everyone think that they could be?

[Weatherby]

I'm a child of divorced parents. They divorced when I was two. If my mom hadn't divorced my dad I'd more than likely be dead as he died driving drunk. She often had to prevent him from taking all of us in the car with him when he was drinking. The rest is too private to discuss here.
I think she made the best decision. I sometimes wish I had known him [but not as an alchie] but I was too young to notice any difference being raised by only my mom.

Religion isn't advising people correctly if they keep their kids in a siutation where they'd be harmed.
It's sad how many people stay in a relationship because having two parental units is apparently better than one.

People aren't always willing to make relationships work and sometimes throw the towel in more quickly than they would if they had moral aversions to divorce. They might be able to work it out if they had to but
forcing people to stay together for society's sake? That's silly. You've got to think of yourself because it's you and your spouse in the relationship.
Not your next door neighbours or your boss.

[Picko]

My parents separated in the last year and divorced recently. It was the best thing that has ever happened to me. I agree with Weathery that religion doesn't always advise people correctly given that it has far too much influence over some people. Over time relationships change and people change. Who you are at 25 is very different to 45 and the same goes for your partner. Divorce is a logical and needed aspect of society and if the situation fits then it shouldn't be looked down upon by anyone.

[leenielou]

Religion isn't advising people correctly if they keep their kids in a siutation where they'd be harmed.

I do agree with this. I probably didn't phrase my post properly, but what I meant was that a decline in religious feelings may lead to marriage itself being taken less seriously. By all means, if you are truly unhappy then get a divorce, especially if it's what is best for the children. But surely if the religious aspect of marriage being forever had applied before the marriage, then the people would have realised that perhaps there was not enough there for it to be able to last this long? (By the way, I don't mean to cause any offence, I'm talking about a hypothetical marriage here).

So has marriage just become something that is a short term thing?

I think that the destruction of sex as a social taboo may also have something to do with the desire that many people have to rush into marriage today - which can lead to more divorces. Also women becoming more equal to men...I'm sure that in days gone by men would have had affairs and their wives would have turned the other cheek. But now most women stand up to it.

[Picko]

I think that the destruction of sex as a social taboo may also have something to do with the desire that many people have to rush into marriage today - which can lead to more divorces.

But the average age of individuals getting married has increased which suggests the very opposite. People are not rushing into marriage and are perhaps having more partners before getting married so their final choice should seemingly be more refined than what it would've been in the past.

[Silvilocks]

I do agree with this. I probably didn't phrase my post properly, but what I meant was that a decline in religious feelings may lead to marriage itself being taken less seriously. By all means, if you are truly unhappy then get a divorce, especially if it's what is best for the children. But surely if the religious aspect of marriage being forever had applied before the marriage, then the people would have realised that perhaps there was not enough there for it to be able to last this long? (By the way, I don't mean to cause any offence, I'm talking about a hypothetical marriage here).

So has marriage just become something that is a short term thing?
The decline in religion may have had an impact, but I'm not sure it's a major one. I married very soon after "giving up" religion - but I never had any intention of my marriage being anything other than for life. I've been married 20 years, and three times we've come within a knife edge of divorce. But every time we've agreed that we didn't marry (and we haven't worked at marriage) just to walk away during the bad times. My husband has never had any religious beliefs, and I've shaken mine completely, so I'd have to say in our case religion isn't a factor in how we view our marriage, or in our staying together. I do think there is a case for changing the words of a civil wedding ceremony so that you promise something other than "till death". I think a lot of people promise that too lightly - and also overlook that it is a promise.

[WeasleyIsOurKing]

My parents have been divorced since I was 7, and I'm not quite sure if I can say that their divorce has anything to do with religion. My dad was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools his whole life, and my mom was raised Lutheran, but neither of them right now are very devoted now. They divorced because they both cheated on each other, which maybe might not have happened if they had had more religious devotion, but it's hard to say. I mean, look at the Catholic priests who have molested young children! They're supposed to be completely devoted to God, but look what they did.

