Marriage should be banned before age 25

[maryjk]

I wouldn’t ban divorce; there are legitimate reasons for ending a marriage, starting with abuse.

What we need to do is to stop “no fault” divorce. There needs to be a reason.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Let me get this, I was married at 24 so I shouldn’t be married 26 years later? both my sisters were married at 21 and are still married 30+ years later. My late parents married at 21 & 24 and they lasted 50+ years. So now we will allow same sex marriage, have “reality” shows glorying polygamy yet this bitter author wants to ban marriage before 25. But the biggest hindrance to a lasting marriage living together and sleeping around is not being discussed.

Congrats:thumbsup: I was married when I just barely turned 19 and here next week it will be 24 years later and still going strong.

But I had to grow up fast in my troubled childhood. We did NOT live together before we got married. And I thought LONG and hard about if I was REALLY ready for the until death do us part thing.

Nowadays it seems like everyone just goes until “it doesn’t work out” Marriage is work…some people think they can get out of that by divorce…but divorce is work too!

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

What we need to do is to stop “no fault” divorce. There needs to be a reason.

Unfortunately, in the days before no-fault divorce it was commonplace for spouses to invent reasons, hire people to be their “lovers,” and manufacture evidence in order to put together a legal case. Perjury was the order of the day. “Cruelty,” which was essentially impossible to prove, was the most common defense, and courts were tied up for days so wives and husbands could spill their stories to a judge and jury.

By the time Regan signed the US’s first no-fault divorce laws in the early 1970s, divorce court was was all but a legal joke taxpayers were irate about having to pay for.

In today’s world family courts are backlogged for weeks on more straightforward, no-fault divorces. With furlough days for judges and other court officers and outright court closings, there very often isn’t the capacity to handle divorces in anything approaching a timely manner. One example: my husband’s divorce was finalized by a judge 11 months before he received his divorce decree from the courts. He waited almost a year after he was legally divorced for the paperwork that proved it so he could move on with his life. How long would that take if every divorce required a multi-day trial? And more importantly, who’s going to pay for all of the added legal and law enforcement capacity that would entail?

Personally, I think if we make it legally more difficult to divorce we’re going to see more people murdering their spouses. Some people who would have reached for the phone to call a lawyer are going to instead reach for a lethal weapon. I think we’d also see more people just walking away from their lives - disappearing into the ether - which among other things would make child support enforcement more challenging than it already is.

Luna

 

[cessnawag]

I would say marriage helps you be less self centered and more compromising (no one would disagree with that). So being single too long COULD lead to being self centered and less compromising, right? Which wouldn’t help you later on in marriage. So the earlier the better I say.

 

[Usige]

I always find “too young to marry” articles laughable. I was 21 and my wife had just turned 19 when we got married. 18 years later we are still going strong. Of 6 couples that we know that married out of high school there is only 1 divorce. Ones that married in their late 20 or early 30’s are around 50/50. Its not just the example of families either. My parents were both married twice (to each other - long story) and my wife’s dad was on marriage # 5. Maybe it was our families example since both of us agreed that marriage was forever, none of this lets see how it works out. I think part of it is also based on concepts of dating. I looked at dating as looking for a potential spouse, not someone to hang out with.

What is heartening to me is the number of young couples we meet in marriage prep that truly understand marriage. They go in knowing that there will be struggles and disagreements, but seem to be committed to marriage as a lifetime endeavour. The biggest struggle we have are the couples in their 30s Age is not the best indicator, but understanding the reality of marriage.

 

[sw85]

It’s amazing to me why the author of this article can’t see the real reason why her marriage failed! The writing is almost humerous! It’s like listening to a person who smells strongly of rotten eggs explain that they couldn’t get a date because no one wants a girl with glasses!

I had to take a look at her author profile. She’s a young professional lefty hipster.

Perhaps the solution to society’s marriage woes is for society to stop taking advice from such palpable misfits like her and start listening to the age old wisdom it abandoned during the Endarkenment.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

I had to take a look at her author profile. She’s a young professional lefty hipster.

