The Marriage Debate

[High Fidelity]

We live for the next life, but we live IN this world. I will not marry a harlot just to prove I can forgive.

Edit: And it boils down to not being unequally yoked. Now, if you have slept around and marry someone who has also slept around, that's fine. But I haven't and I wont.

You don't have to do it to make a point, but let's not forget that Scripture tells us if we forgive, show mercy, we'll receive the same as well.

Unequally yoked also, in my opinion, does not apply to this scenario. You're treating the person by the standards of which they freed themselves from when they accepted Christ, repented and/or were born again.

 

[William67]

It's fine to have whatever standards you want for who you want to marry. At the same time you must also be realistic and realize that you may remain single if you never find Mr. or Mrs. "perfect". Anyways, People with colored pasts may or may not have better marriages than a "good" boy or girl. They may or may not also have children with no defects and "good" boys and girls may end up with a different set of problems with their kids. Nothing is really black or white and there are infinite numbers of combinations that could happen no matter your past. There aren't really any guarantees; just different sets of problems really. I'd advise anyone who was scared of marriage or suspicious of a potential partner just to not marry. I've seen very vocal virgins have great marriages and poor marriages and I've seen people with pasts who have repented have great marriages and poor marriages. It's probably due to the work they were willing to put into it, I guess. I worked with a guy that obsessed over this issue. He eventually married and then divorced. His wife was a good girl, but he found all sorts of reasons to be suspicious of her (nearly all of that was just in his own mind). I think he got married again too and then divorced again. If you are determined to find reasons to fail then it probably will. Too bad for his kids who have to deal with a twice divorced dad influencing how they feel about marriage.

ETA: I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to remain pure until marriage or seeking a partner that believes the same. But, I do think it's wrong to say that those that didn't (even if they have repented and changed their ways) will be less of a marriage partner for someone else or fail at marriage or have kids with problems. They may or they may not. It's not up to you to decide that or decide what judgement is for what sins here on Earth. *"you" is general here and I'm using my background experience with the guy I worked with who talked about this ALL THE TIME to construct my answer. I value purity and found someone who also does and we plan to marry. It's not the one and only thing in our relationship, but it's nice to have.

The main problem with your friend is that he was insecure. He used his suspicions of her as a form of control. I'm neither insecure nor do I want absolute control. Also, I'm not asking anything of my "future wife" that I don't expect from myself.

Every parent I know has tried to get their children to abstain from pre-marital sex. What I'm saying is that if a parent, man or woman, has had sex before marriage, then they try to instill this in their children, they are "two-faced".

 

[William67]

You don't have to do it to make a point, but let's not forget that Scripture tells us if we forgive, show mercy, we'll receive the same as well.

Unequally yoked also, in my opinion, does not apply to this scenario. You're treating the person by the standards of which they freed themselves from when they accepted Christ, repented and/or were born again.

Wrong. Unequally yoked does apply. It doesn't just mean people of different faiths or beliefs. Unequally yoked applies to a great many scenarios. Anything that one person can use against, or to harm another, is unequally yoked.

 

[blackribbon]

Wrong. Unequally yoked does apply. It doesn't just mean people of different faiths or beliefs. Unequally yoked applies to a great many scenarios. Anything that one person can use against, or to harm another, is unequally yoked.

Does age apply? Older guy with younger woman type of stuff?

However, the Biblical reference is "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14) ...not don't be unequally yoked in any situation.

 

[Citanul]

Only because the marriage rate is also on the decline.

Which doesn't affect the divorce rate.

Unless you're suggesting that fewer people are getting married because they're taking marriage more seriously and not entering into it as frivolously, resulting in a lower percentage of divorces. In which case, surely that's not a bad thing?

But that doesn't change the fact that half of marriages do not end in divorce (and apparently that's never been the case). So rather than it being no better than a coin toss, marriages are actually more likely to last than end in divorce.

 

[William67]

It's only money, we aren't buried with it, it doesn't please god and basically it is the root of evil.

So if I got married and they wanted half, then fine they can take it, because I think my heart would be more that I would worry over

I decided to see what you said, so I clicked show ignored member's post.

Its funny that feminists always say things like that, yet they are never the ones to lose half of everything they have worked their lives for. One of the few people from school I am still friends with found out his wife of almost 20 years was cheating on him. So, he filed for divorce. Because he didn't just cheerfully accept his status as a cuckolded husband, during the divorce she demanded, and was actually awarded, most of his family heirlooms which had been passed onto him after his father's death.

