The state, marriage, and tradition

[Belk]

I would argue that civil matters and religious matter, were one and the same. Every aspect of government was affected by their religious views.

Very well, what evidence do you have that this was the case in regards to marriage?

 

[Pommer]

My entire assumption from the start is that you have to be an adult to engage in a contract.

And yet several of the “several states”, have no “minimum age” to marry.
Your system seems to require that marriage be “Federalized”?

 

[Andrew77]

Your idea here contains two assumptions that I find problematic.

1) That marriage only has "meaning" if you are in a contract that you can not easily leave
2) That religious must be forced to stay in the contract by the state

I am married and my marriage has meaning because my wife and I have given it meaning. Being required to stay married by the state unless I meet some arbitrary criteria would not add meaning, it would detract from it. I would not be staying from choice but from necessity.

Likewise every religious person is currently free to follow the dictates of their religion regarding marriage. If a religion requires the state to enforce its rules in order for marriage to have meaning in your eyes then religion is superfluous to marriage.

And that is great for you. Truly glad that works for you guys.

Nevertheless, when you look at the divorce rates, clearly marriage doesn't have the meaning that it used to. For the first 100 years, married meant married. You did not find someone else, and divorces for "incompatibility".

And whether you think it does, or does not have meaning... if someone married at my church, decides they want a divorce, there is nothing the church can do to stop them. Which is exactly why they got married at that church, knowing they could get out of it if they wanted.

And I know this, because we had a lady that married a guy in our church, and she just decided that she found a man she wanted more. We asked her to explain what the problem was, and she refused. The guy was absolutely devastated. He bought a house for this girl, and had moved jobs for this girl. He really honestly loved her, and kept coming to our church for weeks trying to figure out how to make this right. Months went past, and she never said why she left him, no problems came up, and she just flat out ruined this guys life for no reason whatsoever.

Now thank G-d in Heaven, no children were involved. But there was nothing the church could do to stop this evil and wrong divorce. Which is exactly why people are so flippant about getting married, and why they divorce just as quick.

So when people can act like this, and divorce people like it's just changing underwear, because they found a better pair of underwear to put on...... no marriage obviously doesn't mean much.

And if you missed it, but nearly every single problem in our society, ties right back to marriage. It really does. Drugs, poverty, crime, career failure, suicide, depression, mental illness, nearly every single problem you can think of ties back to marriage.

So I get it that you don't think this is a big problem... but I do, and if no one else saw marriage as lacking in meaning, then the original poster would not have started this thread.

 

[Belk]

And that is great for you. Truly glad that works for you guys.

Thank you.

Nevertheless, when you look at the divorce rates, clearly marriage doesn't have the meaning that it used to. For the first 100 years, married meant married. You did not find someone else, and divorces for "incompatibility".

Why do you keep equating longevity with meaning? These are two distinct concepts.

And whether you think it does, or does not have meaning... if someone married at my church, decides they want a divorce, there is nothing the church can do to stop them. Which is exactly why they got married at that church, knowing they could get out of it if they wanted.

Which is no different then your proposed solution.

And I know this, because we had a lady that married a guy in our church, and she just decided that she found a man she wanted more. We asked her to explain what the problem was, and she refused. The guy was absolutely devastated. He bought a house for this girl, and had moved jobs for this girl. He really honestly loved her, and kept coming to our church for weeks trying to figure out how to make this right. Months went past, and she never said why she left him, no problems came up, and she just flat out ruined this guys life for no reason whatsoever.

Your not knowing the reason is not the same as not having one.

Now thank G-d in Heaven, no children were involved. But there was nothing the church could do to stop this evil and wrong divorce. Which is exactly why people are so flippant about getting married, and why they divorce just as quick.

I do not find your claims of knowing the reasoning of the majority of people getting married credible.

So when people can act like this, and divorce people like it's just changing underwear, because they found a better pair of underwear to put on...... no marriage obviously doesn't mean much.

Which your proposed solution will not change.

And if you missed it, but nearly every single problem in our society, ties right back to marriage. It really does. Drugs, poverty, crime, career failure, suicide, depression, mental illness, nearly every single problem you can think of ties back to marriage.

All of these problems occurred prior to people being able to divorce. Some of these are tangentially tied to marriage, but not all of them. Certainly disallowing divorce is not a panacea that will solve these problems.

So I get it that you don't think this is a big problem... but I do, and if no one else saw marriage as lacking in meaning, then the original poster would not have started this thread.

None of this addresses the two issues I brought up in my previous post.

 

[Andrew77]

Thank you.



Why do you keep equating longevity with meaning? These are two distinct concepts.



Which is no different then your proposed solution.



Your not knowing the reason is not the same as not having one.



I do not find your claims of knowing the reasoning of the majority of people getting married credible.



Which your proposed solution will not change.



All of these problems occurred prior to people being able to divorce. Some of these are tangentially tied to marriage, but not all of them. Certainly disallowing divorce is not a panacea that will solve these problems.




None of this addresses the two issues I brought up in my previous post.

Why do you keep equating longevity with meaning? These are two distinct concepts.

No, they are not. Marriage is all about longevity. Why do you think the vows you make, include "until death do us part"?

In fact, without longevity, I think there is no purpose to marriage. The whole point is to have a mother and father, that is together to raise children so they don't turn into crazy people. The whole point is to have someone in your life that you know won't desert you. The whole point is to have a consistent family unit.

If longevity isn't part of the equation, then what do you have? A free hooker? You can screw her as much as you want, and then find someone else when you feel like it? Because I know guys that do that.

