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.
PetraG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Court costs aren’t cheap. The problem with what you’re suggesting is that you aren’t thinking about the real cost for a lot of people who can’t afford lawyers or legal fees but who desperately need to get divorced.

Also, more often than not the woman is the one who asks for the divorce and is more likely to get abused. Women also tend to make less money than men and because of which, they can’t afford good lawyers. Family law attorneys aren’t provided to you for free in america
 
Last edited:
FloridaCatholic said:
Court costs aren’t cheap. The problem with what you’re suggesting is that you aren’t thinking about the real cost for a lot of people who can’t afford lawyers or legal fees but who desperately need to get divorced.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is poverty in either direction. What about the real cost to the spouse who is unilaterally abandoned…a person also not unlikely to be a woman without a lot of earning power? This happens to women all of the time, and is a common source of poverty for mothers and children left behind.

I don’t know that women are more likely to be abused. They’re more likely to be subjected to physical violence, but as you know that is hardly the only form that abuse takes in marriage.
 
People can be abandoned no matter if they’re married or not. How is getting rid of no-fault divorce going to help?
 
FloridaCatholic said:
People can be abandoned no matter if they’re married or not. How is getting rid of no-fault divorce going to help?
Click to expand...
If you go to the state looking for contract protection, you have to expect the state is going to protect your partner if you default, as well. What kind of contract just allows either party to imply the contract is for life but in actuality allows either party to walk out on with no reason whatsoever? If marriage has no more permanence than living together, what is the point of civil marriage?
 
Last edited:
What do you expect the state to do? Order someone to love their spouse again and reconcile? Marriage isn’t the same as a business contract no matter how you try to compare the two
 
I completely agree if there is abuse there are definite reasons to leave. Yes.
Divorce, it depends.

If there isn’t abuse involved, leaving and divorcing just because you dont want to be with that person anymore is still walking away from promises, vows, responsibilities and commitments. It will also leave the other person who thought the vows were true and were forever, extremely hurt and depressed and perhaps in a terrible situation.

Abuse is breaking a promise. The promise to love, honor and cherish the other person.

Divorce without solid reasons or for no fault is breaking the same promise to love, honor and cherish.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
FloridaCatholic:
Yes if that person abused their spouse. No one is abandoned without cause

There is always a cause
Click to expand...
What was the cause that lead to the departure of the Prodigal Son? That was a cause. It just wasn’t a cause that was the fault of anyone in the family left behind.

Yes, there are people who are married to abusers, but there are a lot of families abandoned by a spouse and parent who doesn’t want to have the “burden” of the commitment they made.
Click to expand...
God is abandoned over and over in the old and new testaments, and often blamed. But the fault is with the abandoner, not God.

In spousal abandonment, the person leaving will usually the blame on their spouse, but it is all trumped up, and just adds to the misery and confusion. Of course, there may be a germ of truth in it, as there is with any effective lie, but it is just an excuse.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178
Click to expand...
These days, marriage vows are worse than worthless, because while one party can walk out at any time the other party may have made a significant investment in them. Similarly, the children are growing in a home expecting that it will last, when it can actually end at any time on a whim, and even have one parent replaced by a third person.

The marriage vows should actually be “I promise you nothing and will leave at any time”. At least that’s honest, and people would understand the risk they taking.
 
Last edited:
FloridaCatholic said:
What do you expect the state to do? Order someone to love their spouse again and reconcile? Marriage isn’t the same as a business contract no matter how you try to compare the two
Click to expand...
The state can delay rash decisions, yes.

No, marriage is not a business contract. It is a agreement of fidelity for the whole of life between two persons that the state should not encourage people to either enter into or leave lightly. No, the state should not make it easy for someone to claim that they can’t take it anymore. They should not give the automatic expectation that the departing spouse can walk out with half of everything and perhaps financial support after leaving because they’re tired of being married to someone they lead to believe they were committed to for life: personal life, financial life, family life, everything.

If the state has any interest in marriage at all, it has an interest that marriages be durable and that they not be an attractive way to put someone on the hook for the maintenance of someone else who made the unilateral decision to leave what was understood to be a lifetime commitment. Otherwise, the state shouldn’t be in the institution at all.

The state, by the way, does not require love matches. Why you marry and why you stay is your business.
 
JimG said:
Why do people marry abusers?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the abuse doesn’t happen while dating.
Sometimes people get married because they fear this person may be their very last chance.
Sometimes they’re in a hormonal-infatuation-induced fog.
Because “it was a one time only thing and he said he was sorry and anyhow I provoked it by saying/dressing/being wrong”.