A few days later he received a large box on the front steps to his apartment. Inside were the destroyed remains of his family heirlooms. What she hadn't been awarded, she had actually stolen, including his great-great grandfathers gold pocket watch. The police said there was nothing they could do since her name had still been on the safety deposit box at the bank at the time she took the items. According to them, she was legally entitled to remove the contents of the box.

In the end, she got the house, which had been in his family more than 120 years, she got the car, most of the possessions, and almost half his yearly income, even though she made as much money as he did.

What did he get? He got all the debts, including paying her lawyer, constant harassment from her, and he got to lose his job because of that harassment. He also got to see his kids once a month, unless she had something she wanted to do with them, which she always did, and he got to lose his apartment and become homeless for 3 months. He got to be arrested, because after losing his job, he couldn't pay the almost $2000/month alimony/child support payments.

Now, I got something out of what happened to my friend. I got to get him out of jail by paying his back alimony/child support. I got to allow him to live in one of my rentals and give him a job. But, best of all, I get to tell his ex-wife what she can do with herself after she calls the shop wanting to speak to him.

But hey, just because my friend was near the point of suicide because his harlot of an ex-wife tried to destroy him financially, well, that means nothing. After all...its only money.

 

[William67]

Does age apply? Older guy with younger woman type of stuff?

However, the Biblical reference is "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14) ...not don't be unequally yoked in any situation.

Age only applies if youre talking about a "girl" who is too young to reasonably make decisions on her own. If she is over 25, and not of diminished mental capacity, she should be able to make decisions.

I didn't say "any situation". I said it applies to situations where it can cause harm to one of the parties involved.

 

[William67]

Which doesn't affect the divorce rate.

Unless you're suggesting that fewer people are getting married because they're taking marriage more seriously and not entering into it as frivolously, resulting in a lower percentage of divorces. In which case, surely that's not a bad thing?

But that doesn't change the fact that half of marriages do not end in divorce (and apparently that's never been the case). So rather than it being no better than a coin toss, marriages are actually more likely to last than end in divorce.

No, I'm saying that more and more men are fed up with dealing with women, so are deciding not to marry. If 100k people marry each year, but 50k of all married people divorce each year, then the overall divorce rate is 50%. Attempting to skew the numbers by saying that only a small percentage of people married each year, divorce that same year is disingenuous at best.

 

[William67]

http://www.menshealth.com/health/why-married-men-are-happier

And just because a woman isn't a virgin, doesn't mean she has slept with 20, 30, or 40 men....that is crazy to assume.

I agree with you and think that you are probably better off staying single since you haven't felt the need to be married before now.

The concept of being financially stable before marriage isn't a Biblical principle but rather a worldly one. There are multiple Biblical references to the "wife of my youth" because couples grow as they struggle together to make a successful life.

And promiscuous women walk around with signs on them to warn decent men?

True, it is a worldly principle, because I didn't want my future wife to need a wheelchair because she destroyed her joints working herself nearly to death. And the fact that I thought that the woman I would marry would be worth working my butt off for is obviously evil. How dare I care for my future spouse's well being decades before I meet her. I'm such a bad person.

Here's another reference:

http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/19/who-needs-marriage-men-apparently/

And married men live longer because their wives make them get health checkups and such. It isn't because of "marital bliss", but rather them getting more healthcare.

 

[LoveDivine]

I own my own home. Most women in their early thirties are already financially stable and bring a lot economically to a marriage. I think it is a leap to assume that only men have something to lose financially in a relationship. In fact, I am pretty sure that I earn more money at my job than many of my previous boyfriends did, lol. Also, I would like to point out, that in traditional families with a stay at home mom, it is absolutely necessary that the law protect them. Is it really fair for a man to ask a woman to give up her career to raise his children and then begrudge her the fair division of assets post divorce? A woman who has never had a career or has taken such a long break from the workforce can't survive. In fact, it is far scarier for the woman
So many women give up everything in marriage only to end up divorced with no career to fall back on. There is this double standard in certain circles. Women who fulfill traditional roles and are dependent on their husband financially are seen as desirable. Yet, the moment the marriage sours and the woman remains dependent, she is suddenly deemed to be a gold digger or taking her husband for everything he is worth.