Maybe going to church or upholding a bigger role in a religious organization would hold marriages together better. Who knows? But I'm pretty sure that divorce has more to do with the relationship and man and wife have than how often they go to church.

[Animagi rock!]

I don't think the high divorce rate has much to do with religion. I know very religious couples who have gotten divorced anyway and couples where both are atheists that have stayed together.

A bigger reason, I think, is female emancipation. As you said, a few decades ago women were expected to put up with a lot of things from their husbands (cheating, getting beaten up by them, etc. ) and still stay with them. Religion might have kept these people tother formerly because it was a big religious taboo to get divorced. But to tell you the truth, I'd rather have a woman stand up to her husband and get a divorce than stay with him anyway if he treats her badly, so I don't think divorce is such a bad thing in these cases.

Also, not too long ago, marriage was something that was arranged by the family and was done more because the two people fit together in their social status than because they loved each other. Nowadays people get married out of love and only stay married as long as they love each other. Because your feelings for someone may change over time, there's a possibility that you might fall out of love with your husband/wife and in those cases it might be better for both partners to move on and maybe find new love. Who says divorce always has to be a bad thing?

[MadMagic]

My parents are divorced, but they get along really well with each other. This is really odd, but we have always gone on vacations with both parents, even since they have been divorced.

I don't know the cause of my parents divorce (probably alcohol), but I don't think it is related to religion. I think that really often these days people get married and don't really consider what they are doing. It is only after that they realize they don't really have much in common and they don't really get along all that well. I'm sure they are in love when they marry, but perhaps the term 'love' gets thrown around too much these days.

[vickygirl4]

I think the divorce rate has increased because divorce has become more accepted in society. In the past, just as many people probably wanted to end their marriages, but they were afraid of being shunned by their friends and relatives. The divorcees would have been looked upon as disenters from the norm and as going against society. Now, because divorce is more or less accepted, people aren't as scared of divorce.

Religion isn't advising people correctly if they keep their kids in a siutation where they'd be harmed.
It's sad how many people stay in a relationship because having two parental units is apparently better than one.


I completely agree with this. I recently read an article about Muslim women in abusive relationships. The article states that most Muslim women will stay with the abusive partner because divorce is condemned in their religion. Their families often make them work the marriage out, threatening to disown them if they do get divorced. In some situations, divorce is simply the best option.

My parents separated a few years back, and got divorced last year. I think the divorce made all of our lives easier. While I miss my father (I only see him twice a year), I don't miss the constant screaming and my mother crying.

[Weatherby]

I don't think people actually are divorcing at the drop of a hat. There is the financial costs to consider and those can be quite costly.
People are more willing to work things out if they have kids and money to consider.
Court battles can be very ugly and stressful.

The main change is people aren't as accepting of infedilty as they were expected to be in the past.
Back then women at least were supposed to turn the other cheek. In America we're very moralistic about such things. Society says it's unacceptable to be with more than one person. People get divorced over infedility more than anything else [at least I presume they do.]
That's a subject for another thread though. :)

The question I propose to everyone now is :
What is 'for better or worse' to you? How seriously should people take this vow?

[leenielou]

What is 'for better or worse' to you? How seriously should people take this vow?

This is complicated, because by me saying that in my opinion, 'for better for worse' means exactly that, then it could be applied to possibly abusive marriages, or marriages where the people are not in love anymore, or couples who row all the time etc etc and this clearly cannot be right.

And I guess that you cannot really rewrite the vows of marriage to include 'for better for worse except if....'

If someone is unhappy within a marriage, then they shouldn't have to take the vow too seriously. But there are varying degrees of unhappiness - if people are just bored or have affairs then it's really making a mockery of the whole priniciple of marriage.

