Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on September 15, 2018, 07:56:05 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45525979
Thankfully.
-
Sounds like a good idea.
-
I agree.. and long overdue. let's hope that the proposals eventually become law. I was pleased to see that this would also include civil partnerships.
-
I'll go with all of the above.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Hear hear.
-
Not sure about this. Divorce is already too easy.
-
Not sure about this. Divorce is already too easy.
No it really isn't.
-
Not sure about this. Divorce is already too easy.
in what way?
-
Not sure about this. Divorce is already too easy.
Why should it be difficult?
-
Why should it be difficult?
God says so.
-
If that's anybody's answer to anything, there's no discussion to be had.
I doubt if Tini Owens agrees that divorce is 'too easy'.
-
God says so.
I would doubt though that that is SteveH's position,and I am interested in his perspective here.
-
I would doubt though that that is SteveH's position,and I am interested in his perspective here.
I think that ultimately that is where a lot of the belief that divorce is wrong comes from. The reasons are stuck on to fit that belief. I'm not even sure it's a conscious thing.
-
I think that ultimately that is where a lot of the belief that divorce is wrong comes from. The reasons are stuck on to fit that belief. I'm not even sure it's a conscious thing.
There's no getting away from the fact that the Christian manual prohibits divorce, regarding it as tantamount to adultery.
-
There's no getting away from the fact that the Christian manual prohibits divorce, regarding it as tantamount to adultery.
What you tend to get is the reasoning that the Bible has laws in it that are for the benefit of humankind. And some of that is unarguable - jealousy, thieving, murder etc. But then are are these weird moral laws that keep people stuck in places that are unhealthy. So over the years there's been a need to seek confirmation that divorce is bad because 'it damages children' or 'it leaves women in poverty'. So no real action is taken to seriously mitigate the damage done to children, and women are still left in poverty - or, because divorce is still adversarial, stuck in abusive marriages that they are too afraid to end - and that's somehow ok because of this attitude the Divorce Is Bad.
-
I'm intrigued by the attitude that it's a good thing to make it hard for two miserable people (and potentially miserable children as well) to go their separate ways. What kind of mentality that shows ... I'm at a loss.
-
I think that ultimately that is where a lot of the belief that divorce is wrong comes from. The reasons are stuck on to fit that belief. I'm not even sure it's a conscious thing.
Perhaps. I just would rather hear what Steve thinks rather than judge is motivation.
-
Perhaps. I just would rather hear what Steve thinks rather than judge is motivation.
I wasn't judging his personally.
-
God says so.
Your words. I didn't say or imply that. Marriage is a serious commitment, and easy divorce devalues it.
-
Your words. I didn't say or imply that. Marriage is a serious commitment, and easy divorce devalues it.
No, what devalues marriage is the way people treat each other within it, and then being forced to stay together even though they are unhappy. It makes a mockery of love and partnership.
-
Your words. I didn't say or imply that. Marriage is a serious commitment, and easy divorce devalues it.
So why is it important that it's made hard for people in an unhappy marriage to get out of it? All the more so when children are involved.
-
So why is it important that it's made hard for people in an unhappy marriage to get out of it? All the more so when children are involved.
Yes, if marriage matters so much why try to preserve the shit ones?
-
So why is it important that it's made hard for people in an unhappy marriage to get out of it? All the more so when children are involved.
Who said "hard"? It's already pretty easy.
-
Who said "hard"? It's already pretty easy.
In #5 you said that divorce is "too easy" and in #18 you stated that easy divorce "devalues marriage", which implies that you think it should be more difficult.
-
If people don't like the commitment of marriage, they can always just live together, as many do. If they marry, it should be a real commitment.
-
If people don't like the commitment of marriage, they can always just live together, as many do. If they marry, it should be a real commitment.
What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?
-
If people don't like the commitment of marriage, they can always just live together, as many do. If they marry, it should be a real commitment.
That's great and all but doesn't actually respond to any of the points I made. "Real commitments" naturally come to an end sometimes.
