Are you "unequally yoked" in marriage - not just religion, but class, race, ethnicity, etc

[ToeInTheWater]

And if so, how have these differences affected your marriage? For better, or worse?

See, one aspect of CAF that I find puzzling is that many posters seem to assume that family life was wonderful “way back when” in some Golden Age, compared to present times, everyone happy with no divorce, no abuse, no adultery, no “broken families”. Many seem to idealize arranged marriage as superior to “love” marriage, and lament how society has degraded to the point where the average modern Westerner wouldn’t be able to hack it. Some have even stated outright that romantic love is a mere illusion at best, a cover word for lust at worst.

Well, it’s also true that “way back when”, most marriages took place between spouses of the same class, same religion, same ethnicity, and of course the same race – a marriage between a poor Irish Catholic and a rich “WASP” was once considered just as scandalous as an inter-racial marriage, perhaps even as “unnatural” as same-sex marriage.

One example is how, the DA topics I’ve seen on CAF so far, many Downton Abbey fans state that while they enjoyed the Branson-Sybil love story, they state “I know such a marriage wasn’t realistic back then”. Even though “back then” was the 1910s, not the 1000s.

So…if marriage as practiced in the past really was superior to the way it is now, then to be consistent, shouldn’t we all go back to marrying within the same class, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Or at least lament the fact that since so many people are “mutts” now, it’s impossible to go back to that Golden Age of marriage, just as much as people lament how it’s impossible to go back to the Golden Age of arranged marriage?

ETA: Just to clarify, I realize that differences in religion are very different from those of class, race, ethnic background, etc. And that the Bible really only cautions against being “unequally yoked” in terms of religion. But is true that historically, people married within “their own kind”. But I can’t think of too many CAFers who take their reverence for the past that far.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

I partly agree with some of the ideas presented in the original post.

I agree with the notion that persons of a similar background, meaning the same religious, ethnic, class, and other criteria, are perhaps less likely to divorce simply because there are fewer potential points of contention between them. When dating, persons in the past did not have to ask whether the potential spouse would accept certain customs, languages, family obligations, and of course religion, because both came from the same background. In other words, these ‘homogenous’ couples avoided unnecessary differences, thereby allowing for a marriage based on a more thorough examination of character.

Finally, the similar background implies that there are similar experiences in life. I strongly believe that environment shapes and forms character. It could thus stand that experiences count as part of the environment, and therefore persons of a similar background might also be of similar character.

 

[EasterJoy]

There was a time when most people married within the confines of a much more constrained social circle, but that was the way their entire lives might have been lived in many cases. Before the New Deal, people did marry in order to have the practical advantages of a mutually-dependent arrangement between a breadwinner and a homemaker with child rearing duties and did not always have the luxury of filtering based on a shared sense of humor or similar leisure interests. When have American Catholics ever had arranged marriages, though?

No one on CAF has a problem with love marriages. What they have a problem with is infatuation marriages, marriages which make “I don’t have romantic feelings about you any more” into an excuse to unilaterally end a marriage, take half the assets, split up the family, and take up residence with someone new that the children are supposed to treat as another parent. In other words, there is a LOT of real estate between arranged marriages and marriages that can be dissolved unilaterally, and that isn’t a romantic notion.

PS What Catholic in the last century **ever **said a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant was “just as scandalous” as a “same-sex marriage”? Please.

By the way, when you say, “the Bible really only cautions against being “unequally yoked” in terms of religion. But is true that historically, people married within “their own kind”. But I can’t think of too many CAFers who take their reverence for the past that far,” I would beg to differ on that, too. Many CAFers considered it non-negotiable that the person they married be a fellow practicing Catholic, using themselves as a yardstick for what they meant by “practicing.” Others would not marry someone with a wildly different educational background. That resolve to be “equally yoked” is not out of reverence for the past, but very much in keeping with modern research on the best statistical chance for an enduring marriage.

 

[angell1]

And if so, how have these differences affected your marriage? For better, or worse?

See, one aspect of CAF that I find puzzling is that many posters seem to assume that family life was wonderful “way back when” in some Golden Age, compared to present times, everyone happy with no divorce, no abuse, no adultery, no “broken families”. Many seem to idealize arranged marriage as superior to “love” marriage, and lament how society has degraded to the point where the average modern Westerner wouldn’t be able to hack it. Some have even stated outright that romantic love is a mere illusion at best, a cover word for lust at worst.