Basically, if you look at any serious problems arising within a marriage with the phrase 'for better for worse' in mind, then it can be seen that due to the social acceptance of divorce, female equality, and decline in religious store set upon the words, they have almost become obsolete. Does anyone really follow them anymore?

[Weatherby]

I suppose 'for better or worse' could still apply to someone getting demoted then having their wife divorce them because they can't shop as often or vice versa. People should be able to count on their spouse for support.
But as you said it would also mean abusive relationships, drug addictions, affairs and the like.

I think there are people who follow them but I think marriage really only helps with custody and property laws.
Otherwise it's just a piece of paper. That paper doesn't prevent someone from leaving you and the kids.
It does allow them to rake up debt and leave you to pay for it though.

[Silvilocks]

The question I propose to everyone now is :
What is 'for better or worse' to you? How seriously should people take this vow?I'm clear enough on this in my mind, but I'm not sure how well I can put it into words. The "worse" between a couple has to have limits. It doesn't mean a wife has to stay with a husband who beats her, or that a man has to put up with a wife who dives into the pub on payday every week and blows all her wages on drink. I think that vow does mean you have to see if it's possible to work around something like that as a couple, but if it can't be done then there's no blame on the one who's tried to resolve the problem(s) and finally says "enough" and leaves the marriage.

I do think it's a serious vow when it comes to facing the worse that a couple can have to face that comes from outside the marriage. Money problems, one or both unemployed, family problems, etc. That vow means facing the problems together, trying to solve them if possible, and if that can't be done then getting through them until things hopefully swing back towards the better. It means being supportive and making allowances. It's no good understanding that you're husband won't be a happy bunny while he's unemployed - you have to understand that as well when he comes home and yells at you for no reason except that you're the only person he can yell at. It also means that in the first year of marriage you don't walk out because your wife is a lousy cook, or because your husband snores. The first year is when you are going to find out the worse about your new partner.

Reading that through, I'm still not sure if I've explained exactly what I mean. At the end of the day though, to me it still is (and I hope always will be) a vow I take very seriously.

[leenielou]

Silvilocks, I think you described it better than I ever could have. What you said was what I wanted to say, but couldn't think how. So I agree with you completely.

[auror]

I think the increase in divorce rates are a result of economical freedom that many women have these days. Women weren’t used to working in the first half of the 20th century. But with two world wars, which leaded to a decrease in male population, women had to work to look after themselves and their families. Starting from those times, women rights became very important and many women understood that they could gain money as much as their husbands could. The divorce rate’s increase started with this realization. Women didn’t allow their husbands to abuse themselves because they weren’t in need of their husband’s money or power to live.

The economic power for women acts as the security of life, which can be obtained without a husband or a male figure in life. Women who have a job and earn money are independent and they have less concerns about economical problems. Even though society’s pressure and religion have some effects on a woman’s decision about divorce; the main and most important concern is economical status. More women being independent economically, the less toleration they have to their husbands…

So I don’t think that this increase of divorce rate has much to do with religion.

[haycheng]

I'm clear enough on this in my mind, but I'm not sure how well I can put it into words. The "worse" between a couple has to have limits. It doesn't mean a wife has to stay with a husband who beats her, or that a man has to put up with a wife who dives into the pub on payday every week and blows all her wages on drink. I think that vow does mean you have to see if it's possible to work around something like that as a couple, but if it can't be done then there's no blame on the one who's tried to resolve the problem(s) and finally says "enough" and leaves the marriage.

I do think it's a serious vow when it comes to facing the worse that a couple can have to face that comes from outside the marriage. Money problems, one or both unemployed, family problems, etc. That vow means facing the problems together, trying to solve them if possible, and if that can't be done then getting through them until things hopefully swing back towards the better. It means being supportive and making allowances. It's no good understanding that you're husband won't be a happy bunny while he's unemployed - you have to understand that as well when he comes home and yells at you for no reason except that you're the only person he can yell at. It also means that in the first year of marriage you don't walk out because your wife is a lousy cook, or because your husband snores. The first year is when you are going to find out the worse about your new partner.

