Instead of charging homosexual rights advocacy groups with threatening the sacred institution of marriage, conservative scholars are considering a more pronounced look at US society as a whole:
A couple of things jumped out at me from this article, but I'm curious to see how the rest of Hatrack sees the article.
-Trevor
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I don't know. It seems to me like the people opposed to marriage as it is now are afraid of the fact that it's changing. Granted, I don't think that the high rate of divorce and marriage being something it's easy to throw away is GOOD, but before divorce was "OK" there were likely at least as many people who were in unhealthy relationships and couldn't get out.
It's hard to make a value judgement on cultural change. It takes a lot to get something like that back to the way it used to be.. That's why I doubt that abortion will ever be completely outlawed. People just won't stand up when you give them a choice and then take it away, regardless of how harmful some think that choice is.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There isn't anything new here. Gay marriage is a sidetrack. The next step is going to questioning the appropriateness of young marriages, and hopefully, in a few decades when we figure this out, everyone is going to realize that marriage is about fidelity, uncovering a trust between people that makes us noble.
The high divorce was necessary as people were getting married for the wrong reasons. I think it's going to fade out, then there are going to be fewer marriages, and then there will be more marriages, except they will be better.
[ November 21, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Honestly, if someone is in an abusive marriage, that's a perfect reason to divorce. But disagreements or the idea that, "I just don't love you anymore" are things that can be avoided or fixed if people actually work at it. I'm for anything that tries to make marriage more important in our society...Unfortunately, I don't think there is much that can really be done about it, now that the damage is done, without a complete change in the way people think in this country.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
I wonder what he means by addressing cohabitation and "deliberate childlessness".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think he means that cohabitation and deliberate childlessness are both bad things for the institution of traditional marriage, which I guess is supposed to result in a nuclear family (and the LORD said unto them: "Go forth and produce ten jillion children, but not before you are married" ).
(But I suspect you think that too.)
[ November 21, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Well, it's obvious that conservative Christians have problems with cohabitation. However, in my church, at least, they held the belief that we were called to have children, thus choosing not to have children was a sin. Unsurprisingly, fully half of our congregation was under the age of 12.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: I think he means that cohabitation and deliberate childlessness are both bad things for the institution of traditional marriage
That's what I think he means, too. I was wondering how they'll go about "addressing" the issue. A constitutional amendment against cohabitation? A law saying that every married couple must reproduce?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
On November 13, Mark Shields had some interesting comments related to this topic on "The Capital Gang." Some states have a much higher divorce rate than others - and being in the bible belt isn't much of a predictor in terms of the divorce rate:
quote:(MARK)SHIELDS: Al, aside from my time in college, in my college years, and my time in the Marine Corps, I have lived my entire life in the blue states of this country. The blue states, of course, as we know, vote Democratic and are out of touch with American faith, morality and values.
Wait. Thanks to "The New York Times" Pam Bellchek (ph), we learn that there are a lot more divorces in the red states of America, the church-going states, than in blue America. Red states with the highest divorce rates include Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas. And what American state has the lowest divorce rate? That's right, Massachusetts, which sanctioned gay marriage.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, your apologies will be accepted.
Much to my surprise, Pam Belluck's article is still available online, even though I had to dig a little to find it:
quote:To Avoid Divorce, Move to Massachusetts By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON — If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.
As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"Some people are saying, 'The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,' " said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce."
The Barna Group, a California organization that studies evangelical Christian trends, has produced two studies about divorce that found that born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again Christians.
One of the reports, a survey of 7,043 people in 2001, said that: "Residents of the Northeast and West are commonly noted for their more liberal leanings in politics and lifestyle. However, the region of the nation in which divorce was least likely was the Northeast."
The other study, published two months ago, said that even though the Northeast probably had a higher rate of couples living together rather than marrying, the divorce rate would be essentially similar even if the cohabiting couples got hitched. And it said that "relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior."
[ November 21, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm still confused as heck on how, HOW, do some of these scholars think that gay folk getting married would cause the collapse of straight marriage.
Just baffles me.
I agree with the idea of bolstering marriage in general...very good idea...but the idea that you need to ban gay marriage in order to save straight marriage and all civilization really comes down to culture shock and prejudice from religious dogma. imho.
People grow up knowing a world that functions the same way all the time...families are set up the same way everywhere. And then eventually new ways of having a family are seen...they are different and alien. And thus must be "evil". To admit that those ways of living are ok would mean to question everything else you believe in...and most people don't have the strength to do that. Cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Interesting article. I was surprised to learn that "no-fault" divorce means only that neither spouse is blamed for the failure of the marriage. I thought it also meant that no reason needed to be provided, but it seems that one does. Since you can't get divorced just because you woke up one morning and decided you didn't want to be married anymore, I don't see how no-fault divorce is to blame for failed marriages.
The best way to prevent divorce is to make sure that people know what they're getting into when they marry. That means pre-marital counseling of some sort--not that it should be a legal requirement, but it should be encouraged. It also means that people shouldn't rush into marriage, though again I'm not advocating waiting periods to get a license.
