S
- Status
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Uh…no, sorry to have offended you. I typed that out during a long cab ride last night and organizing quote tags from my cell phone is a nightmare. Its just easier to use red than to risk accidentally attributing my words to you.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I just don’t think that forcing people to stay in abusive or harmful marriages is good…
The main point about divorce is that it allows remarriage. Remarriage is not a good idea: 1. it allows people to think that marriage is just like dating with only slightly higher consequences; 2. it allows people to think that breaking up a family is not a serious harm; 3. it allows for a situation which is confusing and sometimes dangerous to the children.
Whatever one may think about divorce, there is an underlyng reality, which is that marriage is the formation of a family, and this situation in which there is a series of “partners” in a child’s life is not in the best interests of the children.
Why should the adults get what they want, over the interests and desires of the children they have brought into the world?
So I believe there should be a framework in which spouses with *extremely problematic *spouses should be able to separate with the supervision of the court. I do not think that the pity card (oh, are they never to love again?) for the parents should mandate law: this is why we make our laws separately from emotional situations.
This is how far our society has fallen: this is begining to show up in books and movies: romantic movies have the plot of a beautiful woman with a jerk of a husband meets fabulous non-jerk who lures her away from her marriage.
The main point about divorce is that it allows remarriage. Remarriage is not a good idea: 1. it allows people to think that marriage is just like dating with only slightly higher consequences; 2. it allows people to think that breaking up a family is not a serious harm; 3. it allows for a situation which is confusing and sometimes dangerous to the children.
Whatever one may think about divorce, there is an underlyng reality, which is that marriage is the formation of a family, and this situation in which there is a series of “partners” in a child’s life is not in the best interests of the children.
Why should the adults get what they want, over the interests and desires of the children they have brought into the world?
So I believe there should be a framework in which spouses with *extremely problematic *spouses should be able to separate with the supervision of the court. I do not think that the pity card (oh, are they never to love again?) for the parents should mandate law: this is why we make our laws separately from emotional situations.
This is how far our society has fallen: this is begining to show up in books and movies: romantic movies have the plot of a beautiful woman with a jerk of a husband meets fabulous non-jerk who lures her away from her marriage.
T
ThankUJP2
Guest
BlueEyedLady, what is a “non-religious” “marriage” anyway? Why not just enter into a contract stipulating financial compensation in the case of breech of terms?
Could it be that people delude themselves into believing the institution of marriage somehow magically retains the sanctity that they (secularists) are trying so hard to strip it of?
Could it be that people delude themselves into believing the institution of marriage somehow magically retains the sanctity that they (secularists) are trying so hard to strip it of?
U
Usige
Guest
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but that is really what I am trying to understand. If marriage is really nothing but a legal contract, why is it not structured like any other contract I’ve signed? Looking at my marriage license it really has nothing related to a traditional contract. In other words there is no mention of what value is exchanged, nor the legal consequences if those services or considerations are not provided. It might very well be implied, but as a contract in of itself it seems nothing better than an IOU written on a bar napkin.
- Status