Reading that through, I'm still not sure if I've explained exactly what I mean. At the end of the day though, to me it still is (and I hope always will be) a vow I take very seriously.

I like your answer!!. :clap: There are many fact involve in the issue. First, there are those bad marriage that are beyond repair(wife hit husband or vice, alchol, constant affair, etc) If one of the partner refuse to change despite the best effort of their partner, I see little reason to keep the marriage. Some of these bad marriage are keep because of the society/religious reason. Now, as soceity changed, people choose to divorce, and it should be done. However, I believe there are marriage vow broken because people do not take the vow as seriously. A person should never have an affair once they are marry, and I believe the rate of affair has increased. There may be also couples less willing to stay with their partner during the bad time. It complately destory the reason of a marriage in the first place.

[vickygirl4]

I think "for better of for worse" only applies when there is still love in the relationship. If the marriage is going through a rough time, but the husband and wife still love each other, they should work it out. But the two should not remain in a loveless marriage under any circumstances. That would be unfair to everyone involved.

[Silvilocks]

I think "for better of for worse" only applies when there is still love in the relationship. If the marriage is going through a rough time, but the husband and wife still love each other, they should work it out. But the two should not remain in a loveless marriage under any circumstances. That would be unfair to everyone involved.
I agree in principle, but IMO it's far more important to like each other. There have been a couple of times in my marriage when I honestly couldn't say that I loved my husband, but at bottom we've always liked each other, and most important of all we've always been friends. If that had gone at any time, there'd have been no question of working through the bad times.

Following on from how seriously people should take the vow "for better or worse" - now and again I've seen suggestions that the words of the marriage ceremony should be changed, or that there should be a few alternatives. It was finally agreed that women need not promise to obey if they chose (I didn't), but it's also been suggested that maybe some alternative should be offered to "till death us do part". I've always assumed that this would only apply to civil ceremonies and not religious. If you could drop part of the current version what would go? Or what would you want included? Looking back, something about joint custody of the TV remote would have gone into our wedding. :rasp: Any thoughts?

[Animagi rock!]

I know that my parents left out the "till death do us part" because they saw friends of theirs divorce who had been deeply in love at first and didn't want to promise anything they couldn't keep. They're still together after almost 25 years :p .

I definately won't promise to obey my husband if I get married. That's a bit outdated if you ask me. The "for better or worse" should be taken more seriously by some people, though I'm sure most couples will try and work out their problems before getting a divorce. There's a limit on how far you should go, however, in trying to save a marriage where there's no love anymore or maybe even violence. Some people are better off without each other.

[Angora]

I agree with the people who've said it has to do in part with women's rights. I think it also has to do with the more liberal view we've adopted in the last century that people can do what they want and it's not for anyone else to judge. Also, we live in huge cities now where we might not even speak to our neighbours, and when you live in samll communities you care more what other people think of you (even if you don't agree with them).

I think divorce is a good thing. If you're unhappy together, or if you want such different things that it doesn't make sense to stay together any more, you should go your seperate ways. I don't think marriage is something you should use to chain someone to you for the rest of your life.

The whole "for better or worse" spiel always seemed to me like a fancified way of affirming unconditional love (or unconditional positive regard, if you like) that if they lost their job, or their hair, or their mind or whatever you wouldn't suddenly scorn them. But, not a binding contract in the ACT of getting married, just an affirmation of what you already feel.

I have whole long opinions about adultery that I won't get into here. As far as children go, studies show that even without the children being in physical danger, it's better for them psychologically if their parents divorce than if they live with parents who don't get along or are terribly unhappy.

[MadMagic]

I was at a Catholic wedding with my mom Saturday and the priest starting talking about how bad divorce was. I was there with my divorced, catholic mother and it made me so mad. I wanted to go give the preist a piece of my mind.