I think some people do get married too quickly, and I have a theory about why it's possible that religious conservatives may be prone to it. I went to a private Christian school for awhile, and I noticed an alarming number of students got married to each other as soon as they graduated. Perhaps one of the reasons why is that the school emphasized no sex before marriage. I have no problem with this teaching in itself, but I am concerned that it may lead people to marry an unsuitable partner because their sex drive needs to be sated. I don't have any hard evidence of this, and I certainly don't think it's the only cause of divorce. I also don't advocate parents and schools telling kids that they should go out and have all the sex they want. I'm just wondering if perhaps strict abstinence teaching may have unintended consequences.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
People who blame 'No Fault' divorces don't get it either. If two people belong together, you don't need chains to keep them together. The backlash against 'No Fault' divorces is an outgrowth of our prison culture. Finding fault in divorce won't strengthen marriage.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm a bit torn on no-fault divorce... my Dad and Mom were married for thirty years. He cheated on her for a year and left her for a younger woman... leaving her to fend for herself with all her medical conditions and now no insurance. Thus dooming my brother and I to take care of her, with no money and when we should be busy trying to build our own lives. It should have been his job. *shrug* If Michigan wasn't a no-fault State, Mom might have gotten quite alot of money... instead she gets the house, it's morgage payment, and three years on Dad's COBRA.
[ November 21, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: "No one in the alliance believes saving the legal status of marriage as between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status, we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
Ah ha... the truth comes out. By sacrificing gay folks status they think they can save marriage with laws.
quote: Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of a new history of marriage, said passing anti-gay amendments in hopes of returning marriage to some bygone traditional status is futile.
"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," she said. "None of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. … People see it as more optional."
Unfortunatly this is more likely.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
In that instance, would the fault-finding divorce strengthen your parents' marriage? Or would it have just made the break-up more reasonable.
These are two distinct issues. I agree with you, but we have to seperate the issues.
As to the article, I think it's good that it no longer plays such an integral economic role. It's good for marriage.
[ November 21, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm gonna rant. Adultery is such a painful thing to overcome in marriage. The hurt and betrayal. Why do so many people do it? If people would just exercise self-discipline, what effect would it have on the divorce rates? Why is it so hard to just stay faithful to one's spouse? If you have problems, both of you work on it.
I ask again WHY DO PEOPLE COMMIT ADULTERY? It is STUPID! It is KILLING YOUR MARRIAGE! Sorry for shouting. I am ticked.
If you ask me, it is the silly notions of "follow your heart" and "easy romance" and "instant gratification" that prevail in society that is causing this disease. Christians are just as susseptible to these lies as anyone, apparently. Perhaps even more so?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:In that instance, would the fault-finding divorce strengthen your parents' marriage? Or would it have just made the break-up more reasonable.
No... it would not have strengthened their marriage at all... only made the separation of wealth more fair. I suppose if the punishment to my Dad was strong enough it would have "strengthened" the marriage by forcing him to stay with Mom, keeping his mistress on the low forever and hating Mom all the while. Not much of a marriage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Telp, California is also a no-fault-divorce state . . . AND it is a community-property state. I think it is the latter that would have helped your mom.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
In all of the "people don't need chains" business, this forgets that the people who suffer the most from divorce are not the estranged couple, but the children. Telporian's gives us a good example.
Kids have no control over what their parents do. It used to be that, once upon a time, divorce was such a taboo that people stayed together no matter what. I think it is good that some of the stigma has been lifted, so that people suffering abusive relationships can get themselves and their children out. But there really just isn't enough commitment.
I think people greatly overestimate how horrible it was when people had a more difficult time getting a divorce. Those small handful that we've helped by making it easier are hugely outnumbered by those people who just gave up when things got tough. And again, the ones who are stuck with the most damage are the kids.
Think this is whining about poor, cute, helpless little ones? No. It is about our future. The damage we do to our kids is damage we do to our future, like it or not.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Isn't there something corrupt about marriage when the only reason people stay in it is because they can't afford to get out?
It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't drink and drive because having a DUI on your record is a pain in the butt.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
After thinking about my rant above, I wonder to myself if adultery is any more common now than in generations past or if it is just that divorce is easier. I suppose there is no way to *really* know.
But I still think adultery is STUPID. It is tantamount to declaring a death sentance on your marriage.
[ November 21, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
People need to THINK before they get married. TO make sure. They should not be casual and ignorant about marriage. They shouldn't just think it will be easy, all peaches and cherries once they walk down that Aisle. Marriage is about responsibility, about hard work. If anything effects marriage negatively it would be- Poverty. Working two jobs each that don't pay enough, hardly getting to see each other, that has a much worse impact on marriage than anything gays do. The couple just doesn't get along, doesn't have anything in common, or perhaps they are both immature. Getting married JUST to be able to have sex, for no other reason but that. And a whole host of other reasons. Furthermore, morality cannot be legislated. If people want to cohabit, not have kids or a host of other things, conservatives should just not care. Just put it out of their mind. It is not their business. They do not put in enough energy towards things like child abuse that are a real threat.
BUT, i do agree about adultery... It's just not right. People should keep their marriage vows.
[ November 21, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Syn, I agree those are all things that can really harm marriage.
What more do you think conservatives can do to prevent child abuse?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's a difficult question... It could range from becoming social workers, changing laws that put children BACK into abusive homes after they have been taken out of them. Being a foster parent. There also has to be some way to set up a network to help young parents, especially those that have been abused themselves to find other ways to handle their children besides physical violence. Or, even just changing the attitudes about abuse... there just has to be SOMETHING that can be done.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:If you ask me, it is the silly notions of "follow your heart" and "easy romance" and "instant gratification" that prevail in society that is causing this disease. Christians are just as susseptible to these lies as anyone, apparently. Perhaps even more so?
I dunno, Bev. But there needs to be some explanations why the highest divorce rates in this country are in the states of Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas. The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts. (That, as Mark Shields pointed out, is where the court OK'd same-sex marriage.)
Maybe "red staters" feel the institution of marriage is threatened because it IS more threatened in THEIR states???
(sorry to shout - too lazy to use code for italics or boldface)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:After thinking about my rant above, I wonder to myself if adultery is any more common now than in generations past or if it is just that divorce is easier. I suppose there is no way to *really* know.
