Christian Divorce

[Zzyzx]

.
The bible appears to disallow divorce except for sexual impropriety / adultery and prohibits remarriage under most circumstances.

Yet, Christians divorce at rates as great or greater than Non-Christians and often remarry. When they remarry they are committing adultery according to the bible – and many continue the adulterous relationship until death.

If a person persists in their "sin" (adultery by remarriage), does not ask forgiveness and does not REPENT (but blatantly continues the adultery) then dies in that state, they are evidently an unrepentant sinner. Should they, therefore, be denied access to "heaven?"

[bluethread]

.

What, "transfer of costs" to "innocent third parties" do you refer to here?

The costs of raising and caring for other peoples children.

The costs of raising children are considered by divorce courts under the term "Child support" and are strongly enforced by court action. That is independent of fault vs. no-fault divorce.

It is a demonstrable fact that children of divorce suffer more emotional and physical problems. Also, divorce results increased costs of living and decreased economic productivity. Therefore, court ordered visitation and "child support" does not make up for the damage done to children. This damage is then used politically to transfer funds from innocent third parties to "single parents" as if they are all just victims of circumstance. There are some exceptions, but court enforced "child support" does not justify no-fault divorce.

Quite often, however, there are no children involved with either type of divorce, so the "argument" against no-fault divorce fails on at least two counts.

Quite often does not justify the practice. Even in divorce for cause states, one can get a divorce similar to a no-fault divorce, if there are no children involved. No-fault legislation just institutionalizes the practice. So, the argument does not fail on two counts. You have chosen to disregard the argument base on socialist grounds, ie the raising of children is primarily the responsibility of the state.

Is there any valid justification -- something beyond personal and religious preference?

To those who oppose no-fault divorce I say "Don't get one -- but don't attempt to inflict your preferences on others" and I say the same to those opposed to abortion. Mind your (generic term) own business -- which should be enough to keep you occupied.

As I pointed out, no-fault legislation is not a matter of the state imposing marriage on individuals, but the intentional failure of the state to enforce contract law as a matter of statuary legislation.

[Zzyzx]

.

What, "transfer of costs" to "innocent third parties" do you refer to here?

The costs of raising and caring for other peoples children.

The costs of raising children are considered by divorce courts under the term "Child support" and are strongly enforced by court action. That is independent of fault vs. no-fault divorce.

It is a demonstrable fact that children of divorce suffer more emotional and physical problems. Also, divorce results increased costs of living and decreased economic productivity. Therefore, court ordered visitation and "child support" does not make up for the damage done to children.

Does fault vs. no-fault insure less damage to children or less increase in cost of living or increased economic productivity?

Is there assurance that less damage is done to children of divorce than had they remained in an unhappy or hostile home environment without divorce?

Consider:

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, states that "in the years since no-fault divorce became well-nigh universal, the national divorce rate has fallen, from about 23 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 to under 17 per 1,000 in 2005."[8] She adds that "once you permit the courts to determine when a person’s desire to leave is legitimate, you open the way to arbitrary decisions about what is or should be tolerable in a relationship, made by people who have no stake in the actual lives being lived."

And, unintended consequences:

Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, based on findings in their research, argue that domestic violence and female suicide decline in states that legalize no-fault divorce. Specifically, they report that "states that adopted no-fault divorce experienced a decrease of 8 to 16 percent in wives’ suicide rates and a 30 percent decline in domestic violence." They also argue that their research proves there is no permanent effect of no-fault divorce laws on divorce rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

This damage is then used politically to transfer funds from innocent third parties to "single parents" as if they are all just victims of circumstance. There are some exceptions, but court enforced "child support" does not justify no-fault divorce.

Divorce happens. No-fault or "separation" divorce is available in all fifty states. Damage happens in divorce regardless of fault.
http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/pages/grounds.html

Quite often, however, there are no children involved with either type of divorce, so the "argument" against no-fault divorce fails on at least two counts.