Well, it’s also true that “way back when”, most marriages took place between spouses of the same class, same religion, same ethnicity, and of course the same race – a marriage between a poor Irish Catholic and a rich “WASP” was once considered just as scandalous as an inter-racial marriage, perhaps even as “unnatural” as same-sex marriage.

One example is how, the DA topics I’ve seen on CAF so far, many Downton Abbey fans state that while they enjoyed the Branson-Sybil love story, they state “I know such a marriage wasn’t realistic back then”. Even though “back then” was the 1910s, not the 1000s.

So…if marriage as practiced in the past really was superior to the way it is now, then to be consistent, shouldn’t we all go back to marrying within the same class, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Or at least lament the fact that since so many people are “mutts” now, it’s impossible to go back to that Golden Age of marriage, just as much as people lament how it’s impossible to go back to the Golden Age of arranged marriage?

ETA: Just to clarify, I realize that differences in religion are very different from those of class, race, ethnic background, etc. And that the Bible really only cautions against being “unequally yoked” in terms of religion. But is true that historically, people married within “their own kind”. But I can’t think of too many CAFers who take their reverence for the past that far.

I dont’ know who’s saying this, but there was never such a golden age.

the only difference is, adultery, divorce, etC, weren’t celebrated so maybe there was less, but it still happened

and the church herself has a problem with coerced arranged marriages, regardless of which time frame you live in.

and just for the record, I highly doubt that divorces happening today is because of race or ethnicity. like easter joy said, it’s because they’ve found someone they think is better or are hungry for more money, power, etC… and don’t care about commitment

 

[on_the_hill]

PS What Catholic in the last century **ever **said a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant was “just as scandalous” as a “same-sex marriage”? Please.

Off topic, but when my aunt and uncle got married in the 1950s he was from a very conservative Protestant faith and his extended family disowned him. His parents stayed with him, but no one else did. (he did not convert to Catholicism and never practiced any religion).

When my wife’s aunt married a divorced Protestant man in the early 1980s it caused a huge problem in the extended family. My future Mother-in-Law refused to attend the wedding. Somehow they all got over it and grew very close in the years following.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…
No one on CAF has a problem with love marriages. What they have a problem with is infatuation marriages, marriages which make “I don’t have romantic feelings about you any more” into an excuse to unilaterally end a marriage, take half the assets, split up the family, and take up residence with someone new that the children are supposed to treat as another parent. In other words, there is a LOT of real estate between arranged marriages and marriages that can be dissolved unilaterally, and that isn’t a romantic notion…

I’m questioning this. The part about “I don’t have romantic feelings about you any more”- while I do admit that I’ve judged others who seemed to have done just as you said, and thus I too ‘had a problem with it’, when I further inspected my judgements, I realized that it was an easy dismissal of people with whom I am no part of their marital bond to know if that is exactly how things were between them and how they were. (Were they really being selfish? immature?.. I cannot say!) Perhaps it merely looks like “I don’t have romantic feelings about you anymore” selfish break up but that there is more to the story we don’t know because we aren’t in or a part of those relationships. When I thought about this further, I felt that instances like that are probably actually very rare and that there is a lot more under the surface of a break up than most people would be able to tell.

It seems like some sort of dismissal of others maybe due to fear. To witness that there are actual instances and problems that keep people who wanted to commit apart feels like we are swimming in the mysterious dark and need a simple explanation that doesn’t pertain to how we perceive ourselves to be… so that we can feel safe. Its a sad fact of life, people break up, move on, live apart. And it is right to say that its ALWAYS been that way through the ages, even when divorce and all this sin was not accepted in society. It still occurred! It is nothing new. Things are just more accepted these days. I have to say I’m thinking that may not be a bad thing, except that it is something that causes a lot of doubts. Doubting wrecks faith and faith is needed to make things work in life.

While I’m all for people working to keep it together, I’m not sure we can judge why a break up occurred. Frankly I’m stunned anyone can keep things going for so long as they do. It seems to me that the odds are stacked high against any marriage ever being truly loving and happy even most of the time. (Maybe that’s my French genetic memory coming though… no offense to the French, but they’ve always been known to accept infidelity as normal and even necessary.)