That's exactly right, which is why I don't buy the "decay of society" thing -- I really do think that people were always doing these awful things (adultery in particular I'm thinking of), but we're more aware of them because of mass media (including the internet).
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:But I still think adultery is STUPID. It is tantamount to declaring a death sentance on your marriage.
Even more strongly, it shows that the people didn't understand what a marriage is to begin with. I think that too many thoughtless people get married. I think it happens at too young of an age with too little understanding, especially in the high divorce states.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I think that conservatives feel like the same attitudes about easy divorcing also lead to more child abuse.
Children are statistically abused more by a non-biological guardian (read step parent or live in BF) than by their parents.
Also, I would think that people who abstain from sex before marriage are more likely to not be driven by the kinds of attitudes that lead to more divorce. So I don't think that getting married 'just to have sex' is as much of a problem as you'd like to say it was. It shows someone who is more likely to be faithful to their spouse.
Parents are the foundation of the family, and in strengthening that foundation you decrease the chances of neglect and abuse of children.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But there needs to be some explanations why the highest divorce rates in this country are in the states of Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas. The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts. (That, as Mark Shields pointed out, is where the court OK'd same-sex marriage.)
Yes, I am curious about that too. I wonder what factor/s are involved? Some might be quick to say that religion is a factor. Though I don't understand *why* that would be.
Shigosei had an interesting thought about people getting married in order to have sex because of the efforts to remain chaste. I have heard this come up before, and I am concerned since I belong to one of many faiths that *strongly* believes in chastity outside of marriage. While I would not consider changing my mind on the importance of chastity outside of marriage, I would concern myself with helping young people avoid marriages happening for those reasons.
Edit: Amka, I think it might happen more than we are comfortable with. It might even be a factor without the people involved realizing it. But these are my own opinions on the matter.
Edit: But of course, there may be other factors. There are certainly cultural differences between these regions. What other differences might there be?
Syn, my aunt is heavily involved in volunteer work for helping children who have been abused. She kind of feels that it is her life's mission. It is a great work she is doing. Perhaps I can ask her how I can be of help.
[ November 21, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Maybe it's lower in the red states because more people up there are okay with sex outside of marriage? Sex all the time.. with anybody.. first date.. one night stand.. whatever.
Isn't it just like the sitcoms and the movies??
While the blue states get married on the first date.
But seriously... why not waiting periods to get your marriage license? It might be a good idea. Set it to something like a month, and hopefully stop those stupid weddings in vegas that last about 5 minutes.
-Katarain
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
how about if they do the May Day thing and jump over a bonfire to get married for one day? But, that only counts on Beltaine and it only counts if you are a pagan.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Almost all of my aunts and uncles on my father's side of the family are in loveless marriages - and some downright nasty ones at that.
Most of the children my age have major issues with their parents and/or with the notion of getting married because of our experiences with our parents.
They stay in these marriages because 1) They are Catholic and divorce is a major no-no 2) At this late date, habits die hard
I don't think anything could help this state of affairs, but I also think the divorce rate was so low because women put up with a helluva lot before they were willing to embrace the stigma of a divorce which would have seriously impacted their ability to survive and/or get re-married.
As for affairs - I don't think anyone has an affair with the notion of killing their marriage.
Some people cheat because they feel like they're not getting what they need from the relationship, be that excitement, romance, sex - whatever.
Other people cheat simply because they don't take their vows seriously and are looking for gratification on the side.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: As for affairs - I don't think anyone has an affair with the notion of killing their marriage.
And herein lies the problem. People aren't thinking. You don't keep a marriage healthy by being passive about it. Both have to take an active roll in keeping it well.
quote: Some people cheat because they feel like they're not getting what they need from the relationship, be that excitement, romance, sex - whatever.
This is a reason to *want* to cheat. People can still choose not to.
As for Catholics not divorcing because it is against their religion, not working on their marriage is probably not "OK" with their religion either. I don't understand feeling that you are doing the right thing by just staying in the marriage. You have to actively work at it.
But it also should be an effort made by both. It is sad when one member of the marriage isn't willing to change or sacrifice for the sake of the marriage being a happy one. I really feel for those people.
[ November 21, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
My dad did have an affair with the notion of killing his marriage to my mother. He wanted out and he figured that would make my mom give in to divorce. She didn't right away. She tried to get him to go to counseling with her, he wouldn't. She tried simply talking to him, he wouldn't. She tried begging him to stay for our sake, he didn't really believe his actions would harm us. He had made his mind up and there was no convincing him otherwise; he wasn't willing to put any work into it.
He denounced his Catholic upbringing around that time, as well, while my mother clung to hers.
Just my anecdotal two cents.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I agree completely Bev - there's a lot of time between tab A and slot B, but if the person wants to cheat, they're probably going to.
Affairs don't just happen.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
...and you're right Bev, adultery sucks but time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Uleeuh, I was wondering if a person might have an affair in order to try to end their marriage. I assumed they wouldn't because then the divorce would go worse for them. I guess I was wrong. That is sad.
quote: Affairs don't just happen.
Sooo true. All of us are going to have opportunities to develop feelings for someone outside our marriage. We should take care and realize that we *can* control our emotions. Idle fantasizing can lead to disaster.
Telp: Definitely.
[ November 21, 2004, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Irami,
Youth isn't the problem, maturity is. They don't necessarily go hand in hand. People underestimate children too much, and our young adults are being treated too much like children, so that they can't mature.
This is a problem of both too much permissiveness and too much constriction. In too much permissiveness, the parents don't teach their kids boundaries or how to control themselves. In too much constriction, the parents don't teach their kids independance or, again, how to control themselves. In both circumstances, the results make poor spouses until they have a few years on their own to learn the lessons in the world that their parents should have taught them.