If it isn't going to last, then whats the point? Just shack up with some desperate girl, and use her until you find someone cuter.

I don't know how the pagans think about this, but I personally can't see any reason to ever get with a woman, unless it is intended to last. Why bother?

Which is no different then your proposed solution.
Which your proposed solution will not change.

Without consent of the religious institutions you were married under, they would not be able to divorce.

Your not knowing the reason is not the same as not having one.

Which is still not justification to get a divorce. You should be required to have a legitimate reason to divorce.

Think about it another way. Employment is a contract too, and the pagans say (in most states) that you can't just fire someone without cause. You have to have a reason. You don't fire a police officer, and say "Well just because you don't know the reason, does not mean there wasn't one". If a police chief said that, you would say... no you need to tell us why he was fired. Or a public school teacher, or any number of people. You wouldn't accept this "I have a reason, but you don't need to know." stuff.

Well marriage much more important, than fired for flipping whoopers. People's lives are damaged by marriage. I've lost a job, and just found another. In fact I've lost dozens of jobs, and just found another. Marriage wrecks people, and wrecks children, wrecks relatives, and on and on.

If someone wants a Christian wedding, then they should have a Christian reason for a divorce. And if they don't, then the church should be able to say "No, work it out".

Now I get that the pagans don't want that, and that is fine. This is why my proposal will allow religious people to have the type of marriage they want, and the pagans can have the marriage they want.

If you don't want that, then don't get married by a religious institution. But I think if you come to our church, and say you want a religious marriage, then you should be required to follow the rules of our church. And if you get married, and then you want a divorce, you need to provide a real reason.... or no, you don't get a divorce.

I do not find your claims of knowing the reasoning of the majority of people getting married credible.

Well I look at the facts, and let them speak for themselves.

Only 27% for unfaithfulness, and 10% for violence.

Money is not a reason. Work it out.
Incompatibility is not a reason. Work it out.
Grown Apart? Then grow to together again. Work it out.
Other. I love that one. Other. No, figure it out, and make it work.
Children? No. Work it out.

All of this is just selfishness. That's all it is.

I want to do, what I want to do, and not what you want to do. So we're incompatible.
Selfishness.

I want to spend money on what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I want my kids doing what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I don't want to spend time with her, and she doesn't want to spend time with me.
Selfishness.

All of these problems occurred prior to people being able to divorce. Some of these are tangentially tied to marriage, but not all of them. Certainly disallowing divorce is not a panacea that will solve these problems.

Depends on what you mean by 'solve'. If you mean that all poverty will be eliminated, of course not. If you mean greatly greatly reduced, yes I believe that this will most certainly greatly reduce poverty.

I know people who are only in poverty, because of divorce. I've heard the story dozens of times.

Same with criminality. The connection between growing up in single parent homes, and crime, drugs, and suicide is ridiculously high.

Today, nearly 25 million children have an absentee father.1) According to the professional literature, the absence of the father is the single most important cause of poverty.2) The same is true for crime. Of all adolescents, those in intact married families are the least likely to commit delinquent acts.3) Children of single-parent homes are more likely to be abused, have emotional problems, engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.4) Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and5) have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.6)
​

Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates [Marripedia]

This is well documented, and has been for decades.

Will making divorce extremely difficult, or harder, cause a perfect panacea? Of course not. But it will most certainly help. No question about it.

None of this addresses the two issues I brought up in my previous post.

I hope I have answered them now. You find my claim that longevity provides a meaning to marriage. And we disagree on that. In fact, longevity is the whole point.

And you have a problem with a religious marriage being enforced by the state. And I don't. So... That's my answer.

Again... if you don't want a religious marriage.... then don't get one. Go get a common law marriage, and when you want to change your underwear, you can find a new wife while your at it. But for religious marriage, I think you should have to follow the religious rules, one being that you need a reason to divorce. Not just "I'm selfish, and she's got bigger breasts, so I want her instead". You need a real reason to destroy people, and families, and ruins kids.

And yet several of the “several states”, have no “minimum age” to marry.
Your system seems to require that marriage be “Federalized”?

No no. I want the Federal government completely removed from marriage. I am a Constitutionalist. Which means that I believe if the Federal Government does not have an enumerated right in the Constitution to have authority over something, then the Federal Government should be kept out of it entirely.

This should all be handled by the States. That's why "all rights reserved for the states" is in the constitution.

 

[Pommer]

Why do you keep equating longevity with meaning? These are two distinct concepts.

No, they are not. Marriage is all about longevity. Why do you think the vows you make, include "until death do us part"?

In fact, without longevity, I think there is no purpose to marriage. The whole point is to have a mother and father, that is together to raise children so they don't turn into crazy people. The whole point is to have someone in your life that you know won't desert you. The whole point is to have a consistent family unit.

If longevity isn't part of the equation, then what do you have? A free hooker? You can screw her as much as you want, and then find someone else when you feel like it? Because I know guys that do that.

If it isn't going to last, then whats the point? Just shack up with some desperate girl, and use her until you find someone cuter.

I don't know how the pagans think about this, but I personally can't see any reason to ever get with a woman, unless it is intended to last. Why bother?

Which is no different then your proposed solution.
Which your proposed solution will not change.

Without consent of the religious institutions you were married under, they would not be able to divorce.

Your not knowing the reason is not the same as not having one.

Which is still not justification to get a divorce. You should be required to have a legitimate reason to divorce.