 

[blackribbon]

True, it is a worldly principle, because I didn't want my future wife to need a wheelchair because she destroyed her joints working herself nearly to death. And the fact that I thought that the woman I would marry would be worth working my butt off for is obviously evil. How dare I care for my future spouse's well being decades before I meet her. I'm such a bad person.

Umm...there are plenty of honorable professions where a woman destroys her joints (nursing being very high on the list) but are you guaranteeing perfect health on your part for the remainder of your life?

Please understand, I am arguing with your strange correlations such as all women who aren't virgins are harlots and can't be trusted or that certain activities mean a woman is going to destroy her body while assuming the opposite isn't true of men.... You have the right to date and marry whoever you want...or better yet, not date or marry because you don't want to bother to have a less than perfect mate.

 

[William67]

I own my own home. Most women in their early thirties are already financially stable and bring a lot economically to a marriage. I think it is a leap to assume that only men have something to lose financially in a relationship. In fact, I am pretty sure that I earn more money at my job than many of my previous boyfriends did, lol. Also, I would like to point out, that in traditional families with a stay at home mom, it is absolutely necessary that the law protect them. Is it really fair for a man to ask a woman to give up her career to raise his children and then begrudge her the fair division of assets post divorce? A woman who has never had a career or has taken such a long break from the workforce can't survive. In fact, it is far scarier for the woman
So many women give up everything in marriage only to end up divorced with no career to fall back on.

Most women work, at least the ones I know. Very few women are actually stay at home moms. Now, if she married at a young age, never had a career, and then divorced, then sure, she deserves her fair share. But this isn't the 1950's anymore. There are very few June Cleavers in western countries.

There are hundreds of laws in each state which specifically benefit women over men. In my friends case, which I posted earlier, at the time of the divorce he made about $5500 more per year than his wife, but she received pretty much everything in the divorce, even though she was the one responsible for the marriage breaking up. By law, she was immediately awarded custody of the children, even though she was/is rarely at home with them. She received alimony, which along with child support, was about 50% of his income. She got the home and the car. When I say she got the car, I mean she got his car. She already had her own car.

His lawyer appealed the judge's ruling because, after compiling a list of what she got, she actually received more than 90% of the marital assets, which is supposed to be a violation of state law. She destroyed his family heirlooms, even though they were supposed to go to their children. And she immediately moved her "boyfriend" into the family home and he gets to drive my friends car, even though her boyfriend doesn't actually work. In the three years since the divorce, the house has become a shambles. He has also managed to see his kids a total of 6 times in more than 3 years, even though he is supposed to have monthly visitation and holiday visitations. The last time he was able to see his kids, which was a couple of weeks ago, he found out that the Christmas presents he sent them had been "relabeled" with her boyfriends name. So, the kids think dad hasn't sent them Christmas or birthday presents since the divorce.

 

[William67]

Umm...there are plenty of honorable professions where a woman destroys her joints (nursing being very high on the list) but are you guaranteeing perfect health on your part for the remainder of your life?

Please understand, I am arguing with your strange correlations such as all women who aren't virgins are harlots and can't be trusted or that certain activities mean a woman is going to destroy her body while assuming the opposite isn't true of men.... You have the right to date and marry whoever you want...or better yet, not date or marry because you don't want to bother to have a less than perfect mate.

I'm not saying all women who aren't virgins are harlots. I'm sure there are some honorable women out there who have made mistakes in their past, but it isn't as if the honorable women wear signs, now is it? But women like that are as scarce as hens teeth. If she isn't a virgin, you basically have to take her word for her past, and it isn't as if someone would lie to get what they want.

 

[LoveDivine]

Most women work, at least the ones I know. Very few women are actually stay at home moms. Now, if she married at a young age, never had a career, and then divorced, then sure, she deserves her fair share. But this isn't the 1950's anymore. There are very few June Cleavers in western countries.

There are hundreds of laws in each state which specifically benefit women over men. In my friends case, which I posted earlier, at the time of the divorce he made about $5500 more per year than his wife, but she received pretty much everything in the divorce, even though she was the one responsible for the marriage breaking up. By law, she was immediately awarded custody of the children, even though she was/is rarely at home with them. She received alimony, which along with child support, was about 50% of his income. She got the home and the car. When I say she got the car, I mean she got his car. She already had her own car.