But this isn't always the case. Many people are more ready to get married at 18 than some are at 30. There are many advantages to 'early' marriage and early child rearing.
*The later youth of the two spouses is spent together. This helps bonding. *Easier conception *Easier pregnancies *More energy to raise children. *More flexibility is accomodating the children. This is true of the spouse as well. It is much easier to mesh lifestyles together when one isn't set in their ways. *Child rearing is also finished when young. I will be done when many are still in the early stages of parenthood.
There are many things that years spent on a career and 'enjoying my youth' could never have taught me about being married or having children. These are things you just can't learn until you are in the situation.
Just because you, yourself, don't feel like you are ready to be married (very valid for many people) doesn't mean that everyone your age isn't ready to be married.
Of course, there are many people that are getting married that shouldn't be. But again, this is no so much a matter of their age so as their maturity.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Happy 100th post, Uhleeuh.
I'd just like to add an anecdote of my own. My aunt had been having trouble with her husband for a long time. Recently they got divorced and he had his lawyer write up the papers. My mother urged her to get a lawyer to look at them, but she didn't believe he would do anything to hurt her like that. She signed and lost a lot... House, car... (sigh) They're right. This sucks. But that's no way to try to fix it.
[ November 21, 2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I ask again WHY DO PEOPLE COMMIT ADULTERY? It is STUPID! It is KILLING YOUR MARRIAGE! Sorry for shouting. I am ticked.
I was going to make some crack about how this person seems a little sensitive about this subject, but then I noticed that it was my wife who posted that.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
So, uhm, MPH... what DID you do? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In too much permissiveness, the parents don't teach their kids boundaries or how to control themselves. In too much constriction, the parents don't teach their kids independance or, again, how to control themselves.
The worst is when it's too much of both permissiveness and constriction. The parents let the kids get away with too much in some arenas (partying, consumerism, not doing work, etc.) and also set their lives up for them in other areas (go to school A, B, or C; major in D; take job E).
You get kids who can't handle the slightest inconvenience or delayed gratification, yet can't order their life. They can't set goals, they can't work to meet the goals they adopt as the course of least resistance.
Dagonee
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
thi is why I was so upset about the Gay Marriage arguments.
Its not because I am Gay. I'm not.
Its because the arguments most often repeated were ones targeting Gay Marriages as Childless unions.
My wife and I can not have children, not without risking her life.
So by this religious argument, the value of my wife is determined by her womb, and the least sinful thing I can do is divorce her for barrenness, and marry some other more fertile woman.
There are two ideas about marriage in this world. One is that a husband and wife are a couple working together to better their own lives, caring and taking care of each other. The second view is that a husband and wife are part of a production system to create children, preferably healthy and Christian.
Those who believe in the first definition are more likely to believe in love conquering all.
Unfortunately, love doesn't conquer all. If you think about your experiences and the stories youve seen, read, or listened too, love can conquer death, and time, and war, and race, and politics. However, love is always defeated by human stupidity.
That--human stupidity--is the closest thing to omnipotent power we can see short of heaven.
Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
They seem to want to value women by the power of the womb. Forget all the progress in equal rights made in the past 100 years. A womans place is pregnant and chasing the children.
In other words, I smell the stench of sexism and racism in some of their arguments.
ps. Now that's a rant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
That's a very narrow view of the situation. First, the religions with the biggest "cultural" push for large families seem to be outside the "Protestant" establishment: Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons leap readily to mind. The evangelical movement is also very much outside the W.A.S.P. establishment you hinted at.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you overreached.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
Us Mormons wouldn't be nearly as worried about that. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure you Mormons aren't the White Protestants they have in mind.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, we don't consider ourselves protestant, but others do. Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
For me, it isn't so much that a married couple must have children in order to validate their marriage.
It is that marriage should be the first step in having children. If no other steps happen after that, then so be it.
But because it is that first step, it needs to be protected as the foundation for raising good children. It makes no difference to me if the children raised as a result of that marriage come from the womb of the wife, or are adopted.
As a society, the safe and competent raising of our children is the most important thing to ensure a strong society in the future.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I hoped my qualifer, "more likely" would cover explain that I do not mean all, most, or many of those 2nd definition believers came by their beliefs through sexist or racist avenues. Just that there are more of them who do than those who go by the first defintition.
One side note to consider. One of the churches in this country on the fastest rate of decline is the Catholic Church, which has strict rules on marriage, reproduction, and basically--increasing the children raised in Catholic homes.
They do this by telling thier followers what the CAN NOT do.
The Mormon church, on the other hand, is growing. They also have strict rules on family, marriage, and reproduction.
Do they have a different marketing approach? Do they emphasis more what one SHOULD DO, not CAN NOT DO. (the Can Not drives more people away from the church.)
Another option is that one is right and the other is wrong, and that's the price for heresy. Though I won't say which is the heresy.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You're right, Amka, maturity is the issue.
Dagonee,
I just keep hearing stories about people who can set goals, delay their gratification, be productive tax paying members of society, and still screw up their marriage because they can do all of that and still not understand what a marriage is. A fact which is even more troublesome considering that I could start a thread asking, "What is a Marriage," and get fifteen different "answers." All strong in conviction, some deeper in thought than others, and only a quarter of them being reasonably appropriate.
[ November 21, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was merely saying that worse than being too permissive or too constrictive with children was being both.
Dagonee
[ November 21, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One of the churches in this country on the fastest rate of decline is the Catholic Church...
I'm not sure where you get this, or even what you mean by decline. The last figures I saw had Catholics at about 24% of the country, fairly constant for at least the last 10 years.