Perhaps the solution to society’s marriage woes is for society to stop taking advice from such palpable misfits like her and start listening to the age old wisdom it abandoned during the Endarkenment.

The irony is that you’re arguing that perhaps we should disregard the author’s ideas because she’s young.

Attacking someone’s ideas through name calling does not further our cause. It just gives others reason to dismiss us.

Luna

 

[Godfollower]

What’s amusing to me about this thread is that we all agree that there is such a thing as “too young to marry.” If two ten-year-olds announced that they wanted to get married, would anyone here actually send them to Pre-Cana to find out whether they’re sufficiently mature emotionally, adequately prepared spiritually, and ready practically to get married? Or would you just say “You’re too young to get married” and end it right there?

There is such a thing as “too young to get married.” The only real debate is what constitutes “too young.” The author of the article in the OP suggests 25. I think that’s an interesting proposal (though I disagree with an actual ban); and I think an age-related requirement of extra scrutiny could be supported as a reasonable response to modern American society’s corruption of our youth.

Sure, there are anecdotal examples of people who married young and persevered through the entire race (if you’ll forgive a reference to St. Paul in a marriage discussion). But if you want to get into anecdotal issues, surely we all know people who married young and did not make it. I think everyone here recognizes that it isn’t actually the calendar that renders certain people unfit to marry at the moment; it’s actually other things (probably a combination of things), among which are included emotional maturity, real-world experience, spiritual readiness, and true understanding of the meaning of marriage.

But what would be wrong with a diocese saying something to the effect of “For all couples engaged to be married we require a six-month period prior to celebrating the Sacrament of Matrimony, to include a Pre-Cana retreat; but, if either spouse-to-be is under age ___ we also require an additional program of [something-or-other designed to help the engaged couple study and understand both marriage and each other]”?

 

[Godfollower]

The irony is that you’re arguing that perhaps we should disregard the author’s ideas because she’s young.

Attacking someone’s ideas through name calling does not further our cause. It just gives others reason to dismiss us.

Luna

There, there. When you’re older you’ll understand. (Pat, pat).

:whacky:

 

[Melissa]

My grandparents married in their late teens/early twenties. Believe it or not they didn’t have the luxury of “finding themselves” – one grandmother even had to leave home at 16 with barely an education – and they all had happy, lasting marriages.

I don’t know, maybe the problem is that the youth aren’t taking on enough responsibility these days?

Here, here.

My parents married when my mom was a few months shy of 19. My dad was 5 (ok, leap year joke, really he was 21). I was born when my mother was 19-1/2. 47 years later, guess who’s still married, and still happy to be married.

One of my next door neighbors recently died. She and her husband (who survives her) had been married for 70 years. When she died, she was 85–do the math.

My grandfather was 25 when his first marriage ended with the death of his first wife and child. He married again at 29 and my grandmother was 24 when they married. They went on to be married for 59 years (Grandmother died after being diagnosed w/ lymphoma a week after their anniversary).

I do think that a great deal of the problem stems from the fact that weddings (distinct from marriage) have become an industry and that very often by the time a couple gets to that ‘6 month before the ceremony come in for counseling’ stage, they are SO committed to that fantasy that the wedding industry sold them that they will even abandon their own faith if warned that there are serious signs that they need to stop and consider whether or not they truly are ready for MARRIAGE–let nothing stand in the way of the wedding juggernaut.

But even today, there are 18-21yo young folk who are getting married who have every bit of understanding of what a marriage truly is and are as likely to (God willing that no one dies first) celebrate their golden anniversaries as my own parents are (as well as diamond anniversaries). Of course, those are not the people that you find getting married because “that’s what you do after being together 5 years”.

I also agree w/ Ridgerunner that we need to curtail this extended “adolescence” that allows people into their mid-20s to still wander around contemplating what they want to be when they “grow up”.

 

[anp1215]

There, there. When you’re older you’ll understand. (Pat, pat).