-
What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?
I can think of certain scenarios where people who cohabit exhibit more commitment than those who marry. Despite what Steve H may think divorce is a complicated, lengthy and expensive process; in a marriage it's easy to just settle for the sake of a quiet life. People who live together stay in a relationship that they can often leave at any point because they actually want to be there.
-
What makes you think that people who live together aren't 'really committed'?
i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?
-
i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?
The expense? The planning required? Not seeing any need for a do?
-
i didn't actually say that, but in any case, if they are committed, why not get married?
Because they think that marriage is a load of old pony?
-
It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.
The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.
Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.
We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.
And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.
God no longer puts husbands and wives together.
-
Bang on the money.
-
It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.
The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.
Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.
We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.
And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.
God no longer puts husbands and wives together.
A good post.
I am glad we are now living in the 21st Century where women, on the whole, are not treated as chattels and belonging to the male of the species.
-
It is worth remembering that the primary reason for marriage is the protection of property. Marriage was originally "designed" as a method of restricting the incidence of opportunistic sex to women - thereby ensuring that men knew that any offspring was their own. This meant that the transmission of property down the generations was safely done within a single family. A woman's job was done once she had provided an heir and a spare.
The mechanism of reproduction was not understood. Women, it was believed, had no genetic role and were merely incubation devices.
Religion got in on the act by introducing the concept of sexual activity as being sinful. The motivation for this was to increase the power that religious figures had over other their believers. By introducing shame and guilt into sexual relations they transformed the nature of marriage and turned into a device for control.
We have surely progressed beyond the need for such an imposition on mature human beings. We now know where babies come from and we can accurately identify their fathers. We can control our fertility. Women are rightly no longer perceived as inferior to men and do not need to be constrained. If the bond between two people is sufficiently strong there is every reason why they should marry ... if they want to.
And should that bond break down and the couple become strangers to each other then there is every reason why they should be able to dissolve their formal relationship.
God no longer puts husbands and wives together.
I suspect that most of the above is highly questionable.
-
Instead of merely asserting as much and scuttling off thinking that your work is done, why not show it to be wrong?
-
I suspect that most of the above is highly questionable.
I have an example of a woman in my own family being used as a child rearing machine.
My great aunt was in love with man, and the feeling was mutual. Sadly her eldest sister died in childbirth and my aunt was forced the marry her sister's unpleasant much older husband, in order to help bring up the baby boy to which her sister had given birth! :o Her husband treated her very cruelly indeed, it was a great relief to her when he kicked the bucket in 1952. She never remarried and eventually died at the great age of 104.
-
I have an example of a woman in my own family being used as a child rearing machine.
My great aunt was in love with man, and the feeling was mutual. Sadly her eldest sister died in childbirth and my aunt was forced the marry her sister's unpleasant much older husband, in order to help bring up the baby boy to which her sister had given birth! :o Her husband treated her very cruelly indeed, it was a great relief to her when he kicked the bucket in 1952. She never remarried and eventually died at the great age of 104.
Sigh...
-
A good post.
I am glad we are now living in the 21st Century where women, on the whole, are not treated as chattels and belonging to the male of the species.
Depends on your culture. Some think that females should be erased in the womb.
-
Depends on your culture. Some think that females should be erased in the womb.
No doubt you are thinking of China. :o
-
No doubt you are thinking of China. :o
No.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45497454
-
If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you have to accept that they may choose abortion for reasons you disapprove of.
-
If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you have to accept that they may choose abortion for reasons you disapprove of.
Except it isn't a choice. It's cultural pressure, the threat of divorce, of being ostracised. It's a kind of honour crime. Did you actually bother reading the article at all?
-
Except it isn't a choice. It's cultural pressure, the threat of divorce, of being ostracised. It's a kind of honour crime. Did you actually bother reading the article at all?
No, but I'm aware that women may be pressured into decisions we progressive Western liberals may disapprove of - but then again, they may make what we consider bad decisions for themselves. See also the debate about Burqas and Niqabs.