Dagonee
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts.
There's an important error in those statistics. They fail to recognize the percentage of married people in the state. It's very easy to say there's a higher divorce rate in one state than another when all you count is number of marriages versus number of divorces. What happens when you do that is the real truth gets skewed. Unless someone can find some stats on percentage of married people in Mass. these numbers really don't mean a thing, other than that mariages in that state are more likely to succeed. It doesn't address the possibility that there just aren't as many married people there. Anyway...
The real problem that is affecting marriage is plain, simple selfishness. In the case of a marriage that ends in Adultery, the person who commits adultery is selfishly putting their own sex drive above the feelings of their spouse. They choose to commit adultery because they are not willing to sacrifice anything, even human impulses, for their spouse.
I think that's really the main problem. There are a lot of people out there who don't really understand what love is. It is not a matter of physical, or even emotional, attraction (though either of them may result, eventually, in the development of true love). It is a matter of willingness to sacrifice what you have, who you are, what you could have in order to serve another person. The most successful marriages are ones in which this type of thing happens with both people. The root of a successful marriage is that willingness to sacrifice. Marriages fail because one (and even both in some cases) person decides that they no long need to sacrifice their own desires for their spouse. The second that happens, things begin to fail. The only way they stop failing is when that person who has decided not to sacrifice chooses to turn around and starts making an effort to get things back on track.
Anyway...That's my take on it. And a slight rant/opinion.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: these numbers really don't mean a thing, other than that mariages in that state are more likely to succeed.
Wasn't that the point?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd rather they leap into bed together than leap into marriage together.
quote:The real problem that is affecting marriage is plain, simple selfishness. In the case of a marriage that ends in Adultery, the person who commits adultery is selfishly putting their own sex drive above the feelings of their spouse. They choose to commit adultery because they are not willing to sacrifice anything, even human impulses, for their spouse.
I don't think it's pure selfishness. I think it's a misunderstanding, the same misunderstanding people have when they start smoking or get into the car with a drunk driver. You can have all of the warning labels you want or the Public Service Announcements that you want, but until people understand that smoking screws up your body or drinking and driving is irresponsible, they are going to keep doing it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Wasn't that the point?
Not entirely. If there is a large difference in the number of married people, then it is quite possible that the smaller number of marriages is a result of more people choosing to run around without anything "tying them down". Those are the kind of people that probably wouldn't succeed in marriage because they wouldn't try hard enough to keep it together. In area where marriage is more common, it is likely due to a social prejudice, which then forces those who wouldn't put in the effort to make a successful mariage into a situation where they have to get married. Eventually that lack of effort supercedes the stigma against divorce in those areas and the marriage fails.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
in the last paragraph of the article that sndrake posted:
quote: The other study, published two months ago, said that even though the Northeast probably had a higher rate of couples living together rather than marrying, the divorce rate would be essentially similar even if the cohabiting couples got hitched.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If there is a large difference in the number of married people, then it is quite possible that the smaller number of marriages is a result of more people choosing to run around without anything "tying them down". Those are the kind of people that probably wouldn't succeed in marriage because they wouldn't try hard enough to keep it together.
We are good people, though, and funny.
[ November 21, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I think it's a misunderstanding, the same misunderstanding people have when they start smoking or get into the car with a drunk driver.
It's still possible to say that the root of misunderstanding is still selfishness. The person who smokes can easilly look at the package and see it's harmful, but they choose to do so anyway to either fit in with a certain group or to get some kind of high. The person who gets into the car with a drunk driver can probably tell that person is drunk, but they let them drive because they are too scared to confront that person because of the posibility of being perceived as part of the group. I'm not saying this is the case in every situation, but I hope you can see that pure selfishness (even if it's in small ammounts) is the root of many problems.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's still possible to say that the root of misunderstanding is still selfishness.
It's possible, but I think it lays blame instead of addressing the problem. I think most of the people who want to get out of their marriages are good people.
You call it selfishness, I call it misunderstanding. When I make a mistake, it's usually because I don't understand why to make the other choice.
Ken Keyes says, and I tend to agree, that "A loving person lives in a loving world. A hostile person lives in a hostile world. Everyone you meet is your mirror." So where does that leave us.
[ November 21, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: in the last paragraph of the article that sndrake posted:
But they can't prove that, can they? It's very easy to say that it wouldn't affect the divorce rate if more people got married, but the truth is that it just might.
quote: We are good people, though, and funny
Agreed Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think that having a higher percentage of people who would not succeed at marriage not marrying is precisely the point. While neither extramarital sex nor divorce are good (in my opinion), I think the former is preferable to the latter. The ideal isn't to have as many people as possible marry and stay together; it's to encourage people to take marriage seriously and not enter into a permanent relationship unless they intend to stick with it and work to make it better. That might mean a lower marriage rate. It's a small price to pay if a larger percentage of those marriages work.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I think most of the people who want to get out of their marriages are good people.
I'm not saying they aren't good people. But good people can make some major mistakes that really do some bad things.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: That might mean a lower marriage rate. It's a small price to pay if a larger percentage of those marriages work.
That's a very good point. But I think a lower percentage of selfish people would help more (Why am I spending so much time on this thread. I need to do my homework)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I think most of the people who want to get out of their marriages are good people.
Out of curiosity, what does it take for someone to qualify as a good person in your book?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm easy, all you have to do is try. It has to be a whole-hearted effort, putting everything at stake, but you just have to try. It doesn't matter if you succeed at doing anything.