Think about it another way. Employment is a contract too, and the pagans say (in most states) that you can't just fire someone without cause. You have to have a reason. You don't fire a police officer, and say "Well just because you don't know the reason, does not mean there wasn't one". If a police chief said that, you would say... no you need to tell us why he was fired. Or a public school teacher, or any number of people. You wouldn't accept this "I have a reason, but you don't need to know." stuff.

Well marriage much more important, than fired for flipping whoopers. People's lives are damaged by marriage. I've lost a job, and just found another. In fact I've lost dozens of jobs, and just found another. Marriage wrecks people, and wrecks children, wrecks relatives, and on and on.

If someone wants a Christian wedding, then they should have a Christian reason for a divorce. And if they don't, then the church should be able to say "No, work it out".

Now I get that the pagans don't want that, and that is fine. This is why my proposal will allow religious people to have the type of marriage they want, and the pagans can have the marriage they want.

If you don't want that, then don't get married by a religious institution. But I think if you come to our church, and say you want a religious marriage, then you should be required to follow the rules of our church. And if you get married, and then you want a divorce, you need to provide a real reason.... or no, you don't get a divorce.

I do not find your claims of knowing the reasoning of the majority of people getting married credible.

Well I look at the facts, and let them speak for themselves.

Only 27% for unfaithfulness, and 10% for violence.

Money is not a reason. Work it out.
Incompatibility is not a reason. Work it out.
Grown Apart? Then grow to together again. Work it out.
Other. I love that one. Other. No, figure it out, and make it work.
Children? No. Work it out.

All of this is just selfishness. That's all it is.

I want to do, what I want to do, and not what you want to do. So we're incompatible.
Selfishness.

I want to spend money on what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I want my kids doing what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I don't want to spend time with her, and she doesn't want to spend time with me.
Selfishness.

All of these problems occurred prior to people being able to divorce. Some of these are tangentially tied to marriage, but not all of them. Certainly disallowing divorce is not a panacea that will solve these problems.

Depends on what you mean by 'solve'. If you mean that all poverty will be eliminated, of course not. If you mean greatly greatly reduced, yes I believe that this will most certainly greatly reduce poverty.

I know people who are only in poverty, because of divorce. I've heard the story dozens of times.

Same with criminality. The connection between growing up in single parent homes, and crime, drugs, and suicide is ridiculously high.

Today, nearly 25 million children have an absentee father.1) According to the professional literature, the absence of the father is the single most important cause of poverty.2) The same is true for crime. Of all adolescents, those in intact married families are the least likely to commit delinquent acts.3) Children of single-parent homes are more likely to be abused, have emotional problems, engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.4) Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and5) have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.6)
​

Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates [Marripedia]

This is well documented, and has been for decades.

Will making divorce extremely difficult, or harder, cause a perfect panacea? Of course not. But it will most certainly help. No question about it.

None of this addresses the two issues I brought up in my previous post.

I hope I have answered them now. You find my claim that longevity provides a meaning to marriage. And we disagree on that. In fact, longevity is the whole point.

And you have a problem with a religious marriage being enforced by the state. And I don't. So... That's my answer.

Again... if you don't want a religious marriage.... then don't get one. Go get a common law marriage, and when you want to change your underwear, you can find a new wife while your at it. But for religious marriage, I think you should have to follow the religious rules, one being that you need a reason to divorce. Not just "I'm selfish, and she's got bigger breasts, so I want her instead". You need a real reason to destroy people, and families, and ruins kids.



No no. I want the Federal government completely removed from marriage. I am a Constitutionalist. Which means that I believe if the Federal Government does not have an enumerated right in the Constitution to have authority over something, then the Federal Government should be kept out of it entirely.

This should all be handled by the States. That's why "all rights reserved for the states" is in the constitution.

Have you ever been married?

 

[Belk]

Why do you keep equating longevity with meaning? These are two distinct concepts.

No, they are not. Marriage is all about longevity. Why do you think the vows you make, include "until death do us part"?

In fact, without longevity, I think there is no purpose to marriage. The whole point is to have a mother and father, that is together to raise children so they don't turn into crazy people. The whole point is to have someone in your life that you know won't desert you. The whole point is to have a consistent family unit.

You say it is about longevity but then you bring in other concepts. Loyalty, stability, and parental love. These are not longevity. These are the thingss that give marriage meaning.

If longevity isn't part of the equation, then what do you have? A free hooker? You can screw her as much as you want, and then find someone else when you feel like it? Because I know guys that do that.
If it isn't going to last, then whats the point? Just shack up with some desperate girl, and use her until you find someone cuter.

If that is what they were after why would they bother with marriage? Do you think divorce is free? As you point out they could just "shack up".

I don't know how the pagans think about this, but I personally can't see any reason to ever get with a woman, unless it is intended to last. Why bother?

Who says it is not intended to last? This is a strawman not in evidence.

Which is no different then your proposed solution.
Which your proposed solution will not change.

Without consent of the religious institutions you were married under, they would not be able to divorce.

So, again, if you claim the sole purpose of people is to have feckless marriages they will not choose the religious marriage. Only those who are truly comited will choose those and so the outcome is no different then from today.

Your not knowing the reason is not the same as not having one.

Which is still not justification to get a divorce. You should be required to have a legitimate reason to divorce.

Why is "Because I no longer wish to be married" not legitimate?

Think about it another way. Employment is a contract too, and the pagans say (in most states) that you can't just fire someone without cause. You have to have a reason. You don't fire a police officer, and say "Well just because you don't know the reason, does not mean there wasn't one". If a police chief said that, you would say... no you need to tell us why he was fired. Or a public school teacher, or any number of people. You wouldn't accept this "I have a reason, but you don't need to know." stuff.