Quite often does not justify the practice. Even in divorce for cause states, one can get a divorce similar to a no-fault divorce, if there are no children involved. No-fault legislation just institutionalizes the practice.

The antiquated practice of requiring "fault" in divorce cases has been set aside in the US for decades – for good reasons including:

But think twice before you raise a defense to a fault divorce. These defenses are rarely used -- for a couple of very practical reasons. First, proving a defense may require witnesses and involve a lot of time and expense. Second, your efforts will likely come to nothing. Chances are good that a court will eventually grant the divorce, because there is a strong public policy against forcing people to stay married when they don't wish to be. Your money and energy may be better spent elsewhere -- say, on paying mutual debt or saving for the children's college education.
http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/pages/grounds.html

So, the argument does not fail on two counts. You have chosen to disregard the argument base on socialist grounds, ie the raising of children is primarily the responsibility of the state.

I have taken no such position. Kindly refrain from falsifying in attempts to salvage a failing "argument."

Is there any valid justification -- something beyond personal and religious preference?

To those who oppose no-fault divorce I say "Don't get one -- but don't attempt to inflict your preferences on others" and I say the same to those opposed to abortion. Mind your (generic term) own business -- which should be enough to keep you occupied.

As I pointed out, no-fault legislation is not a matter of the state imposing marriage on individuals,

This discussion does not include "the state imposing marriage." It specifically deals with divorce.

but the intentional failure of the state to enforce contract law as a matter of statuary legislation.

I agree with enforcement of contract law (fairly of course).

When both (all) parties to a contract agree that it should be dissolved the court should not impede the dissolution.

[bluethread]

It appears that you did not contest my two main points. Those being that divorce is damaging to children, psychologically, physically and economically, and that court ordered visitation and child support does not make up for that damage. You have instead gone with the lesser of two evils argument. You speculated earlier that making divorce more difficult could be leading to more cohabitation. Couldn't it be the other way around. As cohabitation and "single" parenthood have become more and more matters of life choice rather than necessary options, the divorce rate among the decreasing number of couples that choose to marry is going down.

Your abuse argument sounds compelling, but it appears to account for from 10 to 27 percent of divorces, depending on the studies. Rather than get bogged down it the cause and effect relationship or alternatives to divorce in those situation, I will give you 27%. Are we then going to just ignore the detriment effects of divorce in the other 72%. Let's not lose sight of the point being discussed. The costs of all of these divorces are being transferred to the children of divorce and the general public is being asked to pick up at least part of the additional costs associated with raising these children.

In short, it is best to encourage marriage and discourage divorce, at least with regard to families with children.

An interesting side note is that I have been criticized on another thread for not speaking against divorce, so if you could spread the word, it would be appreciated.

[KCKID]

Below is what I found to be an interesting article. I hope that Christians on this board will take the time to read it and to consider what it has to say: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/04/ ... -marriage/

Last night, someone emailed and asked me to write about the gay marriage case in Virginia. This morning, a woman from Wisconsin asked if I would blog about the gay marriage case in her state. A few readers in Utah have also requested that I chime in on the gay marriage fight there.

And so I was going to do just that. I sat down to type a scathing rant about gay marriage. I sat down to tell the world that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage.

But then I remembered this:

There’s a sign I saw on the side of the road a little while back. Divorce for sale! Only 129 dollars! Get ‘em while they’re hot!

And then I remembered an article I read last week about the new phenomenon of “divorce parties.� Divorced is the new single, the divorce party planner tells us.

And then I remembered another article claiming that the divorce rate is climbing because the economy is recovering. Now that things are getting a little better, we can finally splurge on that divorce we’ve always wanted!

And then I remembered that – ebbs and flows notwithstanding – there is one divorce every 13 seconds, or over 46,000 divorces a week in this country. And then I remembered that, although the “50 percent of marriages end in divorce� statistic can be misleading, we’re still in a situation where there are half as many divorces as there are marriages in a single year.