His lawyer appealed the judge's ruling because, after compiling a list of what she got, she actually received more than 90% of the marital assets, which is supposed to be a violation of state law. She destroyed his family heirlooms, even though they were supposed to go to their children. And she immediately moved her "boyfriend" into the family home and he gets to drive my friends car, even though her boyfriend doesn't actually work. In the three years since the divorce, the house has become a shambles. He has also managed to see his kids a total of 6 times in more than 3 years, even though he is supposed to have monthly visitation and holiday visitations. The last time he was able to see his kids, which was a couple of weeks ago, he found out that the Christmas presents he sent them had been "relabeled" with her boyfriends name. So, the kids think dad hasn't sent them Christmas or birthday presents since the divorce.

She sounds like a horrible person. I agree with you that some women do destroy their husbands and do milk the system. I do know though of just as many instances of dead beat dad's that never followed through with child support and the mom was left to struggle. I think both genders are equally gifted with the ability to destroy each other post divorce. I think the real issue is what type of moral character both spouses possess. As for the concerns regarding premarital sex, I think you have the right to be with someone that makes you feel comfortable and shares your values. It is really ridiculous though to state that parents with a past can't instruct their children to live differently than they did. I am living proof of this. My parents both became Christians as adults. My entire childhood was spent observing their godly character and commitment to Christ. They never hid their past from my siblings or me. I respected that and listened to their advice. In fact, in a way, their openness and transformation removed much of the temptation to party or live a looser life. The Gospel is life changing. Your commentary on people's pasts would condemn even the Apostle Paul.

 

[Gnarwhal]

To marry or not to marry.

After responding to some posts in the "bad boys" thread, I began thinking long and hard about some things.

For decades people have bemoaned people getting married "too young" and before they were emotionally and financially stable. I did the opposite. I waited until I was financially stable to even really begin looking for a wife. Unfortunately, most people are weak and cant control their urges.

There also seems to be this idiotic belief that just because you have asked God for forgiveness, all your past actions are magically wiped away and that someone who has lived a morally bankrupt life, but who has repented, is just as "good" as someone who has followed the Word of God and kept themselves "pure". Sorry, but Im one of the few people who actually believes in justice. A guy who robs and murders someone may eventually repent and ask forgiveness from God, but that isn't going to keep his rear end out of prison. God may forgive him, but he still did wrong and nothing is going to change that.

Lets face facts, financially speaking, marriage is a poor choice for men. When half of marriages end in divorce, what man in his right mind is going to willingly choose to lose half of everything he has worked for? As they say, marriage is a crapshoot. Not only that, but should she choose to never remarry, you are basically an alimony slave for the rest of your life. Is it any wonder that more and more men are choosing to never marry, or not to remarry? This is known as MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way.

You really have a low opinion of everybody but yourself don't you? Boy I can just see the fruits of the Spirit oozing out of you like milk and honey.

Truthfully I was beginning to like you a wee bit, or at least, you didn't come off like as much of a sod, but then you go and do this.

 

[William67]

Also, I'm less than two years away from retirement and my health is better than many men half my age. I have no heart disease, I get regular checkups, and my job entails intense physical exercise almost daily. I also started getting all the "old dude" tests when I was in my early 40's.

You start moving plate steel by hand and youre going to get a workout. But you see, my mother was only 5' tall and she was loading cardboard bundles which weighed nearly as much as she did. She drove dump trucks, worked in dye houses, and would routinely pull 10-12 shifts. There is a reason 99% of the people who work in dye houses are men. It is hard work in intense heat. Loading cardboard in 120lb-150lb bundles all day will wear out normal men. It is devastating on women. Their joints wear out because they aren't designed for those kinds of continuous loads.

 

[blackribbon]

I own my own home. Most women in their early thirties are already financially stable and bring a lot economically to a marriage. I think it is a leap to assume that only men have something to lose financially in a relationship. In fact, I am pretty sure that I earn more money at my job than many of my previous boyfriends did, lol. Also, I would like to point out, that in traditional families with a stay at home mom, it is absolutely necessary that the law protect them. Is it really fair for a man to ask a woman to give up her career to raise his children and then begrudge her the fair division of assets post divorce? A woman who has never had a career or has taken such a long break from the workforce can't survive. In fact, it is far scarier for the woman
So many women give up everything in marriage only to end up divorced with no career to fall back on. There is this double standard in certain circles. Women who fulfill traditional roles and are dependent on their husband financially are seen as desirable. Yet, the moment the marriage sours and the woman remains dependent, she is suddenly deemed to be a gold digger or taking her husband for everything he is worth.