Well marriage much more important, than fired for flipping whoopers. People's lives are damaged by marriage. I've lost a job, and just found another. In fact I've lost dozens of jobs, and just found another. Marriage wrecks people, and wrecks children, wrecks relatives, and on and on.

If someone wants a Christian wedding, then they should have a Christian reason for a divorce. And if they don't, then the church should be able to say "No, work it out".

You are free to subvert your will to that of the church now. Why do you demand that others must do so as well?

Now I get that the pagans don't want that, and that is fine.

I do not find it likely that you understand the views of "pagans".

This is why my proposal will allow religious people to have the type of marriage they want, and the pagans can have the marriage they want.

You are already free to do so. What is currently lacking is the enforcement of religious edicts through secular law.

If you don't want that, then don't get married by a religious institution. But I think if you come to our church, and say you want a religious marriage, then you should be required to follow the rules of our church. And if you get married, and then you want a divorce, you need to provide a real reason.... or no, you don't get a divorce.

I have always found it interesting when I meet Christians who claim free will provided by God and then demand that they should be able to limit others actions.

I do not find your claims of knowing the reasoning of the majority of people getting married credible.

Well I look at the facts, and let them speak for themselves.

No, you do not. You attempt to speak for the facts. To wit...

Only 27% for unfaithfulness, and 10% for violence.

Money is not a reason. Work it out.
Incompatibility is not a reason. Work it out.
Grown Apart? Then grow to together again. Work it out.
Other. I love that one. Other. No, figure it out, and make it work.
Children? No. Work it out.

All of this is just selfishness. That's all it is.

I want to do, what I want to do, and not what you want to do. So we're incompatible.
Selfishness.

I want to spend money on what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I want my kids doing what I want, not what you want.
Selfishness.

I don't want to spend time with her, and she doesn't want to spend time with me.
Selfishness.

You take the claims of people for their reasoning and then simply label it insufficient or selfish? Silfish according to whom? You? Last I check Christians claim Marriage is a covenant between a man his wife, and God. Why are you trying to insert yourself?

All of these problems occurred prior to people being able to divorce. Some of these are tangentially tied to marriage, but not all of them. Certainly disallowing divorce is not a panacea that will solve these problems.

Depends on what you mean by 'solve'. If you mean that all poverty will be eliminated, of course not. If you mean greatly greatly reduced, yes I believe that this will most certainly greatly reduce poverty.

I know people who are only in poverty, because of divorce. I've heard the story dozens of times.

Same with criminality. The connection between growing up in single parent homes, and crime, drugs, and suicide is ridiculously high.

Today, nearly 25 million children have an absentee father.1) According to the professional literature, the absence of the father is the single most important cause of poverty.2) The same is true for crime. Of all adolescents, those in intact married families are the least likely to commit delinquent acts.3) Children of single-parent homes are more likely to be abused, have emotional problems, engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.4) Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and5) have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.6)
​

Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates [Marripedia]

This is well documented, and has been for decades.

Will making divorce extremely difficult, or harder, cause a perfect panacea? Of course not. But it will most certainly help. No question about it.

I have a great many questions about it. Not the least of which is how much of a help and is it worth the price?

None of this addresses the two issues I brought up in my previous post.

I hope I have answered them now. You find my claim that longevity provides a meaning to marriage. And we disagree on that. In fact, longevity is the whole point.

Indeed I do disagree. I believe longevity is an effect of the things in marriage that are meaningful.

And you have a problem with a religious marriage being enforced by the state. And I don't. So... That's my answer.

My point was that if you feel meaning in marriage does not come from religion but from the state. If the only way to have meaning is longevity and that longevity requires state enforcement it is a state function.

Does that make sense?

Again... if you don't want a religious marriage.... then don't get one. Go get a common law marriage, and when you want to change your underwear, you can find a new wife while your at it. But for religious marriage, I think you should have to follow the religious rules, one being that you need a reason to divorce. Not just "I'm selfish, and she's got bigger breasts, so I want her instead". You need a real reason to destroy people, and families, and ruins kids.

If you are a religious person you are already free to follow this path. You are demanding that people, once they make a choice, are not free to change their mind. That does not seem like meaning to me. That simply seems punitive for not knowing how events might turn out.

 

[Andrew77]

Have you ever been married?

Nope.

 

[Pommer]

Nope.

What, then, are the value of your opinions on the subject?

 

[Arcangl86]

Think about it another way. Employment is a contract too, and the pagans say (in most states) that you can't just fire someone without cause. You have to have a reason. You don't fire a police officer, and say "Well just because you don't know the reason, does not mean there wasn't one". If a police chief said that, you would say... no you need to tell us why he was fired. Or a public school teacher, or any number of people. You wouldn't accept this "I have a reason, but you don't need to know." stuff.

Actually, in the vast majority of states, private employees are hired on an at-will basis unless the contract specifically says so. The examples you gave were both state employees which generally do require a cause, but that's not the case for those in the private sector.

 

[Andrew77]

What, then, are the value of your opinions on the subject?

Well, right now, it has more value to me than anything you have to say.

Oh I'm sorry.... For a minute I thought I was on an open forum for the exchange of ideas. My fault. I need to clear my credentials with you first? Do I need to send you my resume, so that you can approve whether my opinion matters or not, on every issue?

Nothing irritates me more than this level of arrogance.