[LuvCreevey]

I think that divorce is sometimes necessary. I also feel like that this day in age people give up way to easily. *I am not saying that everyone does* Marriage is hard. Yes, people grow apart, the key is always having a place to be together (spiritually). While I realize that sometime there is just no meeting of the souls, and both parties are not happy and cannot be so together, I also think that people just make excuses so they don't have to work at their marriages. I think these days a lot of people expect their marriage to be like they see in TV and movies. I think if a lot more people would put a little work, and maintenance into their marriage, the divorce rates would go way down. I just think it is a shame that many people put more work into their careers, cars or hobbies, than their family relationships.

[bellatrix669]

I did several searches for this topic, but if a thread on this does exist, please close this one. And I know that there's already a thread on same-sex marriage, but I feel this one is different because of the issue of religion's role in government that comes into play here. However, should any mods feel differently, then by all means close this thread.

Anyway, President Bush has officially declared Oct. 12-18 "Marriage Protection Week," and since I don't feel like explaining it in great detail, I've pasted an article from another website.

(Washington, D.C.) Despite objections from LGBT civil rights groups, President George W. Bush has signed a proclamation supporting Marriage Protection Week to be held October 12-18. No such proclamation was issued by the White House for a similar week supporting same-sex relationships.
"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents," the presidential proclamation declares.

"Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America," the statement, released by the White House, says.

It goes on to state that: "Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home."

Marriage Protection Week was created by an alliance of conservative Christian lobby groups including the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and Real Women, along with fundamentalist ministers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

The Bush proclamation also states that: "We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect."

"During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society," the proclamation concludes.

The Human Rights Campaign Monday issued a strong criticism of the proclamation.

"It is reprehensible for a president who claims to be compassionate to pander to a coalition of extremist groups by joining their assault on gay families," said Elizabeth Birch, HRC's executive director.

"The American people want to see politicians in Washington concentrating on the real threats to our families - an unstable economy, high unemployment rates and uncertainty in Iraq - not guaranteeing that same-sex couples are left without more than 1,000 rights, responsibilities and protections under federal law."

The nation's LGBT Democrats also rebuked the President for signing the proclamation.

"The Bush Administration has issued a direct attack on millions of American families on behalf of anti-gay organizations," Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director told 365Gay.com. "President Bush has failed to address even one of the thousands of issues that negatively impact our families, yet he has chosen to grant discrimination a federal blessing with this proclamation."

The same week as conservatives hold Marriage Protection Week , supporters of same-sex marriage will hold Marriage Equality Week.

Hundreds of Metropolitan Community Churches across the United States will dedicate the week to the legalization of same-sex marriage. (story (http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/092503marriagedemos.htm))

"During the same week that the Religious Right will work to deny a basic human right to gays and lesbians, hundreds to faith communities will take public stands in support of equality in the marriage laws for gay couples," said the Rev Troy Perry, MCC moderator.

Proposed legislation seeking a constitutional amendment to permanently ban same sex marriage is currently working its way through the House of Representatives
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main reason why I'm posting this is partly because I am currently taking a class on American sex controversies and partly because I'd be interested to know other people's perspectives on this. So my questions are as follows:
1. Is this ethical?
2. Is this a violation of separation of church and state?
3. Any other comments?

I'm going to withhold judgment until others respond, though you probably can guess what side I'm going to take in this matter.

[Lianni Banks]

Woah...what a loaded thread this is going to be!

I would like to begin by saying that I've never really been too supportive of the American Government at times and this article really made me upset in some ways.

The comment about how 'research has shown that children who grow up in hoouse-holds with married parents...."..really erked me because I've grown up in a family where my parents were divorced and while initially it was hard and there was some adjusting to be done, I would have rather my parents separate than me grow up listening to them argueing and fighting. In many cases the family unit is better off when the parents separate in order to maintain everyone's sanity - it sure worked in my case and now my parents are better friends now than they were when they were married. And because of the separation I've grown up into a pretty well-adjusted young lady! lol
Also, more and more families are being separated by divorce so I think President Bush and his Administration would have had to look pretty hard to find families that were still together and happy because lets face it, in today's society they are few and far between..

