I just think that divorce should be the last resort because of the suffering and hardship it causes children, regardless of how I feel about it spiritually.Being reasonable, eh.
That'll get you dinged by staff.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I just think that divorce should be the last resort because of the suffering and hardship it causes children, regardless of how I feel about it spiritually.Being reasonable, eh.
That'll get you dinged by staff.
Everyone believes their marriage is a good one.That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.
Every promise is a lifelong bond to be enforcedAfter all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
You & your spouse are free to see it that way.I just think that divorce should be the last resort because of the suffering and hardship it causes children, regardless of how I feel about it spiritually.
Now we're just going in circles.You & your spouse are free to see it that way.
But to have government impose it upon the
unwilling is heinous.
Just following you.Now we're just going in circles.
Everyone believes their marriage is a good one.
But many find out later that it isn't.
You'd force them to stay together, Taliban style, eh.
Every promise is a lifelong bond to be enforced
by government, even if the parties involved want
to renegotiate, eh?
That sounds very fascist to me.
I think you know that's not being argued.Not at all. No one is being forced to get married.
My marriage contract nor verbal oath said any such thing. And I reject adding Christian values to my marriage which deliberately did not have any bibles in sight.That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.
After all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
I think you that's not being argued.
But you need to argue something
you can win, eh.
If the shoe fits.Well, if you're going to throw terms like "Taliban" and "fascist" at me...
My marriage contract nor verbal oath said any such thing. And I reject adding Christian values to my marriage which deliberately did not have any bibles in sight.
Marriage is a way that my husband and I merged our material assets and decision making power in medical and legal matters. Our commitment isn't tied up in our marriage contract and I would never find reason to force my partner to stay if they were unhappy.
If the shoe fits.
It's fascinating how liberals will supportIt doesn't, even as much as you want it to. That's your illusion, not mine.
It's fascinating how liberals will support
needlessly intrusive & restrictive laws,
but only see "fascism" on the other side.
Imo if we stopped pretending that getting married is the real way to show commitment and focused on better communication and emotional availability in relationships, that would do a lot more for curtailing reckless contract signing than at-fault divorce.And if it works for you and you're happy, then more power to you. I have no quarrel with that. I wasn't actually advocating that anyone be forced to remain married, but just pointing out a relevant fact. My observation is that there are many people who enter into such arrangements frivolously and recklessly, and can oftentimes cause a great deal of damage to other involved parties when things explode. Very often, society has to clean up the damage.
I'll let'm divorce for any reason.
But then again...I'm one of those libertarians.
Yes, but it is sooo easy to get married (and have children).That's true, although they do take an oath and sign a contract. If they don't believe they can carry through with such a commitment, then they should think twice before making it.
After all, they say "till death do you part" at wedding ceremonies. If they were actually held to that promise, then that would probably cause people to sit up and take notice.
Because at fault divorce is still divorce, so you are still getting the harm to the children of divorce.How are kids being harmed by divorce not relevant?
Marriage micro-management by governmentYes and we are stuck paying the bill for the breach of contract. Maybe stronger marge laws are the lesser of the evils?
Marriage micro-management by government
has appeal to fans of big government & big
religion. They seek security & social good by
telling us all what to do.
Unlike liberals, conservatives, & fundies, we
libertarians prefer to minimize governmental
control. Allow it only where really necessary.
Parents & kids survive divorce...quite well in
my observations.