[ November 21, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:in the last paragraph of the article that sndrake posted:
Just wanted to clarify - I only posted the first part of the article. It goes on for a few paragraphs more. Here's the second half of the article, including some input from a Christian conservative. No one disputes the basic data. (Pay special attention to the second paragraph - it falls into the "we are good and funny people" category. )
quote:Others, like Patrick F. Fagan, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, say it has nothing to do with differences between faiths.
"People who worship frequently no matter what their faith tend to divorce much, much, much less," said Mr. Fagan, making an argument that might unwittingly suggest that Northeasterners are more devout than other people. "All this talk about this faith, that faith, born again, not born again, to me is irrelevant."
Many experts believe the explanation to be more multidimensional, with high divorce rates tied to factors like younger age of marriage, less education and lower socioeconomic status.
"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, pointing out that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. "Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage."
Theodora Ooms, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, said that a recent Oklahoma study found that when Oklahomans marry, they are on average two and a half years younger than the national average.
Ms. Whitehead, who lives in Amherst, Mass., said that New England is a region that has "more stability" than other regions. "People stay here, their families stay here, and there's more social and family support for people, a more communal versus individualistic culture in New England compared to the cowboy states."
She said religion may underscore those regional differences.
"In states with lots of evangelicals, the more individualistic Protestant religious faiths may actually also encourage more go-it-alone attitudes than communal ones," Ms. Whitehead said. And these are also states where the culture encourages sexual abstinence before marriage, she said.
"If your family or religious culture urges you not to have sex before you get married," she said, "then one answer is to get married, and then you're more likely to divorce."
[ November 21, 2004, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The cowboy states?
That's hilarious.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a short skip from going it alone to rolling stone.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It really confuses me when people start talking about protecting children, children who are not their own, from their own parents and then on other threads believe parents should be have the ultimate say in their children's education. It seems to me that if we accept the premise that the family knows better how to run itself than the state, that parents know best how to raise their own children, that society should leave families alone, unless a family asks for help.
I don't mind educating parents as to the benefits of not divorcing before they can get divorced, but not allowing them to get divorced when they want to...that's ridiculous. Whose marriage is it, anyway?
The idea that we need uncle sugar looking over our shoulder in order to approve who gets married and who can get divorced is ridiculous and just one more silly bit of government oversight foisted on everyone because of moral elites who don't believe others can run their own lives without them watching over everyone's shoulder.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
*nods head*
Whenever people bring up not allowing people to divorce without jumping through hoops it scares me - I think because I've gone through a divorce. I shudder to think of what my children would be like now had the marriage continued.
However, I am supportive of measures being taken before a marriage occurs, such as premarital counseling. But yeah, making divorce more difficult just isn't something I can support. I find that people who tend to want that to happen are usually people who didn't go through a bad marriage. While you always have control over your own choices, you don't have control over your spouse's choices and their actions.
space opera
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts. (That, as Mark Shields pointed out, is where the court OK'd same-sex marriage.
The COURT OK'd same sex marriages. There was not a public referendum. It's a smokescreen to believe that the people of MA are more marriage minded than those sof KY, and showed their support of marriage through the passage of this law-- because they didn't. They were never asked.
The court decision to allow same sex marriages is a recent one; the numbers about divorce rate are (as far as I can find) eight years old.
Drawing a line between these two is, at the very best, unsupportable.
This article from the Boston Globe gives some answers that seem highly more likely.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Whenever people bring up not allowing people to divorce without jumping through hoops it scares me - I think because I've gone through a divorce. I shudder to think of what my children would be like now had the marriage continued.
However, I am supportive of measures being taken before a marriage occurs, such as premarital counseling. But yeah, making divorce more difficult just isn't something I can support. I find that people who tend to want that to happen are usually people who didn't go through a bad marriage. While you always have control over your own choices, you don't have control over your spouse's choices and their actions.
Space Opera, you said it better than I ever could have. My only change would be "I shudder to think of what I would be like now had the marriage continued," as I have no children. Thank God, actually.
My first husband wasn't abusive in any traditionally provable sense -- I had no bruises, that is. But he did mock me, belittle me (telling me I looked like a boy during sex, for example, and laughing), frighten me (he would hit things or throw things, but not at me). My best friend, a lawyer, believed me, but few others in his life thought of him as anything other than a really nice guy. And my self-esteem was so low by that point that I had little energy and belief in myself to keep arguing the point.
Of course, when he blew up in red-faced rage with two different counselors at the university -- storming out, threatening to sue the university for their incompetence -- I had two skilled and experienced professionals who confirmed for me that this was neither a healthy nor safe situation to be in. But if he hadn't lost his temper then, or if he hadn't agreed to counseling, that would have been all my hearsay.
How would I have proved it? I certainly wasn't skipping around with glee at being able to sleep around again, just having gotten bored with the humdrum of married life. I was barely functioning. And he called the dean of the medical school and the chancellor of the university and told them I was going crazy. Even involved the campus police when he couldn't find me after we had been separated, having talked the superintendant of my building into letting my "husband" (he still was, but we were formally separated) into my apartment without my knowledge.
People started picking up on it by then. But he was a respected member of the university community, in charge of a student housing building and an excellent grad student -- had I not left and thereby pushed him to the point of over-reacting when he lost control, this wouldn't have come to the surface.
So why didn't I see this in him before we married? There must have been signs I missed, right? That is what some of my family insists. They absolutely adored him, though -- I was even disinvited to Thanksgiving at an aunt's, as she kept the door open for him.
We were friends before we married. We worked on learning how to support one another, techniques for handling disagreement, ways to show love. He made sure I got the counseling I never went for after I'd been raped -- he was the first I'd told about this part of my history, and he was as sweet and supportive as only a student in training to be a counselor could be.