I think divorce and family separation is a terrible thing and is extremely hard on all those concerned however, at the end of the day it may be better off.

To preserve the sanctity of marriage is also extremely important but I don't believe that it should be limited to just hetro-sexual couples. I think Governments world wide need to realise that in society today there are many mixed family relationships occurring more and more and it's high time they recognised them as legitimate family units. I feel that a homo-sexual family is just as well-equiped and experience to tackle the job of parenting and I feel that these families should be recognised the same way as hetro-sexual families under the same 'Protection Week'...

I'm going to have to re-read that article and hopefully respond again once I've had a chance to digest it all! lol

What are your views...?

[MadMagic]

1. Is this ethical?
I don't really see what is unethical about it. George Bush is very religious and has very strong beliefs, which were known to people before he came to office. If this is an issue he feels strongly about, I guess he has the power as president of the US to declare a week to promote marriage as a sacred institution based on his religious beliefs.
2. Is this a violation of separation of church and state?
No, I really don't think it is. The separation of church and state protects americans from being forced into practicing a certain religion. And I don't think anyone is trying to force religion down peoples throats. I can guarantee that most americans won't have any idea that Marriage protection week is going on. It really just doesn't seem like that big of a deal (to me at least).

I'm sure in general, children probably do better in 'normal' family environments. But a ton of kids also turn out fine who come from other familiy environments. My parents were divorced and I don't think it had a huge impact on my life.

I don't really know how I feel about same sex marriages yet. I have never really thought about it, so right now, I don't really have much of an opinion on it.

[bellatrix669]

I'm inclined to think that it's unethical because he's using public office as a platform for groups such as Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention. He's certainly entitled to his religion, but at some point he has to separate his religion from his obligation to everyone in the US, atheists and gays included. But like I've said before, I'm a little bit biased due to the direct implication that his proposed policies could have on me.

[haycheng]

I believe in seperating the state from anything. I do not support homosexual but I do not support bush decision either.

It is not my business that someone want to be homosexual. However, I do want my religious right to show my feeling of disapprove about homosexual. I dislike it and I believe it is against nature and God's will. Recently, some of us are being prosecuted by oppositing homosexual movement. Someone is get sue ever by post a Bible's chapter in newpaper which is against homosexual. I do not want my Bible get censor(which is very clear against it). I will continous to love any homosexual people that I have meet. However, I will never support the idea of homosexual.

By the way, I still want the word "marriage" mean exactly the same thing it was in 200+ years ago. I do not care about do the homosexual couple get the same right or not, but I do not want to share the word "marriage' with them. Invent a new word if they want to, just do not use the word "marriage".

It is my opinion of course, and I hope it will not be too offensive.

[Lianni Banks]

Once again today Bellatrix I agree with your opinions! lol

As for the comments made by Haycheng...you stated that you feel the word 'marriage' should not be associated with gay couples. In my eyes the word 'marriage' means 'the union of two people'..I know that the word 'marriage' is also read as 'the union of a man and woman'...however if two people care for and love each other I see no problem in personally associating the word 'marriage' with the union of two homosexual people. By recognising that a couple is 'married' it assists them economically and socially and also personally...and by referring to my boyfriend's brother's relationship with his partner as a 'marriage' it doesn't bother me one bit...goodness knows they've been together long enough! :tu: :)

[Lianni Banks]

I think I'd rather get behind a proposal for a Protection from Marriage Week.