No fat person can have an opinion on anorexia.
No skinny person can have an opinion on obesity.
No white person can talk about black problems.
No male can have an opinion on female issues.
No rich person can talk about poor problems.
No person who worked their way through college, can talk about student loan problems.
No law abiding person can talk about prison issues.
No person who has never been shot, can have an opinion on gun control.
No one that has never filed bankruptcy, can talk about debt problems.
No one that never killed themselves, can talk about suicide problems.

If no one's opinion matters, unless they have experience like you... then why come on here and bother people? No one lived your life. So therefore by your standard, no one's opinion matters but your own.

And if only your opinion matters to you, then get off the forum and stop wasting our time. I didn't force you to read my post.

And I don't give a flying crap if you think my opinion is credible or not. You don't like it? Don't read it.

Tired of these snotty people in American culture that go around saying this crap 'your opinion doesn't matter because you haven't been hooked on heroin for decades, so you can't have an opinion on drugs'.

Bull. This forum is for everyone to talk about what they think on any issue. It's not a forum for only the elite who are deemed to have an opinion worth listening to.

 

[Andrew77]

You say it is about longevity but then you bring in other concepts. Loyalty, stability, and parental love. These are not longevity. These are the thingss that give marriage meaning.


If that is what they were after why would they bother with marriage? Do you think divorce is free? As you point out they could just "shack up".



Who says it is not intended to last? This is a strawman not in evidence.



So, again, if you claim the sole purpose of people is to have feckless marriages they will not choose the religious marriage. Only those who are truly comited will choose those and so the outcome is no different then from today.



Why is "Because I no longer wish to be married" not legitimate?



You are free to subvert your will to that of the church now. Why do you demand that others must do so as well?



I do not find it likely that you understand the views of "pagans".



You are already free to do so. What is currently lacking is the enforcement of religious edicts through secular law.



I have always found it interesting when I meet Christians who claim free will provided by God and then demand that they should be able to limit others actions.



No, you do not. You attempt to speak for the facts. To wit...


You take the claims of people for their reasoning and then simply label it insufficient or selfish? Silfish according to whom? You? Last I check Christians claim Marriage is a covenant between a man his wife, and God. Why are you trying to insert yourself?



I have a great many questions about it. Not the least of which is how much of a help and is it worth the price?



Indeed I do disagree. I believe longevity is an effect of the things in marriage that are meaningful.



My point was that if you feel meaning in marriage does not come from religion but from the state. If the only way to have meaning is longevity and that longevity requires state enforcement it is a state function.

Does that make sense?



If you are a religious person you are already free to follow this path. You are demanding that people, once they make a choice, are not free to change their mind. That does not seem like meaning to me. That simply seems punitive for not knowing how events might turn out.

You say it is about longevity but then you bring in other concepts. Loyalty, stability, and parental love. These are not longevity. These are the thingss that give marriage meaning.

If it doesn't last, you don't have loyalty. If it doesn't last, you don't have stability. If it doesn't last, no matter how much you think you love your kids, you don't. Kids need a mother and father that is together, and part of their lives.

All of those things are tied directly to longevity.

If that is what they were after why would they bother with marriage? Do you think divorce is free? As you point out they could just "shack up".

I don't understand it myself. I'm just telling you what I have personally witnessed multiple times. I don't get it. To me, what you are saying is logical. Yet... I've seen it. I've watched them do this.

For example, I was with this co-worker, and we were eating lunch, and (why people tell me this stuff I don't know) he starts talking about how he was on his 9th divorce, and he already had a girlfriend, and the were engaged.... before he was divorced. Why would you do this, I don't know.... and why you would tell a co-worker, I don't know.

But I asked him "Did it ever occur to you that maybe... I don't know... you're the problem?" And he said no. It's not him.

Another example, I knew a girl who was talking about her future plans, and she was all keen on saving up money. So I'm thinking... new car.... house... college.... something you would need to save up money for. "I'm saving it in a separate bank account, so when I get divorced, I'll have money."

Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet. She wasn't even dating at the time. In fact, until that conversation, I had thought to ask her out to dinner. But not after that.

Had another guy sit back in his chair at work, hands behind his head, staring up at the ceiling "Yeah, I'll marry her because that is what she wants.... but I just don't think I'm the type of guy that can stay with just one woman...." I wasn't involved in this conversation. He was talking to someone else.

Now I get it, I only have about a dozen stories like this. You might say that I was just unlucky in meeting a ton of people with crazy views.... but do you really think that any of those people, or the other people the stories I didn't mention... would have that view of marriage, if they couldn't get out of marriage without having a justified reason?

Would that guy be on his 9th wife? Would that other guy be so causal about marrying his live-in girlfriend? Would that girl be saving up money for a divorce before getting married?

Would they? I don't think so. I just honestly don't think so. I think the reason this attitude exists, is because we live in a world where marriage has little meaning, and they know they can escape from their 'vows' at any moment, for no reason at all.

You take the claims of people for their reasoning and then simply label it insufficient or selfish? Silfish according to whom? You? Last I check Christians claim Marriage is a covenant between a man his wife, and God. Why are you trying to insert yourself?

Then we'll just have to disagree on this. If you divorce someone because you can't get along... then that is selfish. The military puts people together, and when you don't get along, they kick your butt, until you do. When you get a job, there is always someone there that you don't get along with, and you simply deal with it.

Marriage is the same. Stop being selfish, and get along.

And if you are going to invoke G-d in the matter....
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." -Jesus Christ, the son of G-d.

You want to bring up G-d, I can do that. He's being far more brutal about it, than I was in this thread.