:whacky:

lol. Except Luna is, I believe, in her 40s or 50s (Luna, correct me if I’m wrong). So she wasn’t defending the author because they are of a similar age.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by sw85

Yep.

 

[robwar]

No offense, but it seems to me that the biggest reason you married at 24 and your sisters married at 21 and you’re all still married three-ish decades later is the fact that your parents married at 24 & 21 and lasted 50+ years. In other words (arrogance alert: I’m about to psychoanalyze three complete strangers based on one Internet post ), you understood that marriage really is forever; so you didn’t marry until you were ready, and when you ran into problems during the marriage you worked on them until they were resolved, because you understood what “until death do you part” meant.

In other words, you were properly catechized about marriage – at least in major part because of your parents’ example.

But not everyone has that benefit. So exploring the possibility of extra education / preparation for younger couples is an interesting concept, even if you are a happy exception.

I agree with you about pre-marriage classes. but the argument about 25 being too young is a bit over done when you consider that the average age of getting married is now 28.
Also considering that during my mom’s time (1940’s) 21 was old, people married younger and those marriages lasted much more. There was not no-fault divorce, the pill and living together before hand. In fact, living together before marriage does more harm to the marriage than not and that is where this discussion should lie. To build happy lasting marriages, people should wait to have sex, not do artificial birth control and not live together before hand. You are very passionate about pre-marriage classes and are correct but no matter how great the classes or retreats are, if the couple was already living together before hand, they have done damage to the marriage that they will have to overcome.
Even before pre-marriage classes,we should be educating and teaching our young to wait for marriage, to understand and accept the Churches teaching on artificial contraception.
that will do more to build lasting relationships than making some law banning marriage before 25.

 

[TiggerS]

Precisely. Not to mention it is better to marry rather than to ‘burn.’

At the time St Paul wrote the above, the problems we now have with the divorce problem and therefore the terrible suffering brough to any children did not exist in the main. Culturally back then, marriage was regarded as a life long commitment and divorce a serious matter. Culturally, society has now changed. It does remain, however, that it is better to marry than to burn with uncontrollable passion or in hell for serious and mortal offences against Chastity. To me, the problem is that couples planning to marry are not sufficiently educated in the fact that marriage is a vocation from God to which they are called as vocation; that they are to love and serve God through and in marriage - just as a religious loves and serves God through the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in a particular ministry in The Church. The married love and serve God through their marriage vows and are called by vocation to the lay state - their ministry in The Church is outlined in theDecree on the Apostolate of The Laity, which has many references to the married. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html
and also:
“Preparation for The Sacrament of Marriage” (Pontifical Council for The Family) vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_13051996_preparation-for-marriage_en.html

In the main, I think, many couples marrying think of marriage more in cultural terms than in terms of their religion and their Faith. They may acknowledge that they have married before God in The Church, but tend to live out their marriage more in cultural terms than in the religious as a holy call and vocation to a particular state in life (lay state) and a particular way of life (married life).
Religious and/or celibates are called to a particular state in life (consecrated or whatever) and a particular way of life (religious life - or whatever form of life their vocation may take).
The married have a distinct and holy vocation and call from God just as a religious for example may. It remains that the celibate vocation for the sake of The Kingdom (in whatever form) is superior objectively speaking theologically. While subjectively, nothing can be higher than the Will of God and that vocation to which a particular person (subject) is called.

The preparation for marriage to my mind should be a quite focused and clearly structured (similar to an RCIA program) over a relatively lengthy period (months?) and shared focus with the engaged couple and the proposed celebrant or his delegate(s) for the Sacrament of Marriage. It is a most serious matter in its own right as a call and vocation from God, not to mention the sacred obligation to any children, gifts of God, to raise them in a particular society and culture as contributing citizens of same, but the very serious responsibility and accountability before God for their religious formation through their growth process. But in the main, I dont think those planning to marry may have much familiarity at all with such concepts prior to marrying.