This of course is inspired by one of my idols...

http://www.bundyology.com/bal2.jpg

Hahahaha!!! Go the Bundy..!! :clap: :clap:

Protection from Protection of Marriage week...that's more my thing seeing as I'm hope to get married one day! lol :agree:

[LuvCreevey]

I think that bush Is pushing the wrong things! Tonight on the news I saw 2 very disturbing stories
1) Two woman went out to a night club and left their 6 children at home alone, the oldest one being 10 5 of the children are dead and one is in critical condition.
2)A mother washed her baby in a bucket of Pine Sol, and another cleaning agent. The baby is now dead.

In times like these, I believe that where people are putting their bits is not the biggest crisis! I personally don't care. If there are two people that love eachother, great the world needs more of them, and if these 2 people want to raise a kid together great, every kid should have an opportunity to grow up in a loving home. One parent or two, as long as the kid is loved, cared for, protected, and guided, great for that lucky kid!!!!
I do see the decline of happy marriages. I think that is because
1) People don't put the effort in anymore, marriage is hard sometimes, it is work, no one wants to work oo their marriage.
2)They don't have a realistic idea what a marriage really is. It is not all a fairy tail, or like it is in TV and everything works out in a 1/2 hour. I know that this does not apply to everyone!!!!! Sometimes it just can't work out.
What I don't get is why people are getting pregnant and having babies with people they don't even really like. Having a baby with a person should be a life long commitment, unless of course there are major problems. If you don't want to be linked to that person for the rest of your life, don't mate ;) (didn't know what I could and couldnt say)with them, if you must, be careful 10 times over! I think that there should be some mass form of education on what getting married and having babies is really like. It's not easy and it's not something to ever go into lightly. It just seems to me many people are forgetting that these days. Again, I don't mean everyone, I realize there are exceptions to everything I have said.

Sorry for the rant! :blush:

[Weatherby]

I've merged the thread on Bush's marriage week with the one on divorce and society because I feel the discussions relate.
We're seeing more of socities feelings on married households. :)

I've heard about his plans for promoting marriage back in 2002. So he's going through with it then. I think it isn't going to end with one week of promotional material and propaganda.

I don't like their ideas about giving more benefits to married couples than single households as an incentive for marriage.
Sometimes you can't be married because you can't force someone to be with you if they don't want you. It's not always about people choosing to be single parents.

I've posted my thoughts about growing up in a single-headed household and I stick by that. It's not always best to have two parents.

They are absolutely disdainful of same-sex relationships. They are also discouraging single women as bread winners for their families.
They often turn women down for promotions because men have "families to support".
Society will continue to frown on women doing things alone because it makes groups like Southern Baptist Convention feel insecure.

[Angora]

I think I've said on another thread that I think legal "marriage" and religious "marriage" are different things. Legal "marriage" should include homosexuals, because if it doesn't that's discrimination by the state, and it's not a proper seperation of church and state because the only place you get the idea that homosexuality is "wrong" is from certain religions. But if churches don't want to preform a religious "marriage" ceremony, that's their business.

I don't personally think the government should recognize marriage at all, but that's another story.

[leenielou]

I've merged the thread on Bush's marriage week with the one on divorce and society because I feel the discussions relate.

I did wonder! I came to visit and was rather surprised to see a whole new topic having appeared when I had had no email alerts, but you're right, the two do correlate.

The whole Marriage Yay thing makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. As stated before, I'm all for marriage, and not divorcing unless there is a very grounded reason to do so (and, as we have discussed previously, the reason must be something that could not possibly be worked through). But marriage propaganda may be taking it a little too far. If people do not want to marry then that is their choice; there should not be a carrot and stick method used.

[haycheng]

It would be very sad to pay more tax if you are marry. I do not think marry couples should get more benefits. People should get support for their children though, but we already have support for that.

I think add more benefit may tainted the idea of marry. The law has provided enough support for marry IHMO.

Marriage is degrading in our society though. To be honest, I can not understand the idea of divorce well. None of my relatives and close friends have divorce, I can only understand it from media. While I can understand some marriage should not be keeped, a 50% rate is just too high. I wonder how many do not think carefully when they marry, and how many marriages can actually be saved.

