The Sexual State. How a rolling revolution is destroying Lives

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with no fault divorce is that it makes the marriage vows worthless. Couples promise to be faithful to each other for life, to love, honor, and cherish the other—for life. The vows are made each to the other publicly in front of priest and congregation, with God as their witness. But the law says: “No matter. You can walk out at any time for any reason.”

I wish my mortgage contract was so loose.
 
JimG said:
The problem with no fault divorce is that it makes the marriage vows worthless. Couples promise to be faithful to each other for life, to love, honor, and cherish the other—for life. The vows are made each to the other publicly in front of priest and congregation, with God as their witness. But the law says: “No matter. You can walk out at any time for any reason.”

I wish my mortgage contract was so loose.
Click to expand...
If mortgage contracts were so loose, you couldn’t get one.

(Come to think of it, this is happening to marriage, too.)
 
Last edited:
What about the promises they made to their spouse? Skip them? Just walk awsy? What if there are children? What about responsibilities?
 
Not arranged marriages exactly. What was common was she got to know your family. You got to know her family. You dated and developed a trust-based friendship first. You talked about things you had in common. You talked about the kind of future you wanted. All before the ceremony. Traditionally, the young man sat down with her father and told him he planned to marry his daughter. He was your age once. He totally got it. He asked the practical questions. Where will you live? Do you have reliable transportation? Have you talked about children?

People marry into families. Her concerns will become your concerns. You will be a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. And if both of you are on the same page, then the next step is getting engaged.
 
You can’t legally walk away from your responsibilities to your children in the United States unless you terminate your parental rights completely. Otherwise you have to pay child support or have custody of your children.

But we aren’t talking about mortgages or children. I just don’t think a person should have to remain married to anyone they don’t want to be married to, especially if there is abuse involved. I grew up with it. I saw my mom abused. If less people in her life wouldnt have judged her for leaving, she probably wouldn’t have to deal with ptsd and depression today. I’m done with this conversation.
 
FloridaCatholic said:
But we aren’t talking about mortgages or children. I just don’t think a person should have to remain married to anyone they don’t want to be married to, especially if there is abuse involved. I grew up with it. I saw my mom abused. If less people in her life wouldnt have judged her for leaving, she probably wouldn’t have to deal with ptsd and depression today. I’m done with this conversation.
Click to expand...
Again, no one is saying that abuse is not a reason to cut off the common conjugal life. Even canon law allows for that:
Can. 1153 §1. If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.

Canon law says that in the case you are describing your mother would have the right to be separated from your dad indefinitely. Relief from the duties of the common conjugal life is not the same as divorce, though. A divorce really ought to take some time and circumspection.
 
Last edited:
That’s not the point and sure, some people still do this. It’s a lot better than living together first.
 
I see nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to no longer be legally married in this country that’s their life
 
edwest said:
That’s not the point and sure, some people still do this. It’s a lot better than living together first.
Click to expand...
It is better to have an invalid marriage (that is, a marriage entered into with the understanding that one party can unilaterally end the relationship without cause) than to have none at all? That is not being married. That is the pretense of being married.
FloridaCatholic said:
I see nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to no longer be legally married in this country that’s their life
Click to expand...
Yes, well, they take some of their spouse’s life with them, too.
I think you’re only acquainted with someone who was abused and stayed, and not anyone who was abandoned.
 
Last edited:
Why should the courts tell anyone that they have cause or no cause to divorce? I get that divorcing for no reason is a sin but it still should be legal
 
FloridaCatholic said:
Why should the courts tell anyone that they have cause or no cause to divorce? I get that divorcing for no reason is a sin but it still should be legal
Click to expand...
You’re talking about a couple who disagrees whether one should just be able to walk out and count on taking half of everything. Again, why can’t people in business contracts do that? Because if they did, the contract would be worth less than the paper is was printed on. You may as well just go on a handshake if you’re just going to be able to walk away. Why would society give any privileges to a social arrangement like that? It is your handshake agreement, you decided to trust each other. If it doesn’t work out, then, you manage it. Fly! Be free!

You’re making an argument why marriage shouldn’t be a civil contract at all, but only a social or religious matter.
 
Last edited:
FloridaCatholic said:
Not everyone makes those vows when they get married
Click to expand...
In the marriage ceremony in Oregon, each person seeking to be married must declare in the presence of the person performing the marriage and two witnesses that they agree to take each other to be spouses. This binds them to the rights and duties of marriage according to the laws of the United States and the State of Oregon. So, yes, they bind themselves to whatever rights and duties the state attaches to marriage…even though those are subject to change.
 
Last edited:
Right. I just still think a person shouldn’t have to stay married to someone if they don’t want to
 
FloridaCatholic said:
Right. I just still think a person shouldn’t have to stay married to someone if they don’t want to
Click to expand...
There are times when you are not only morally allowed but morally compelled to walk away from a serious commitment, and marriage is no exception. It is now appreciated that subjecting a child to witnessing the abuse of a parent is a form of child abuse. A married person who is in a strife-ridden relationship (possibly with wrong-doing on both sides) might do what they see fit, but a parent who appreciates the effect of forcing a child to witness violence the child cannot stop and cannot protect their parents from would have a moral obligation to get the child out of such a situation, even if the child was not directly abused. Even if the parents wanted to run their personal lives like that, they would have no business doing that to their child or children. We do know that now.

I think our difference is not whether a parent ought to have the immediate option of removing himself, herself or a child from a harmful home situation. The question is whether there is no harm done by allowing both spouses the option of unilaterally dissolving a marriage without any evidence of wrongdoing by the spouse that does not want the split. I would rather an abused spouse be able to show damages (and claim damages in court) than that spouses be tempted to take their half of the marital assets and just leave without owing any reason to anybody. Even as a purely civil matter, the principle that no one can do wrong in a marriage is very problematic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top