 

[TiggerS]

The para below from the Document on the Preparation for Marriage from the Pontifical Council for The Family struck me in particular. It is certainly a document worth reading as is the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity quoted previously with link - even necessary reading especially for the laity and those called to the vocation of The Sacrament of Marriage. The documents dont have to be necessarily read in one sitting, but over a number of reading sessions if one wishes.
I will very often transfer reading matter from the internet into a Word Document, where I can highlight etc. and make my own notes, references and thoughts. At the top of that document, I note the phrase/sentence and page number where I left off reading. This makes it all very easy to take up reading once more.

1. This preparation will not lose sight of the importance of helping young people acquire a critical ability with regard to their surroundings, and the Christian courage of those who know how to be in the world without belonging to it. This is what we read in the Letter to Diognetus, a venerable and certainly authentic document from the early Christian era: “Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind by either country, speech, or customs…the whole tenor of their way of living stamps it as worthy of admiration and admittedly extraordinary… They marry like all others and beget children; but they do not expose their offspring. Their table they spread for all, but not their bed. They find themselves in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh” (V, 1, 4, 6, 7, 8). Formation should arrive at a mentality and personality capable of not being led astray by ideas contrary to the unity and stability of marriage, thus able to react against the structures of the so-called social sin that “With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family” (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 16). In the face of these sinful influences and so many social pressures,a critical conscience must be instilled.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_13051996_preparation-for-marriage_en.html

I am unsure of what “do not expose their offspring” (see above quotation)may actually mean; although I suspect that it refers to the pagan Roman custom of putting unwanted newborn babies outside somewhere exposing them to the elements and death. What is quoted has come from early Christian writings and probably during the time of pagan Roman rule - a time of promiscuity including during marriage and by both genders. Obviously, it is highlighted from what is indeed written that Christians were called to live counter culturally to their times, as we are called today. We need to “preach the Gospel with words if necessary” (attributed to St Francis of Assisi) and this means that the way we live are to be a witness to The Gospel, all of it. It is not the exclusive domain of religious and/or priests and can be safely ignored by the rest of us. While* ideally* especially the consecrated and ordained professionals (religious and/or priests) will point the way for the rest of us.

 

[Melchior_1]

I got married in August 2008, I was 26 years old. My wife? 24.

It’s been four magnificent years thus far, and God willing many more.

Just saying.

 

[Godfollower]

I agree with you about pre-marriage classes. but the argument about 25 being too young is a bit over done when you consider that the average age of getting married is now 28.
Also considering that during my mom’s time (1940’s) 21 was old, people married younger and those marriages lasted much more. There was not no-fault divorce, the pill and living together before hand. In fact, living together before marriage does more harm to the marriage than not and that is where this discussion should lie. To build happy lasting marriages, people should wait to have sex, not do artificial birth control and not live together before hand. You are very passionate about pre-marriage classes and are correct but no matter how great the classes or retreats are, if the couple was already living together before hand, they have done damage to the marriage that they will have to overcome.
Even before pre-marriage classes,we should be educating and teaching our young to wait for marriage, to understand and accept the Churches teaching on artificial contraception.
that will do more to build lasting relationships than making some law banning marriage before 25.

Absolutely. There is no way we should be waiting until Pre-Cana to be educating people about marriage. Our kids should be learning from the very beginning that Matrimony is a Sacrament, that it is an actual case of God working through the spouses, and that it is not a mere civil trial relationship.

Pre-Cana, in my humble opinion, is merely a stopgap intended to catch the ones who missed out on that teaching. It also has the happy effect of providing a spiritual time for the engaged couple to engage (ha!) in discussions about marriage without it devolving into questions about the wedding; but its main purpose is to say things like “Whaddaya mean you haven’t thought about kids yet?” and “Wait; you’ve been married before?!” and “Share information on finances? You mean this is for really real?”

The kids really ought to have been learning this all along.

 

[Godfollower]

lol. Except Luna is, I believe, in her 40s or 50s (Luna, correct me if I’m wrong). So she wasn’t defending the author because they are of a similar age.

Really? She looks much younger.