The media is not helping either. I have not see much show that have a health marriage. I think 7 Heaven is one of the few shows that have health marry couples.

PS: love you picture, weatherby. Is she your wife or you? She gives me a motherly feeling, just like my mother and my grandma.

[dink]

Have I already posted in this thread? I know I meant to. Anyway, I've been wondering about the purpose of marriage. It seems to me that if a couple is going to stay together, then they shouldn't need tax incentives or religious nudging. I think as society has become more overtly secular (as opposed to the covert secularity that was going on all the time - people going to church on Sundays just because it was the 'done thing' but not being any more devout than people nowadays who spend their Sundays in garden centres) the whole idea of marriage has become less relevant. The only reason I can think of for marrying my boyfriend is so that I can have something else to call him besides 'my boyfriend' - an inappropriate term for someone in their mid-twenties, and it's only going to get more inappropriate as time passes. :) I don't want to change my surname, and he doesn't want to change his. Neither of us wants the fuss of a big wedding. There's no scandal in living together unmarried anymore. In fact, my grandmother rather wishes that she'd had the chance to do that before she married my grandfather - just to test the water, so to speak. And there's no problem with having children outside marriage either.

I do think Leenielou is right in connecting the rising divorce rate with the falling interest in religion. Religion used to play such a huge part in western society, really dictating how we lived our lives - and perpetuating unrealistic social standards, so people stayed in unhappy marriages for fear of censure. Religion in the west today has very little power, and so people can get out of unhappy marriages - if they want to.

As far as how divorce has touched my life: my parents got divorced when I was 18, and it kind of ruined communal family gatherings. But they're much happier apart, and I remember that I spent most of my childhood and teens hoping that they would split up, because I was so sick of the arguments. Divorce was definitely the right thing for them to do - they'd already wasted 22 years on a loveless marriage. What would have been the point in prolonging it?

[Weatherby]

haycheng - my signature is of Tori Amos. :D

I think the problem is only going to get worse if they think making divorce so exspensive as something to deter divorce.
People will just be more reluctant to marry. It's a good thing it makes people more precautious but when feelings are involved people often aren't. So they are just increasing the hurt when divorce does happen.
Finanicial issues have always been more relevant than religion I think. People usually got married to increase wealth and property if not for love. If they are in love they usually married for religious reasons. Now you can test the waters without so much risk.

I hope ignoring same sex marriages won't be harmful in the long run.
Pretending something doesn't exist won't make it go away afterall.

[haycheng]

When marry is affect by influence such as money, it is very damaging.

For Love Of Money
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/60minutes/main576466.shtml

In this article, the bride family of India has to pay money to the groom. This creates a very nasty result. Many brides are killed after married.

I think the government of US should stay aways from the marriage. They should provide law for the couple right. However, they should not give them tax benefit or tax them more because they are marry. If the government want to help the family, they should spend their money on the education and child naturation. I think people should also get tax benefit if they are supporting their retireed parents as well.

[leenielou]

A question that I thought of today:

If you have children, should you stay married for their sake? At what point does it become okay to divorce if you have children?

I know many divorced families from whom the children have suffered quite badly. All you need to do is look around the media to find celebrities who extol their unhappy childhoods at the hands of divorce.

So should you stay together for the sake of you children, your future adults? Should you be unselfish and put up with it for the sake of those that you have created and that are truly your own?

[NYCwitch920]

I don't think that divorce necessarily has anything to do with religion. My uncle divorced my Aunt because of things she did. People get divorced for private reasons. Either they encounter problems with one another or one spouse acts in a way that makes the divorce seem better. In my life, I've only seen two divorces and neither of them were influenced by religion (or lack thereof). I think it depends on the circumstances and the situation surrounding the event. From what I've seen, divorce has actually been a better decision for some.