I have a great many questions about it. Not the least of which is how much of a help and is it worth the price?

Well that's all debatable. Every single survey on happiness, indicates that the peak of society being generally happy, was in the 1950s, and one thing you can say about the 1950s, is that divorce was virtually unheard of. Kids born out of wedlock, crime rates, divorce rates, everything was exceptionally good in the 1950s.

Again not perfect. I never suggested there was a perfection that could ever be achieved. But it was way better, in every aspect of society.

My point was that if you feel meaning in marriage does not come from religion but from the state. If the only way to have meaning is longevity and that longevity requires state enforcement it is a state function.

Does that make sense?

I can sort of see that.

I apply for a job. I interview for a job. I work a deal between me and the owner, for an agreed upon wage, for an agreed upon labor. I work the job, and I get paid the money. I work years. I eventually quit, and me and the employer go our separate ways.

What part of that is a State function? None. Nothing in that story is state function to me.

Yet, if I work, and my employer refuses to pay my wage.... I can go to that state and enforce that contract.

So I get your meaning, and I suppose from your point of view, it would be a state function... and that's fine with me if you what to view it that way.

I still don't see the State enforcing an agreement, as meaning that agreement is a state function. It's not, not in my view.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even if it’s trans-man/trans-woman?

Italy doesn't recognize gay marriage but they do recognize marriages between transpersons:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/27/miss-trans-italy-winner-landmark-wedding-trans-rights/

 

[Andrew77]

Actually, in the vast majority of states, private employees are hired on an at-will basis unless the contract specifically says so. The examples you gave were both state employees which generally do require a cause, but that's not the case for those in the private sector.

Fair enough point. Did you get the basic idea though? Even in at-will states, they can still sue for unlawful termination.

 

[Belk]

You say it is about longevity but then you bring in other concepts. Loyalty, stability, and parental love. These are not longevity. These are the thingss that give marriage meaning.

If it doesn't last, you don't have loyalty. If it doesn't last, you don't have stability. If it doesn't last, no matter how much you think you love your kids, you don't. Kids need a mother and father that is together, and part of their lives.

All of those things are tied directly to longevity.

I would say it is the other way round. Longevity is tied to these concepts. Longevity happens when you have these things in a marriage. These are the values that give marriage meaning and when they are present you will have a long and fruitful marriage. If they are not present longevity by itself is not going to create these things. In fact if there is one thing we have seen it is that simply forcing people to stay together results in more toxic relationships.

If that is what they were after why would they bother with marriage? Do you think divorce is free? As you point out they could just "shack up".

I don't understand it myself. I'm just telling you what I have personally witnessed multiple times. I don't get it. To me, what you are saying is logical. Yet... I've seen it. I've watched them do this.

For example, I was with this co-worker, and we were eating lunch, and (why people tell me this stuff I don't know) he starts talking about how he was on his 9th divorce, and he already had a girlfriend, and the were engaged.... before he was divorced. Why would you do this, I don't know.... and why you would tell a co-worker, I don't know.

But I asked him "Did it ever occur to you that maybe... I don't know... you're the problem?" And he said no. It's not him.

Another example, I knew a girl who was talking about her future plans, and she was all keen on saving up money. So I'm thinking... new car.... house... college.... something you would need to save up money for. "I'm saving it in a separate bank account, so when I get divorced, I'll have money."

Keep in mind, she wasn't married yet. She wasn't even dating at the time. In fact, until that conversation, I had thought to ask her out to dinner. But not after that.

Had another guy sit back in his chair at work, hands behind his head, staring up at the ceiling "Yeah, I'll marry her because that is what she wants.... but I just don't think I'm the type of guy that can stay with just one woman...." I wasn't involved in this conversation. He was talking to someone else.

Now I get it, I only have about a dozen stories like this. You might say that I was just unlucky in meeting a ton of people with crazy views.... but do you really think that any of those people, or the other people the stories I didn't mention... would have that view of marriage, if they couldn't get out of marriage without having a justified reason?

Would that guy be on his 9th wife? Would that other guy be so causal about marrying his live-in girlfriend? Would that girl be saving up money for a divorce before getting married?

Would they? I don't think so. I just honestly don't think so. I think the reason this attitude exists, is because we live in a world where marriage has little meaning, and they know they can escape from their 'vows' at any moment, for no reason at all.

I do not deny there are plenty of people who get married and divorced multiple times. I know no small number myself. However I think you have the cause wrong. I think it is because people place to much emphasis on marriage. Relationships are hard work and you need to have an understanding of yourself and what you want. However we are feed the concept that if you really love the other person it will all magically work out. People enter into marriage without any idea of what it is going to take to make it work. I guess in a way I am agreeing with you here. I think we need people to realize what marriage is going to entail and how to make it work prior to entering into the contract. I disagree that forcing people to stay together will have this effect.

You take the claims of people for their reasoning and then simply label it insufficient or selfish? Silfish according to whom? You? Last I check Christians claim Marriage is a covenant between a man his wife, and God. Why are you trying to insert yourself?

Then we'll just have to disagree on this. If you divorce someone because you can't get along... then that is selfish. The military puts people together, and when you don't get along, they kick your butt, until you do. When you get a job, there is always someone there that you don't get along with, and you simply deal with it.

Marriage is the same. Stop being selfish, and get along.

And if you are going to invoke G-d in the matter....
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." -Jesus Christ, the son of G-d.

You want to bring up G-d, I can do that. He's being far more brutal about it, than I was in this thread.