So what changed? I started getting more confident. I progressed toward my degrees, one of which was an MD, and he constantly was working with MDs who didn't look up to him. (Physicians are notoriously dismissive of the ideas and opinions of non-physicians.) He started mocking the profession (aha, sndrake, there's probably something here that explains my touchiness), and then that extended to me. And as I got more externally powerful in my life, he felt less so. We went from friends to -- if not enemies, at least combatants, at least some of the time. Other times we pretended like everything was fine.
Were I the woman I am now, I would not have let it get to that point. But for all my smarts, I didn't have a lot of practical sense, having never dated before college and having little experience of what healthy relationships were for a comparison.
Anyway, thank God for no-fault divorce. I drew up my own decree after long hours in the law library, citing irreconcilable differences and an irrevocable breakdown of the marriage. He didn't challenge it. (By this time, we'd lived apart for more than 4 years.) My best friend held my hand, and it was over in 10 minutes.
I'm still paying him, BTW. $250 a month for 5 years to cover loans he took out "on expectation of access to a doctor's salary." Of course, the breakup sentt him into counseling himself, and he is a much more balanced and kind person now. More the man I married. He actually offered to wait until I was out of residency before I started making alimony payments, as he was making $60,000+. Still unable to make ends meet, though -- he spends money like water, which was another problem of the marriage. But more importantly, I hate who I became with him, and even seeing his name on email makes me sick with dread and shakey scared all over again. We don't talk much, even though he now wants to be friends.
I'm glad he is out of my life.
[ November 22, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Oh, Sara...I'm glad he's out of your life too. Thank you so much for sharing that. I can completely relate to looking back and wondering what kind of person *I* would have been had my marriage continued as well.
I think your experience shows that no matter how much we prepare, we cannot predict what is going to happen in a marriage. People are fluid, and marriage - which is a product of two people - is naturally fluid as well. And we can only change ourselves, not the people around us. I'm glad you found the strength to make a positive change for yourself.
space opera
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Me, too.
I was pretty sure I couldn't stick with anything, though -- after all, if I'd leave a husband, what vows wouldn't I break? My family takes marriage very very seriously, with my mother living in poverty to spoon-feed my father and do all his personal care 24/7 after his stroke.
Was I just a quitter? If I had tried harder, couldn't I have made it work? It took years to work through that one, and it's something I'm revisiting now in counseling. I have self-worth issues which just kind of spiralled out of control in that marriage. Our weaknesses were perfectly matched for disaster.
Amazing, though, how insistent some members of my family are that I must have done something wrong, either in the marriage or in selecting him as a mate. However, looking back, I would have made the same choices given the same information at the time. It wasn't that he was evil, just that the dynamics of married life with each other over the years brought out the least healthy parts of both of us. I just would have gotten out sooner now, that's all.
[ November 22, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And just for the record Sara, you don't look like a boy.
-Trevor
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Drawing a line between these two is, at the very best, unsupportable.
Scott, I agree.
Now tell people like Pat Robertson.
Thanks for linking to the Boston Globe article, because it really does provide an analysis that's interesting. Some of the political baggage associated with liberals may enhance stable marriages within a state, while some of the conservative political baggage may do the reverse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pat Robertson doesn't listen to people like me-- I say something, he gets fuel for saying, "Mormons are trying to destroy the concept of marriage. . . again!"
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sara, what you have just described is my exact reasoning for not having married any sooner. I don't mean that in any way that berates you. I just knew myself well enough to know that I would have destroyed anything that could have been good, but most likely, I would have been attracted to or brought out what was bad.
Even when a marriage is good, it still requires work by both partners for it to work well over the long haul.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
First of all, Boris, I think you nailed it. Second, Irami, I don't think selfish=evil. It's a vice just like any other. We've all got one. (Personally, I have several.)
Back to the selfishness, what's really scary is most of the women I know who are in a lousy marriage but don't get divorced do so for selfish reasons. They don't want to give up the big house. They don't want to have to get a job. They're afraid of being alone.
But then, I've always been a little confused by the "defense" of marriage. How does one defend something that isn't theirs? Much as my family asked her not to, my sister still married the lazy alcoholic two weeks before she left for boot camp.
Florida has a three day waiting period and offers a discount if the couple attends counseling before hand. She did not get married in our church since Pastor Dan requires counseling before performing a ceremony. He probably would have refused anyway since the hubby is a drunk who can't hold a job. Even with all the support in place to help her make a good decision, my sister still married the bum. She knew it was stupid, and she did it anyway.
Who knows. Maybe he'll grow up and quit drinking. Maybe he'll be good to her and work with her to develop a mature, healthy relationship. Personally, I'm betting it'll last less than three years.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Trevor, thanks. It was a small thing, but the timing was exquisitely chosen to have the most cutting effect.
quidscribis, I know. The thing was, I really was quite mature for 22 years old, and I had very good reasons for getting married (relatively) young. My parents had been 65 and 45 when I was born, and I pretty much grew up watching my father die. I wanted children so badly, and I swore I'd marry someone close to my age, early enough to start a and raise a family while still young.
I wasn't going to make the same "mistakes" my mother did. The hubris of youth.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Another note: MA has no-fault divorce. It also has a (6 month?) cooling off period, divorces aren't instantaneous.
Scott: It's a much more subtle distortion to say that the residents of MA didn't have any say. They were the ones who voted for the state constitutional amendment that was interpreted (and I think fairly so) to include legal marriage to be more equitably applied.
We also had plenty of times to really voice opinion... Before the actual tentative amendment that passed last February, there had been 2-3 attempts to try and get an anti-same sex marriage amendment on the books; the last one wasn't even able to muster enough support to bring it to discussion. This was all very clearly documented in the newspapers, so the average citizaen had opportunity to follow this, and if so outraged, to try and pressure their rep., to pass an amendment, or a law (laws both anti- and pro- both died in committee I believe, though I can only be sure of pro- laws). The citizens weren't helpless victims, taken advantage of by the insipid governmental system of the state.