I think its just too easy to dismiss marital divorce as being caused by shallowness and superficiality or lack of virtue (don’t we all have that to some degree!?). I now think failed marriages “just happen”. I don’t think anyone has any real control over it, but we’d like to think so because that is a comforting thought. All relationships are unique and complex. The way someone’s own personality works with another can be totally different when with someone else. Its so diverse. How could anyone really tell beforehand whether its going to ‘work’ or not? No one can! Again, its faith.

I would say though that I have encountered here on CAF what I’d call opposition or dismissal of ‘love’ marriages too. I keep hearing that love is a “duty”. While I agree a person should strive to virtue in marriage, that in itself can become an objectification of the other and soil the relationship. There really has to be a love bond… anything else I feel mocks Scripture (Song of Songs) and misses the point of what God wants for married couples both the joy for each other AND the witnessing of the vocation to others. Marital love is supposed to glorify God, not just in the beginning but all the way to the end. Simply doing your duty is great, but it just doesn’t cut it.

… Which kind of reminds me of like how some people believe they do so well and pat themselves on the back to just throw some money at a homeless person, when the really awesome thing would be is to be a good friend to them and take them to a nice restaurant to eat,… every time they need it. To fulfill a need is duty, but to fulfill a need with love is divine and lasting! As Christians, do we strive just to meet the baseline?!! Or should we desire to go the distance and strive to bring real happiness and gasp!* real *love to another? (And actually really love and enjoy to do that!) Because that is how it is at the beginning of any romantic love relationship, and that is what everyone really wants… why does it fail? Why do we excuse it as ‘limerence’ and ‘just body chemicals’ and therefore ‘not really love’ ? Why does simple baseline ‘duty’ get passed as love? Again, I’m not talking that people should have ‘whirlwind’ infatuation here, I’m just talking about that desire to meet another’s need and the desire and striving to be the one to do so. Why do people poop out on that? Is their cup not running over anymore? Doesn’t Scripture promise that if one is with God, theirs (their cup) will?

 

[Xantippe]

And if so, how have these differences affected your marriage? For better, or worse?

See, one aspect of CAF that I find puzzling is that many posters seem to assume that family life was wonderful “way back when” in some Golden Age, compared to present times, everyone happy with no divorce, no abuse, no adultery, no “broken families”. Many seem to idealize arranged marriage as superior to “love” marriage, and lament how society has degraded to the point where the average modern Westerner wouldn’t be able to hack it. Some have even stated outright that romantic love is a mere illusion at best, a cover word for lust at worst.

Well, it’s also true that “way back when”, most marriages took place between spouses of the same class, same religion, same ethnicity, and of course the same race – a marriage between a poor Irish Catholic and a rich “WASP” was once considered just as scandalous as an inter-racial marriage, perhaps even as “unnatural” as same-sex marriage.

One example is how, the DA topics I’ve seen on CAF so far, many Downton Abbey fans state that while they enjoyed the Branson-Sybil love story, they state “I know such a marriage wasn’t realistic back then”. Even though “back then” was the 1910s, not the 1000s.

So…if marriage as practiced in the past really was superior to the way it is now, then to be consistent, shouldn’t we all go back to marrying within the same class, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. Or at least lament the fact that since so many people are “mutts” now, it’s impossible to go back to that Golden Age of marriage, just as much as people lament how it’s impossible to go back to the Golden Age of arranged marriage?

ETA: Just to clarify, I realize that differences in religion are very different from those of class, race, ethnic background, etc. And that the Bible really only cautions against being “unequally yoked” in terms of religion. But is true that historically, people married within “their own kind”. But I can’t think of too many CAFers who take their reverence for the past that far.

The problem is that there are so many different categories available for diversity of background.

For instance, my husband and I practice the same religion, are in the same area of the political spectrum, are intellectually very compatible and have very similar ideas about what constitutes an acceptable type of parenting for our children, but on the other hand, our nationalities, ethnicities and class backgrounds are very different. I’m from a WASP-y American rural blue collar-trending-professional class family, whereas he is from a big city Eastern European/slightly Jewish intellectual family, but I have left both Protestantism and country life behind.

There are two areas where our demographic differences really show up. The men in my family are often “Marlborough Man” types whereas my husband is more like a Catholic version of Woody Allen (with much better morals). The Jewish intellectual type is MY type, but at the same time, there have been times when my husband’s behaviors and personality did not track with the ideas of masculinity I grew up with. (As my dad used to do work involving flying on the end of a 100-ft. long helicopter line weaving through treetops in hilly landscapes, there were some hard acts to follow.)