I think you are correct. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I think that you are reducing a complex issue to simplistic terms and then demanding a simple answer for it.

I have a great many questions about it. Not the least of which is how much of a help and is it worth the price?

Well that's all debatable. Every single survey on happiness, indicates that the peak of society being generally happy, was in the 1950s, and one thing you can say about the 1950s, is that divorce was virtually unheard of. Kids born out of wedlock, crime rates, divorce rates, everything was exceptionally good in the 1950s.

Again not perfect. I never suggested there was a perfection that could ever be achieved. But it was way better, in every aspect of society.

This is a serious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply because people were happier in the 50s (Do you have actual statistics on this? I would be curious to see them.) and divorce was harder to obtain does not in any way provide causation. It is, in point of fact, pretty weak on the correlation side as well.

My point was that if you feel meaning in marriage does not come from religion but from the state. If the only way to have meaning is longevity and that longevity requires state enforcement it is a state function.

Does that make sense?

I can sort of see that.

I apply for a job. I interview for a job. I work a deal between me and the owner, for an agreed upon wage, for an agreed upon labor. I work the job, and I get paid the money. I work years. I eventually quit, and me and the employer go our separate ways.

What part of that is a State function? None. Nothing in that story is state function to me.

Yet, if I work, and my employer refuses to pay my wage.... I can go to that state and enforce that contract.

So I get your meaning, and I suppose from your point of view, it would be a state function... and that's fine with me if you what to view it that way.

I still don't see the State enforcing an agreement, as meaning that agreement is a state function. It's not, not in my view.

Fair enough. I could argue the point but this is not the piece that I am really interested in. The part of this conversation I find interesting is the longevity piece. To my mind your are taking the result of those things which give marriage meaning and saying that if we force people to achieve the result the other pieces will follow. I disagree with that idea.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It seems to me that certain political factions, who were seemingly okay with government oversight of the marriage business when it was adhering to their personal religious views...(cough cough DOMA under the Bush Administration), seemingly did a swift 180 on that and have become very libertarian with regards to "just get the government out of it", and that attitude change seemed to coincidentally happen right after a certain supreme court ruling. Hmmmm

It's almost as if they were completely cool with the legal/tax benefits of marriage, resulting from state oversight, when it was limited their definition of the institution...but when some folks who they didn't approve of started getting those benefits, they changed their tune and had the attitude of "well, if THEY are gonna be allowed to have it now, too, then we should just do away with licensed marriage"

If for some reason that SCOTUS ruling ever got overturned or reversed, how much you wanna bet most would go back to being cool with government licensed marriage again.

 

[Andrew77]

I would say it is the other way round. Longevity is tied to these concepts. Longevity happens when you have these things in a marriage. These are the values that give marriage meaning and when they are present you will have a long and fruitful marriage. If they are not present longevity by itself is not going to create these things. In fact if there is one thing we have seen it is that simply forcing people to stay together results in more toxic relationships.

I do not deny there are plenty of people who get married and divorced multiple times. I know no small number myself. However I think you have the cause wrong. I think it is because people place to much emphasis on marriage. Relationships are hard work and you need to have an understanding of yourself and what you want. However we are feed the concept that if you really love the other person it will all magically work out. People enter into marriage without any idea of what it is going to take to make it work. I guess in a way I am agreeing with you here. I think we need people to realize what marriage is going to entail and how to make it work prior to entering into the contract. I disagree that forcing people to stay together will have this effect.

I think you are correct. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I think that you are reducing a complex issue to simplistic terms and then demanding a simple answer for it.

This is a serious case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply because people were happier in the 50s (Do you have actual statistics on this? I would be curious to see them.) and divorce was harder to obtain does not in any way provide causation. It is, in point of fact, pretty weak on the correlation side as well.

Fair enough. I could argue the point but this is not the piece that I am really interested in. The part of this conversation I find interesting is the longevity piece. To my mind your are taking the result of those things which give marriage meaning and saying that if we force people to achieve the result the other pieces will follow. I disagree with that idea.

I would say it is the other way round. Longevity is tied to these concepts. Longevity happens when you have these things in a marriage.

There's a book by Alex Spanos, he's dead now, about him growing up. His parents got married, and they had all kinds of issues. But in the end they stayed together. Alex talks about seeing them, and learning what it meant to be married. All those things, he had growing up, because in that day and age, you stuck it out. You couldn't just get a divorce. And Alex ended up a multi-million dollar real-estate developer.

If that situation had happened today, they would have gotten a divorce, and Alex would have been raised in poverty, by his single mother, living off food stamps, having all kinds of behavior issues, maybe drugs, or a criminal record.

Now you say that is hypothetical, and I agree, but the statistics do support that assumption.

My point though is, loyalty, stability, and so on.... these are learned.

Babies do not come out of the womb, and the doctor looks down and says "Oh this is a loyal one!".

And where do children learn loyalty, and keeping promises, and stability? From their parents.

And when parents can just ditch their spouse because of "incompatibility", they teach their kids that is what marriage is about. You just hang out, until you have a problem, and you deal with the problem by ditching the other person.

I think it is because people place to much emphasis on marriage. Relationships are hard work and you need to have an understanding of yourself and what you want. However we are feed the concept that if you really love the other person it will all magically work out. People enter into marriage without any idea of what it is going to take to make it work. I guess in a way I am agreeing with you here. I think we need people to realize what marriage is going to entail and how to make it work prior to entering into the contract. I disagree that forcing people to stay together will have this effect.