-
No, but I'm aware that women may be pressured into decisions we progressive Western liberals may disapprove of - but then again, they may make what we consider bad decisions for themselves. See also the debate about Burqas and Niqabs.
Aborting a child because it is female is not the same thing as choosing to wear a headscarf. FFS. It's not simply being pressured into something that we 'disapprove of'; it is saying to a woman that her sex is so unwanted that it should be destroyed. Eliminated. Erased. The children in her body should be wiped out. Because she is female. And you know the really sad thing? Many women go along with it because they wouldn't wish the hell of their lives on their daughters.
-
Aborting a child because it is female is not the same thing as choosing to wear a headscarf. FFS. It's not simply being pressured into something that we 'disapprove of'; it is saying to a woman that her sex is so unwanted that it should be destroyed. Eliminated. Erased. The children in her body should be wiped out. Because she is female. And you know the really sad thing? Many women go along with it because they wouldn't wish the hell of their lives on their daughters.
How exactly do you know all this? You sound like an evangelical anti-abortionist hypocritically bringing up the abortion of disabled foetuses, which is a touch ironical. Incidentally, the headscarf is called a hijab. The niqab and burqaare the ones that conceal the face.
-
How exactly do you know all this? You sound like an evangelical anti-abortionist hypocritically bringing up the abortion of disabled foetuses, which is a touch ironical. Incidentally, the headscarf is called a hijab. The niqab and burqaare the ones that conceal the face.
It's out there. On discussion forums, in the news media. Women from these communities are trying to protect each other, call it out as an honour crime. The first time I came across it personally was when my best friend's cousin went to India to abort a daughter because she couldn't get an abortion here. My friend wondered if she would have to do the same. We were 14, 15 I guess.
If you want to read about it there's some info here.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/early/2018/06/19/jech-2018-210622.full.pdf
Incidentally, I don't disapprove of them having the abortion because the likelihood is that life will be shit for them if they have the child, and for their daughter too, unless they are able to get out of the marriage safely. Its the whole culture that needs changing, an our response to 'cultural sensitivities' that are actually excuses not to deal with abuse.
But we are getting off the topic of marriage. Should you wish to continue, start another thread.
-
Sigh...
And what are you sighing about?
-
And what are you sighing about?
Your inability to understand that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, and your usual solipsism.
-
Your inability to understand that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, and your usual solipsism.
Oh dear you are a very sad person if you haven't anything better to do than try to wind me up, GROW UP! ::)
-
The expense? The planning required? Not seeing any need for a do?
£46 at the registrar. Three weeks notice. 'Do' is optional.
Divorce takes about a year if marriage is irretrievably broken down and both consent (longer with no consent).
Grounds for being 'irretrievably broken down' are adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour.
SteveH: sigh.
Deep breath and remember 'small world':-).
Roses I'm surprised your aunt was allowed to marry her brother in law if she did so in 19thC. Maybe the law was different in Channel Islands. How was she 'forced' to do so?
-
£46 at the registrar. Three weeks notice. 'Do' is optional.
Divorce takes about a year if marriage is irretrievably broken down and both consent (longer with no consent).
Grounds for being 'irretrievably broken down' are adultery, desertion and unreasonable behaviour.
Thanks, I think most of us are aware of this.
Look at your reasons. You are expecting one person to take the blame for a marriage break-up. Some will do this as a compromise but it’s a horrible way to do it. With cutbacks to the courts you can expect even a straightforward, non contested divorce to take 18 months. It dies t have to be adversarial.
The only purpose marriage serves is legal protection and that can be offered through civil partnership. If I commit to someone I’ll do so without wasting £46. That’s pay for a pizza or something. My word and his means everything; being shackled by something that belongs in the Middle Ages means fuck all.
-
Your words. I didn't say or imply that. Marriage is a serious commitment, and easy divorce devalues it.