Similarly, my family of origin is emotionally unexpressive (especially with regard to negative emotion), except when expressing anger, whereas my husband is much more emotionally expressive. I have only just recently started trying to express a broader range of emotions myself. Previously, I was very loath to express either sadness or fear, as that felt weak to me–so those emotions tended to come out as anger, which felt strong to me. This naturally caused a lot of misunderstandings. As it happens, I could have gotten much more sympathy and help from my husband on numerous occasions, had I expressed myself as being afraid or sad, rather than expressing anger.

But, on the other hand, there were many families in my home town or the Protestant church I grew up in whose values were also quite different from my family of origin.

To some extent, marrying anybody from outside of our family means marrying a “foreigner.”

 

[Crusaderbear]

I don’t keep a scorecard. Sometimes I have to take care of the lion’s share, sometimes my wife is taking care of it. We have ALWAYS loved each other, and very rarely been mad at each other. Again no score cards, they are silly and can destroy a really good and holy thing!

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

I dont’ know who’s saying this, but there was never such a golden age.

the only difference is, adultery, divorce, etC, weren’t celebrated so maybe there was less, but it still happened

and the church herself has a problem with coerced arranged marriages, regardless of which time frame you live in.

and just for the record, I highly doubt that divorces happening today is because of race or ethnicity. like easter joy said, it’s because they’ve found someone they think is better or are hungry for more money, power, etC… and don’t care about commitment

The difference is as you said.

In 1950, people sinned, and society frowned upon it.

In 2016, people sin, and society applauds and encourages more.

There was no age of perfection, but the presence of humility and shame is something that we have lost that WAS better “back in the day.”

Regarding yoking (the ox, not the 1980s term for pulling your buddy’s pants down for a laugh), it is generally HIGHLY encouraged on CA, if for no other reason than to make our marriages “easier” (if such a term can be used to descibe marriage) in vital areas, not to mention, to fulfill the biblical recommendation on all of us in this area.

When it comes to things of a serious nature (religion, politics, parenting, spousal roles, etc), my wife and I almost always agree, and even she can’t always stand my rants (she calls them rants; I think they are passionate soliloquy’s in the mold of Patrick Henry…) and asks me to tone it down at times. And we agree!

I cannot imagine being married to someone who disagrees on something that enflames such passion from either party, but have the utmost respect for those who respect their commitment and vows enough to make it work despite these differences.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m questioning this. The part about “I don’t have romantic feelings about you any more”- while I do admit that I’ve judged others who seemed to have done just as you said, and thus I too ‘had a problem with it’, when I further inspected my judgements, I realized that it was an easy dismissal of people with whom I am no part of their marital bond to know if that is exactly how things were between them and how they were. (Were they really being selfish? immature?.. I cannot say!) Perhaps it merely looks like “I don’t have romantic feelings about you anymore” selfish break up but that there is more to the story we don’t know because we aren’t in or a part of those relationships. When I thought about this further, I felt that instances like that are probably actually very rare and that there is a lot more under the surface of a break up than most people would be able to tell.

It seems like some sort of dismissal of others maybe due to fear. To witness that there are actual instances and problems that keep people who wanted to commit apart feels like we are swimming in the mysterious dark and need a simple explanation that doesn’t pertain to how we perceive ourselves to be… so that we can feel safe. Its a sad fact of life, people break up, move on, live apart. And it is right to say that its ALWAYS been that way through the ages, even when divorce and all this sin was not accepted in society. It still occurred! It is nothing new. Things are just more accepted these days. I have to say I’m thinking that may not be a bad thing, except that it is something that causes a lot of doubts. Doubting wrecks faith and faith is needed to make things work in life.

While I’m all for people working to keep it together, I’m not sure we can judge why a break up occurred. Frankly I’m stunned anyone can keep things going for so long as they do. It seems to me that the odds are stacked high against any marriage ever being truly loving and happy even most of the time. (Maybe that’s my French genetic memory coming though… no offense to the French, but they’ve always been known to accept infidelity as normal and even necessary.)

I think its just too easy to dismiss marital divorce as being caused by shallowness and superficiality or lack of virtue (don’t we all have that to some degree!?). I now think failed marriages “just happen”. I don’t think anyone has any real control over it, but we’d like to think so because that is a comforting thought. All relationships are unique and complex. The way someone’s own personality works with another can be totally different when with someone else. Its so diverse. How could anyone really tell beforehand whether its going to ‘work’ or not? No one can! Again, its faith.