This is incredibly true. I come from a social group where women did do the stay-at-home mother role. We all felt privileged to be able to stay at home and raise our own kids. However, although I was the primary bread winner at the beginning of our marriage so that my husband could return to school and finish his degree, when he died it had been so long since I had a paying job (plenty of volunteer jobs that didn't count) that I had "no work experience" and even after graduating magna cum laude, it was difficult to find a person even willing to interview me. (Ironically, I have floated to a floor in my hospital that wouldn't interview me but even as a disoriented float nurse, I got a "praises" report turned in on me from one of my patients that night). I also have a friend whose "good Christian" husband suddenly decided to cheat on her (she wasn't pretty enough anymore) and then he hid money from her in bank accounts without her name, so although she was a successful paralegal before she was married, she now had no paid work experience in over 20 years. Luckily, the family financial planner was a strong Christian and protected her rights including finding out that she had enough money to live without working if she lived as frugally as she did all the years she was married...and truthfully, she lives better now that he isn't controlling her finances.

To assume that all women are evil .... especially those that aren't perfect and have made mistakes such as marrying men who have failed at their role of Christian husband and provider...is as ridiculous to assume as that all men are mortally flawed and worthless. Judge the individual on the fruits of their current life...and I don't mean the patients that tell me they have quit smoking only to identify that they "quit" two days ago when they started puking their brains out ... but rather focus on the ones who quit 20 years ago and have been clean since without any urges to return.

 

[William67]

She sounds like a horrible person. I agree with you that some women do destroy their husbands and do milk the system. I do know though of just as many instances of dead beat dad's that never followed through with child support and the mom was left to struggle. I think both genders are equally gifted with the ability to destroy each other post divorce. I think the real issue is what type of moral character both spouses possess. As for the concerns regarding premarital sex, I think you have the right to be with someone that makes you feel comfortable and shares your values. It is really ridiculous though to state that parents with a past can't instruct their children to live differently than they did. I am living proof of this. My parents both became Christians as adults. My entire childhood was spent observing their godly character and commitment to Christ. They never hid their past from my siblings or me. I respected that and listened to their advice. In fact, in a way, their openness and transformation removed much of the temptation to party or live a looser life. The Gospel is life changing. Your commentary on people's pasts would condemn even the Apostle Paul.

I didn't say they couldn't instruct their children differently, I just think it is a bit hypocritical to say, "do as I say, not as I did".

 

[LoveDivine]

I didn't say they couldn't instruct their children differently, I just think it is a bit hypocritical to say, "do as I say, not as I did".

I disagree. It depends on the attitude of the parent. A parent that sows his wild oats in his youth and just settles down without experiencing true conversion cannot be compared to the true Christian that has been broken over his sin. The first is hypocritical maybe. The second is redeemed. That is really the whole foundation of the gospel and grace. When a person experiences true conversion he ceases to resemble in any way his former sinful life. Anything less than a noticeable transformation is not real conversion or a very shallow one at best.

 

[blackribbon]

Also, I'm less than two years away from retirement and my health is better than many men half my age. I have no heart disease, I get regular checkups, and my job entails intense physical exercise almost daily. I also started getting all the "old dude" tests when I was in my early 40's.

You start moving plate steel by hand and youre going to get a workout. But you see, my mother was only 5' tall and she was loading cardboard bundles which weighed nearly as much as she did. She drove dump trucks, worked in dye houses, and would routinely pull 10-12 shifts. There is a reason 99% of the people who work in dye houses are men. It is hard work in intense heat. Loading cardboard in 120lb-150lb bundles all day will wear out normal men. It is devastating on women. Their joints wear out because they aren't designed for those kinds of continuous loads.

So marry a teacher or an accountant....most women do not wear their joints out earning a living. Like I said, I am in one of the few jobs that really does do that to women. And since you are not yet 50, you really aren't old enough to have any real old age diagnoses yet but that doesn't mean you are immune...even from heart disease. Are you lucky enough to be one of the few men who doesn't have high blood pressure...because that is a cardiovascular disease? I don't either...or at least yet, but my life is so stressful that I am going to have to accept it is time consider that it might be something I have to deal with. My grandmother died at age 94. She did have heart disease and even "died" on her way to the hospital in her 70's where they put in a pacemaker. She lived independently until the last two years of her life...even after my grandfather passed away at age 96.