After the initial ruling, in MA, a majority believed in some sort of legal recognition. In a comment in the page below, they go through Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Merrimack College (local college) polls, all showing strong support for some recognition. I'd think that these results were somewhat higher than actual figures, because I think MA isn't as liberal as the Republican party would like you to think.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Soctt, I'll also add that there is later data than the often cited 1994 data, that these more recent reports are using. I double-checked myself, and it seems that for the last 10 years MA divorce rates per capita are constant, while others (I think I noticed the TX one, because of the Globe editorial) shows TX having lowered their number, but still being significantly higher.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Irami, I don't think selfish=evil. It's a vice just like any other.
I don't marry all of the women I sleep with. Not only is it not a vice, I think it's wise. Look, I'm sure that there are people who think you have to get hitched to the first girl whose hand you hold. And maybe there are right, or maybe holding hands is nice enough and should be appreciated for it's own merits. There is a time and a place, and I think confusing the time and the place for marriage is what gets people in bad marriages to begin with. Understanding the belonging together of marriage which far exceeds the the other thing is the bedrock of a marriage. Not to cheapen sex, but it's not marriage, and it shouldn't be confused for it, either.
[ November 22, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I didn't mean to kill this discussion forthwith. Honestly, I have enough distance from this that I can discuss the subject of no-fault divorce objectively, and I can even take criticisms about my actions on the chin. Wouldn't have brought it up in a public forum otherwise.
I can pretty much guarantee that my opinions on the option won't change, but I'm willing to listen.
[ November 23, 2004, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Sara, do you think there are times where it is better for some or all of the parties involved (including the children) if a couple stays together even though they are unhappy? Or is it usually better to get out of an unhealthy relationship?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd think there might be a difference between being "unhappy" and being in an "unhealthy relationship."
I doubt anyone would characterize what Sara went through as a healthy relationship. But I can see lots of possible scenarios where someone is unhappy in the marriage but the marriage has not become unhealthy.
Certainly being unhappy in marriage isn't a good thing, and is something to be worked on. But it's possible it can be a long way from being unhealthy, isn't it?
Dagonee
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, poor choice of words. What I meant is that the relationship has become damaging to the people in it, not just that they'd prefer to stop being married.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wasn't trying to pick at your post. I'm sorry. I was wondering where the line is - when does unhappiness become severe and constant enough to become unhealthy?
I know some people wouldn't see a big difference between unhappy and unhealthy. I'm just wondering where people draw that line.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If you're unhappy, I suspect it will become unhealthy.
And "staying together for the sake of the children" is a load of horse puckey - all of my cousins' parents stayed together, they're miserable and most of us are refusing to get married and start families of our own.
Whether you live in the same house or not, kids do pick up their habits and form their expectations around their experiences.
-Trevor
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Yep, I think that staying together for the kids is always a bad idea. Children are so intuitive! Even if adults aren't fighting in front of them, children will pick up on the coldness and apathy in a disintegrated marriage. I truly believe it's better for children to grow up with 2 happy adults who live apart rather than 2 miserable ones who live together.
As for the difference between unhealthy and unhappy, I think in some cases that's not always a clear line. Unless you're in that relationship you're not in a position to answer. I dunno. It's felt like to me for several years that I have to justify to the general society why I got a divorce. A lot of people unfortunately make assumptions that divorce is an easy thing. In my experience whether your spouse is terrible or not, divorce is still hell. It wasn't easy for me to choose to end my marriage, though I had clear reasons for doing so. Now that I examine it - geez I'm touchy on this issue.
space opera
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I spent an hour on the phone last night with a friend I haven't seen in 10 years. He needed someone to talk to about an apparent pending divorce.
I did what I could to encourage him to work it out (I introduced him and his wife) and to give it an honest try in counselling. But in the end, it really bore down on one simple fact: he didn't want to remain married. There were no big events causing the break, just a slow growing apathy between him and his wife. Honestly, it was boredom I believe more than anything, they are and have been imminently bored with each other.
The money they make is good, they have no pressure from debt. They have no children and both are unable to (and neither have ever wanted to have kids). Neither has ever cheated on the other. They don't even argue.
They just hang out at home, separated one on the computer, the other watching TV, numbing themselves until it is time for bed. They have let their marriage swirl slowly down entropically.
It's sad and I have no idea what to say to them. The simplest gesture of one going to the other and showing some interest would do wonders. Or would have before the accumulated dust made them each too heavy to make that short trip down the hall to one another.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*tounge firmly planted in cheek* but I can't help myself. The couple you are describing sounds like a "before Viagra" commercial.
AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It sounds like they're in a rut and need to try something else - maybe a road trip or a day trip out of the city.
It's easy to take each other for granted - the hard part is remembering and rediscovering the person you fell in love with.
-Trevor
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Tried it, he's at the stage of "I care about her and want her to be happy, but..."
And then there's no mention of love. Everything but that one, important word.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Sara, do you think there are times where it is better for some or all of the parties involved (including the children) if a couple stays together even though they are unhappy? Or is it usually better to get out of an unhealthy relationship?
I suspect sometimes it is possible to stay together and be better for the children, sometimes not. I have no idea where the numbers lie.
I would guess that a lot of people don't exert themselves to their limits to keep a marriage a healthy and happy one. I wouldn't think that I could tell which ones those were from the outside looking in, not with any real level of reliability.
So, it depends. Not a great answer, I know, but an honest one.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)