I would say though that I have encountered here on CAF what I’d call opposition or dismissal of ‘love’ marriages too. I keep hearing that love is a “duty”. While I agree a person should strive to virtue in marriage, that in itself can become an objectification of the other and soil the relationship. There really has to be a love bond… anything else I feel mocks Scripture (Song of Songs) and misses the point of what God wants for married couples both the joy for each other AND the witnessing of the vocation to others. Marital love is supposed to glorify God, not just in the beginning but all the way to the end. Simply doing your duty is great, but it just doesn’t cut it.

… Which kind of reminds me of like how some people believe they do so well and pat themselves on the back to just throw some money at a homeless person, when the really awesome thing would be is to be a good friend to them and take them to a nice restaurant to eat,… every time they need it. To fulfill a need is duty, but to fulfill a need with love is divine and lasting! As Christians, do we strive just to meet the baseline?!! Or should we desire to go the distance and strive to bring real happiness and gasp!* real *love to another? (And actually really love and enjoy to do that!) Because that is how it is at the beginning of any romantic love relationship, and that is what everyone really wants… why does it fail? Why do we excuse it as ‘limerence’ and ‘just body chemicals’ and therefore ‘not really love’ ? Why does simple baseline ‘duty’ get passed as love? Again, I’m not talking that people should have ‘whirlwind’ infatuation here, I’m just talking about that desire to meet another’s need and the desire and striving to be the one to do so. Why do people poop out on that? Is their cup not running over anymore? Doesn’t Scripture promise that if one is with God, theirs (their cup) will?

If someone tells their spouse they’re leaving for another lover because they just don’t have the feelings any more, I’m not supposed to believe them? The law certainly allows that, with no penalty. Try to get out of a business venture that way, though.

When you say, “Frankly I’m stunned anyone can keep things going for so long as they do,” I find that telling, by the way. It implies a rejection of the idea that fidelity is attainable for an average couple.

 

[Convert1]

Then there are those of us who, despite being married to an individual of the same ethnicity, religion, the same socio-economic background, and both secondarily educated, etc. still end up with an abusive, and manipulative spouse.

Further, after all our attempts to fulfill our “duty” or continue to try to honor our commitment and love this person, we can no longer stand being abused and humiliated. ( I am fairly certain this happened “way back when” too.)

The difference today is most of us no longer choose to stay and endure the abuse. We now have options, and choices that were not available to my mother or my grandmother. I chose differently, for the well-being of myself and my children.

“Don’t judge me, because as far as I know, you have not borrowed my shoes to walk in.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Then there are those of us who, despite being married to an individual of the same ethnicity, religion, the same socio-economic background, and both secondarily educated, etc. still end up with an abusive, and manipulative spouse.

Further, after all our attempts to fulfill our “duty” or continue to try to honor our commitment and love this person, we can no longer stand being abused and humiliated. ( I am fairly certain this happened “way back when” too.)

The difference today is most of us no longer choose to stay and endure the abuse. We now have options, and choices that were not available to my mother or my grandmother. I chose differently, for the well-being of myself and my children.

“Don’t judge me, because as far as I know, you have not borrowed my shoes to walk in.”

If someone were to argue that there are more sociopaths out there right now, I couldn’t quarrel with it.

Martha Stout is among the sociologists who believe this has to do with societal tolerance of antisocial behaviors such as lying and manipulation. In societies where this is shameful, the incidence of antisocial personalities is magically a fraction of what it is in the US. Our society, meanwhile, puts a high value on the individual looking out for himself or herself first and yet expects people to follow the ethical standard of “how would you like that if someone did that to you?” The problem is that people in the middle of adultery will rationalize themselves out of that–anyone will! Addictions make people into liars, manipulators, deceivers. What we really want will cloud our ability to empathize. People who want to yell at their spouses and call them names will find ways to excuse themselves, too. We’ll use blame of the other person to let ourselves off the hook for our bad behavior.

Ethics based on emotions will fail at the worst possible time, but that’s what we hope is going to keep our marriages and relationships together instead of a standard of behavior that is independent of how much empathy we’re feeling for those affected by our behavior. I don’t think it is just the actual sociopaths who are freed of moral law. When we are in the hour of greatest temptatation, all those rationalizations are right there, waiting for us. If we don’t hold ourselves to a standard that applies even when we don’t feel like doing the right thing, we’ll fall at a far higher rate than if we have a more solid moral foundation.

