The future of marriage

On other forums in the past, upon proving conclusively to a creationist that one of his "creation science" demigods (eg, Gish, Hovind) was lying to him and deceiving him, I would then ask what they were going to do about it (as in letting that person know what they were doing) and they would insist emphatically that another person sinning was none of their business. Or it would have been another creationist on the forum that was shown to be lying, such that they were violating the Laws of God, and that creationist would refuse to deal with their violating the Laws of God because it was a non-Christian pointing it out to them, so I would ask the other creationist to step in and turn their brother away from damnation, that other creationist would insist emphatically that another person sinning was none of their business. And even when the two creationists in question were good friends and the question was one of the friend needing to help steer his friend and brother in Christ away from evil and back to the straight-and-narrow, the response was again an emphatic another person sinning was none of his business; he couldn't care less that his best friend was going to eternal damnation.Yet ironically, in all other cases they insist emphatically that other people's sins -- regardless of whether they are Christian or not -- are very much their business and they must take whatever measures and pass whatever laws they can towards that end.And then they have the audacity to wonder why we shake our heads in disbelief at their blatant hypocrisy.My opinion:
Banning gay marriage has nothing to do with preserving marriage. The real danger to marriage is divorce, especially the effects of the divorce laws that are "divorce on demand", in which one spouse may at any time and without giving any reason end the divorce and the other spouse is powerless to do anything about it. I've heard the national divorce rate to be estimated to be about 50% and the rate in Southern California to be at about 75%. Now that poses a great and very direct threat to marriage; gay marriage doesn't. Yet all these laws and amendments and rhetorics about "preserving marriage" obsess over gays and never turn their attention towards what to do about divorce.Could this be another case of hypocrisy?PS
Anticipating someone claiming that Christianity is the answer to divorce, I've been told that the founder of eHarmony.com, a conservative Christian himself, was motivated to enter upon his enterprise because the divorce rate among conservative Christians was significantly higher than the rate in the general population. A conservative Christian who had read the doctor's books had quoted that to me from the doctor's own writings; someone who also has those books should be able to confirm that.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

"without giving any reason" Therefore, effectively for no reason.I'm not proposing to ban divorce, but rather some kind of reform that would no longer allow divorcing on a whim, but rather to require some kind of reason to be given. "Irreconcilable differences" is absolutely meaningless, especially when those "differences" are never required to be stated nor any attempts at reconciling them are to be made, nor any evidence needs to be presented to show that they have in fact been found to be "irreconcilable". As they now stand, divorce laws make it very easy to divorce; create some real requirements to keep people from divorcing on a whim and to make attempts at reconciliation more attractive. If a spouse really does not want to live with that other person anymore, then that spouse could still get a divorce, but only if they really don't want to live with that other person.More broadly, addressing the divorce issue would need to look into the causes of divorce and addressing those causes. Current divorce laws are just the most visible and obvious problem; the root causes also need to be addressed.But how likely is it for us to see the "preservation of marriage" advocates to turn to the issue of divorce?BTW and FWIW, at least the founder of eHarmony.com is trying to get at the root cause of divorce.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Yes, "whim". In a moment of anger, without benefit of any cool-off period nor allowing any chance of reconciliation, he/she decides on divorce and calls a lawyer. The juggernaut is set in motion.Of course, many cases involve slow-cooked discontent over a long period of time, but the in-a-fit-of-anger scenario also plays out.

The "divorce on demand" laws as they currently stand make it too easy to get a divorce, too easy of just one spouse to demand and get that divorce for no reason. Divorce becomes the easy choice, to be taken without even trying to resolve the problems in the marriage. As such, the number of divorces filed must be greater than if they were required to try to reconcile or at least to have a reason.If anyone spouting rhetorics about wanting to protect marriage is actually serious, then they must turn their attention towards divorce. While some would look to address the root causes, most would undoutedly turn their attention to the most visible aspect, which are the divorce laws.My personal experience? I had divorce imposed on me unilaterally and for no reason -- if she ever did have a reason, then it's only known to her because she never ever gave one. No warning, no discussion, no recourse. No reason. And she robbed me of $20,000 on the way out. For no reason.

No, that is not even close to what I've been saying. Where did you get that from?First, and foremost, I would want to see the laws changed so that the person filing for divorce would need to give an actual reason. With "divorce on demand", no reason ever needs to be given. If such a law had been in effect, then at the very least my ex would have had to have given me the reason. As it stands, I was put through all that **** for no ****ing reason. What part of that do you still not understand?Second, I would much rather see a couple try to work their problems out instead of jumping at divorce as the first and only option. By requiring that some such attempt be made, including counselling, then that is a chance that divorce can be diverted. Or at the very least then both parties could come out of the divorce with some idea of why it happened.And if the "marriage protection" crowd ever pulls its collective head out and turns its attention away from the gay-marriage scapegoat and towards divorce and the divorce laws, then I'm sure that what I would ask for will seem extremely mild compared with what they would demand.

Yeah, she probably had a reason, but since no reason was ever given, then I went through all that for no reason. Period! Now everyone stop using that to draw this thread away from the topic!"The future of marriage". It was introduced by NJ in reaction against a new article that the percentage of women not living with a husband has increased to being the majority. It quickly turned into yet another fear-reaction against gay marriage. Of course, gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to marriage, but divorce does. To properly deal with divorce would require addressing the root causes. While the "divorce on demand" laws are not one of the root causes, they do contribute to making divorce more prevalent by making divorce the easy first option, when instead other options need to be tried or at least considered.That divorce can be arbitrarily and unilaterally forced upon one for no reason is obviously a sore point for me. But instead on concentrating on my own personal hot button, why don't you all get back to the topic of the thread?

I keep telling you that, yeah, she probably had a reason, which she has chosen to keep secret from me and hence, for me, I went through it for no reason.What part of that do you not understand? For her there probably was a reason, but for me there was no reason.Just accept it and move back to the thread topic. "or at least considered". Hello? How's about reading what I write? Did I say "legally forced into counselling"? It needs to at least be considered.Chiro latched onto the word "whim" and everybody is blowing it way out of proportion. Get over it! And get back on topic. That would be one attempt to get at the root causes. I'm sure that somebody would also suggest having to take out a learner's permit, though others would protest that. And pre-marriage counselling would be a good idea -- oops, you're opposed to that, aren't you.

So then if my ex, perra that she may be, would not be allowed to re-marry because it is impossible for her to have any children. As seniors way past their child-bearing years would need to be barred from marrying.I do agree that a stable marriage is very important in the raising of children, but child-rearing is not the only purpose of marriage, nor is it the primary reason why couples marry.