A loveless relationship that causes everybody involved to be miserable is what devalues marriage.
-
A loveless relationship that causes everybody involved to be miserable is what devalues marriage.
Well said.
-
I was merely pointing out that it doesn't have to cost a lot to get married nor does it necessarily take long to divorce. I wasn't advocating either!
Yes people can commit to eachother without any legal ties and plenty do.
-
I was merely pointing out that it doesn't have to cost a lot to get married nor does it necessarily take long to divorce. I wasn't advocating either!
Yes people can commit to eachother without any legal ties and plenty do.
This is stating the obvious rather. I still don't know why Steve thinks that divorce should be hard, particurlay given how divorce currently works - it doesn't make it easy, just bitter.
-
I get the impression that Steven believes in the institution of marriage and thinks people sometimes give up too easily. I don't know that for certain but that's my impression. He's not alone there. He is divorced I think, going from his ex wife thread in prayer section.
Divorce isn't something of which I have personal experience but know plenty who have. They seem to have managed it without too much difficulty. A couple weren't in any great hurry because they had no intention of remarrying, others wanted everything tidied up as quickly as possible. Most had given marriage a good go, one or two (school friends) married very young on short acquaintance and parted within two years, remarried a few years later, had children and were happy.
I understand the court fees for divorce are quite expensive.
Nowadays, when there is less societal pressure to get married, a couple must surely believe there is value in marriage to do it.
No regrets at all about being married but often wonder if I would bother with the formalities if I was in my twenties now. I honestly don't know (think husband would still want to).
Just musing.
-
I still don't know why Steve thinks that divorce should be hard
Because if it isn't, it devalues marriage, you know. Because self-evidently, nothing proclaims the noble sanctity of the hallowed institution of wedlock like keeping two miserable people together, possibly with confused and unhappy kids, for as long as possible.
-
Because if it isn't, it devalues marriage, you know. Because self-evidently, nothing proclaims the noble sanctity of the hallowed institution of wedlock like keeping two miserable people together, possibly with confused and unhappy kids, for as long as possible.
I didn't say it should be hard, just not easier than it is now. Laboured sarcasm is a pretty poor argument.
-
I didn't say it should be hard, just not easier than it is now. Laboured sarcasm is a pretty poor argument.
... and it still manages to be a better argument than your so far non-existent argument as to why divorce law shouldn't be comprehensively overhauled as per the OP.
-
I didn't say it should be hard, just not easier than it is now. Laboured sarcasm is a pretty poor argument.
You said it was 'too easy'. Doesn't that mean you think it should be harder than it is?
-
You said it was 'too easy'. Doesn't that mean you think it should be harder than it is?
It's like #23 all over again ...
-
A loveless relationship that causes everybody involved to be miserable is what devalues marriage.
So very true. When I was a kid I used to beg my parents to divorce. :o
-
Marriages that hit a rocky patch can often be saved, but too-easy divorce makes that less likely.
-
One should first see if a marriage is salvageable, but if it isn't the sooner a divorce takes place the better. My parents stayed together for 58 because they were religious, but it wasn't a good idea. They never got on, it was rare for them to be in agreement about anything, which wasn't pleasant for my siblings and I. :o
-
It's OK though - they didn't devalue marriage.
Apparently.
-
It's OK though - they didn't devalue marriage.
Apparently.
Laboured sarcasm isn't an argument.
-
Nor is repetition.
-
It's OK though - they didn't devalue marriage.
Apparently.
My parents idea of marriage was devalued by the way they carried on. Towards the end of his life my father checked himself into a care home as he couldn't stand being with my mother any longer.
-
My parents idea of marriage was devalued by the way they carried on. Towards the end of his life my father checked himself into a care home as he couldn't stand being with my mother any longer.
Ah, but the wonders of matrimony - that's the thing.
-
Ah, but the wonders of matrimony - that's the thing.
My husband and I will have been married for 50 years next August, we obviously are doing something right as we haven't murdered each other yet. ;D