Some people literally don’t know they deserve better treatment, because they grew up seeing abuse as just how people act.
 
Also, not all abusers are cold and calculating.
Many fall into abuse as an emotional response to situations they can’t handle. They are more like an angry kid than the calculating sociopath. This group can show remorse and learn new behavior.
 
Last edited:
This has got to stop or, at least, be minimized.
  1. No sex in the relationship. No intercourse.
  2. Really get to know the other person. Make sure he or she is on the same page as you.
  3. Faith matters. What is her or his faith like? Active? Passive?
  4. Talking things out will help each of you develop a friendship which is the basis for a committed relationship.
  5. Do other things together aside from what most would consider a typical date.
  6. Don’t rush things.
 
JimG said:
Separate sex from babies. Separate sex from marriage. Separate parents from children. Make divorce easy. Make women and men the same. Separate parents from kids. Do as you like.

An interview with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse about the victims of the sexual revolution.

The Sexual State: how a rolling revolution is destroying lives » MercatorNet
Click to expand...
All true, and there is a related theory of crucial relevance.

Not only is the sexual state destroying lives now, but based on history, we can know with a high degree of certainty that it will in fact destroy civilisation within a generation or two. This is as sound an application of history as you can get. Basically, only a miracle can save us.

This was discovered by J. D. Unwin in the 1930’s. He was a LEFT LEANING academic who came across this unwanted conclusion from his study of many civilisations.
In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] Aldous Huxley described Sex and Culture as “a work of the highest importance”.[2]

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The effect, says the author, is irrevocable.[3] Unwin also infers that legal equality, and only legal equality, between women and men is necessary to institute before absolute monogamy is instituted, otherwise the monogamy will erode in the name of emancipating women, as he shows has occurred numerous times and places throughout all of written history.[4][5]
Click to expand...

So, brace ourselves for it 😦
 
Last edited:
gracepoole said:
My husband is everything to me and I am everything to him
Click to expand...
it is this kind of abusive statement, which makes that many girl are dreamers of a prince charming which does not exist, like Santa Claus.
God alone must be everything to us, not a human. Our alone hope for happiness in this world must be God, not a human.
 
Good grief. :roll_eyes:

Yes. Clearly in the context of my comments, I’m in an abusive marriage and am advocating for other women to experience the same. Kudos. You figured me out.
 
JimG said:
Separate sex from babies. Separate sex from marriage. Separate parents from children. Make divorce easy. Make women and men the same. Separate parents from kids. Do as you like.

An interview with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse about the victims of the sexual revolution.
Click to expand...
Humanity is Fallen. The sexual revolution to me is just an expression of what was already happening behind closed doors. Your can’t sell a product unless there is already a demand for it.
 
Last edited:
It was an expected reaction to the puritanical views on sex and more specifically, female sexual pleasure. Society flops when it comes to avoiding extremes.

However you do make a point. Pre marital sex and prostitution was always there. Sex feels good. We try to avoid lust frequently. Add in a group of people telling you that you should be able to engage in your desires whenever you want with whoever you want without the shackles of marriage and the world implodes!
 
“Abuse” is one of those unfortunate words which perhaps had a specific and concrete meaning in the past, but today is often expanded to include virtually any sort of behavior I don’t like. How can you be married to ANY person and not get from them hurtful words or actions towards you? So can’t we all say that we are abused on some level? And I suppose according to a loose definition of abuse, I have also abused God. Yet he forgives me and remains committed to me. So I just want to become more and more like him. Selfishness drives so many of my own sins…
 
Abuse (excluding physical) has always been defined as a pattern of behaviors. To be honest I’ve hardly seen enough people calling random fights or whatever abuse
 
But that’s the problem. All of us need to say no to sexual immorality. When we see it on TV. When we see it in movies. When we see or hear it promoted by the media. For example, two young women are shown in an ad for a contraceptive and the word “power” is added. Power to do what? Avoid conception? Sex is only about pleasure? Sex is designed for having babies. Without self-restraint, there will be more unwed mothers and children growing up without a father.

Multiplying temptations in return for money is not good business.
 
Thanks for the reference. Carl C. Zimmerman came to a similar conclusion in his book, “Family and Civilization.”

What always surprises me though, is that those who live in degenerate societies, such as we are in now, never quite recognize the fact. The refrain is “things have always been this way.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top