Yeah, I completely agree with everything you said there. Marriage is completely over romanticized, and people walk into these relationships, with Disney glasses on, thinking John Smith is going to sweep in, and take Pocahontas, to her castle in England, and everything is going to work out.

Parents need to keep their daughters away from garbage romantic movies. Harvard did a study some years back, showing that woman with the highest expectations of marriage, before getting married, were the most miserable in marriage. And women who had the lowest expectations, were the most happy.

At any rate, I understand that you disagree with keeping people together will have this effect... but I think it would. Either it would, or it would keep people apart, and either outcome is better than the current system.

Take that guy with the 9th marriage, and already engaged to another girl, before divorcing his 9th wife.

That guy will never know what it takes to have a good marriage. Never. He will be lonely and miserable until he dies. Why? Because he has learned that the way you deal with a problem with his spouse, is to divorce them and find a new spouse. He's learned that from the system.

Now if you say to this guy, okay new deal... you marry this chick, and you are stuck with her for life. He is going to do one of two things. A: Stay single... which is perfect. Now he isn't damaging more women, and pumping out children he refuses to take care of. B: He'll marry this chick, and then he'll be forced to figure out how to make it work.

And by the way, I have known guys that did this. Of course they are all old now, because no one does that these days.

We had this old guy at another church, and he married some girl, and they had a terrible time. But... divorce wasn't a big option back then, and they just stayed together. Finally all the kids left the house, and this man came home to his wife one night and told her.... the kids are gone, it's just us now, so we can either stay angry with each other and live out our lives like this, or we can choose to be happy with each other.

He said their marriage had never been happier, and he only regrets not having that conversation sooner.

Again... that same couple in my generation where divorce is universal and accepted, they would have divorced, and destroyed their family, and their kids would have all kinds of problems, and been likely to divorce too.

So Yes, I really do believe that keeping people together, will work out most of these problems.

 

[Andrew77]

It seems to me that certain political factions, who were seemingly okay with government oversight of the marriage business when it was adhering to their personal religious views...(cough cough DOMA under the Bush Administration), seemingly did a swift 180 on that and have become very libertarian with regards to "just get the government out of it", and that attitude change seemed to coincidentally happen right after a certain supreme court ruling. Hmmmm

It's almost as if they were completely cool with the legal/tax benefits of marriage, resulting from state oversight, when it was limited their definition of the institution...but when some folks who they didn't approve of started getting those benefits, they changed their tune and had the attitude of "well, if THEY are gonna be allowed to have it now, too, then we should just do away with licensed marriage"

If for some reason that SCOTUS ruling ever got overturned or reversed, how much you wanna bet most would go back to being cool with government licensed marriage again.

But again... my proposal would eliminate any complaint about this. If you don't want a religious marriage, my proposal includes a State marriage. Just go get a state marriage, and you don't need to worry about it.

I have no interest is bothering with pagan marriages. They can do whatever they want. My proposal would only affect religious people who want a marriage that has meaning.

As for tax benefits.... I don't think there should even be an income tax. Moreover, If there is an income tax, it should be a flat tax, so that everyone everywhere, pays the exact same percentage of their income in tax.

 

[NotreDame]

As Christians, should we be refusing and opposing the state's legalities on a union by which only God has formed, and not man?

Can’t the State, and doesn’t the State, intentionally seek to have its own definition of marriage that isn’t based entirely upon the Bible? Sure, there are some common denominators between the State’s meaning of marriage and the Bible but there are some notable, significant differences. The State isn’t seeking to codify, and hasn’t codified,
a Biblical meaning of marriage.

So, why should Christians oppose a meaning of marriage utilized by the State that is intentionally not based upon the Biblical concept of marriage?

 

[NotreDame]

And that is great for you. Truly glad that works for you guys.

Nevertheless, when you look at the divorce rates, clearly marriage doesn't have the meaning that it used to. For the first 100 years, married meant married. You did not find someone else, and divorces for "incompatibility".

And whether you think it does, or does not have meaning... if someone married at my church, decides they want a divorce, there is nothing the church can do to stop them. Which is exactly why they got married at that church, knowing they could get out of it if they wanted.

And I know this, because we had a lady that married a guy in our church, and she just decided that she found a man she wanted more. We asked her to explain what the problem was, and she refused. The guy was absolutely devastated. He bought a house for this girl, and had moved jobs for this girl. He really honestly loved her, and kept coming to our church for weeks trying to figure out how to make this right. Months went past, and she never said why she left him, no problems came up, and she just flat out ruined this guys life for no reason whatsoever.

Now thank G-d in Heaven, no children were involved. But there was nothing the church could do to stop this evil and wrong divorce. Which is exactly why people are so flippant about getting married, and why they divorce just as quick.

So when people can act like this, and divorce people like it's just changing underwear, because they found a better pair of underwear to put on...... no marriage obviously doesn't mean much.

And if you missed it, but nearly every single problem in our society, ties right back to marriage. It really does. Drugs, poverty, crime, career failure, suicide, depression, mental illness, nearly every single problem you can think of ties back to marriage.

So I get it that you don't think this is a big problem... but I do, and if no one else saw marriage as lacking in meaning, then the original poster would not have started this thread.

I was concurring with much of what you said, until I read the prose below:

nearly every single problem in our society, ties right back to marriage. It really does. Drugs, poverty, crime, career failure, suicide, depression, mental illness, nearly every single problem you can think of ties back to marriage.

That is an extraordinary claim of causation. Are you saying marriage/divorce is a cause or the cause for those societal ills? What’s your evidence?