 

[Xantippe]

If someone were to argue that there are more sociopaths out there right now, I couldn’t quarrel with it.

Martha Stout is among the sociologists who believe this has to do with societal tolerance of antisocial behaviors such as lying and manipulation. In societies where this is shameful, the incidence of antisocial personalities is magically a fraction of what it is in the US. Our society, meanwhile, puts a high value on the individual looking out for himself or herself first and yet expects people to follow the ethical standard of “how would you like that if someone did that to you?” The problem is that people in the middle of adultery will rationalize themselves out of that–anyone will! Addictions make people into liars, manipulators, deceivers. What we really want will cloud our ability to empathize. People who want to yell at their spouses and call them names will find ways to excuse themselves.

Ethics based on emotions will fail at the worst possible time, but that’s what we hope is going to keep our marriages and relationships together instead of a standard of behavior that is independent of how much empathy we’re feeling for those affected by our behavior. I don’t think it is just the actual sociopaths who are freed of moral law. When we are in the hour of greatest temptatation, all those rationalizations are right there, waiting for us. If we don’t hold ourselves to a standard that applies even when we don’t feel like doing the right thing, we’ll fall at a far higher rate than if we have a more solid moral foundation.

We are a large country, so that factors into it.

In the US, it’s always been possible to move to a new area where nobody knows your history.

 

[Convert1]

If someone were to argue that there are more sociopaths out there right now, I couldn’t quarrel with it.

Martha Stout is among the sociologists who believe this has to do with societal tolerance of antisocial behaviors such as lying and manipulation. In societies where this is shameful, the incidence of antisocial personalities is magically a fraction of what it is in the US. Our society, meanwhile, puts a high value on the individual looking out for himself or herself first and yet expects people to follow the ethical standard of “how would you like that if someone did that to you?” The problem is that people in the middle of adultery will rationalize themselves out of that–anyone will! Addictions make people into liars, manipulators, deceivers. What we really want will cloud our ability to empathize. People who want to yell at their spouses and call them names will find ways to excuse themselves, too. We’ll use blame of the other person to let ourselves off the hook for our bad behavior.

Ethics based on emotions will fail at the worst possible time, but that’s what we hope is going to keep our marriages and relationships together instead of a standard of behavior that is independent of how much empathy we’re feeling for those affected by our behavior. I don’t think it is just the actual sociopaths who are freed of moral law. When we are in the hour of greatest temptatation, all those rationalizations are right there, waiting for us. If we don’t hold ourselves to a standard that applies even when we don’t feel like doing the right thing, we’ll fall at a far higher rate than if we have a more solid moral foundation.

Actually, my spouse was a third generation male in his family that was arrested for domestic violence. (I hoped he would be different) And, he did not drink or use drugs. Generations of perpetrators who continue the cycle of abuse is not uncommon, so the “increase in sociopaths” is not really applicable. Especially in my own situation.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

If someone tells their spouse they’re leaving for another lover because they just don’t have the feelings any more, I’m not supposed to believe them? The law certainly allows that, with no penalty. Try to get out of a business venture that way, though.

When you say, “Frankly I’m stunned anyone can keep things going for so long as they do,” I find that telling, by the way. It implies a rejection of the idea that fidelity is attainable for an average couple.

What I meant by “Frankly I’m stunned anyone can keep things going for so long as they do,” was that the current culture is such that I find it hard for marriages to survive. That its difficult out there these days given the pressures and the widespread temptations- i wasn’t talking just about adultery there, but all things seem to be working against the family these days-economics, society, culture etc. Not that there was a time where it wasn’t tough, but these days with media these ideas are bombarded towards people constantly.

I will admit that after all I’ve seen and witnessed I have lost a lot of faith in the institution of marriage. I don’t at all think I’m alone in that. This doesn’t mean I think its worthless. It means I don’t expect many to make it through to the end… whatever reason.

 

[Crusaderbear]

The institution is fine, its the people ‘Dabbling’ in it who are the disappointment…

 

[AnneElizabeth]

The institution is fine, its the people ‘Dabbling’ in it who are the disappointment…

If that was directed towards me, I really have no idea why you said that, nor do I understand what you mean by ‘dabbling’.

 

[ZellieFan]

There is NOTHING wrong with marrying outside your race, class, etc. yes there may be challenges but there is nothing morally wrong. BTW, Moses’ wife was Ethiopian.