And then I remembered no-fault divorce. I remembered that marriage is the ONLY LEGAL CONTRACT A PERSON CAN BREAK WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT FACING ANY LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
Sorry to scream at you.

But I remembered that marriage has for decades been, from a legal perspective, the least meaningful, least stable, and least protected contract in existence, and I think this fact should be emphasized.

And then I remembered how many Christian churches gave up on marriage long ago, allowing their flock to divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry, and each time permitting the charade of “vows� to take place on their altars. And then I remembered that churches CAN lower the divorce rate simply by taking a consistent position on it — which is why practicing Catholics are significantly less likely to break up — but many refuse because they are cowards begging for the world’s approval.

And then I remembered that over 40 percent of America’s children are growing up without a father in the home. And then I remembered that close to half of all children will witness the breakdown of their parent’s marriage. Half of that half will also have the pleasure of watching a second marriage fall apart.

And then I remembered that more and more young people are opting out of marriage because the previous generation was so bad at it that they’ve scared their kids away from the institution entirely.

I remembered all of these things, and I decided to instead write about the most urgent threat to the sanctity of marriage.

Divorce.

Divorces are as common as flat tires, and they often happen for reasons nearly as frivolous.

The institution of marriage is crumbling beneath us; it’s under attack, it’s mortally wounded, it’s sprawled out on the pavement with bullet wounds in its back, coughing up blood and gasping for breath. And guess who did this? It wasn’t Perez Hilton or Elton John, I can tell you that.

This is the work of divorce.

I am an opponent of gay marriage, but we here in the “sanctity of marriage� camp are tragically too afraid to approach the thing that is destroying marriage faster than anything else ever could. Gay marriage removes from marriage its procreative characteristic, but rampant divorce takes away its permanent characteristic. It makes no sense to concentrate all of our energy on the former while all but ignoring the latter.

To make matters worse, some of the loudest mouth pieces for “traditional marriage� in media and politics are bigamists, adulterers, and men with two, three, or four ex-wives. It’s not that you can’t defend the sanctity of marriage when you have been divorced multiple times, it’s just that you have zero credibility on the subject.

If you beat and abuse your children so badly that they have to be removed from you, you could, I suppose, still complain if you found out that your kids are also being mistreated in their foster home. But your anger must first be directed at yourself, because it is YOUR FAULT that they are suffering in this way.

So whose fault is it that the institution of marriage is beaten and broken? I don’t think we want to contemplate that question, for fear that we might see ourselves in the answer.

Should laws be written to “defend marriage�? Sure, and let’s start with legislation to make divorces at least somewhat harder to obtain than a magazine subscription. How serious are we about this? Anyone up for a law to criminalize adultery? What about putting some restrictions on re-marriage?

There are certainly times when a couple has no choice but to go their separate ways. What else can you do in cases of serial abuse or serial adultery, or when one party simply abandons the other? But infidelity and abuse do not explain the majority of divorces in this country, and they are not the leading causes of break-ups. According to these “experts,� the top causes of divorce are a lack of individual identity, “getting into it for the wrong reasons,� and “becoming lost in the roles.� A survey done by the National Fatherhood Institute found lack of communication, and finances to be the leading culprits. An article in The Examiner also cites finances as the most potent divorce-fuel.

In other words, these days marriages can be blown apart by the slightest gust of wind, coming from any direction, and for any reason. Noticeably absent from all of these polls about the reasons for divorce: gay marriage.

That’s because gay marriage is not the biggest threat to marriage.

We are.

We are, when we vow on our very souls to stand by someone for the rest of our lives, until death do us part, only to let financial troubles and communication difficulties dissolve that union we forged before God. We are, when we forget about those Biblical readings we picked out for our wedding service:

My lover belongs to me and I to him.
He says to me:
“Set me as a seal on your heart,
as a seal on your arm;
For stern as death is love,
relentless as the nether world is devotion;
its flames are a blazing fire.
Deep waters cannot quench love,
nor floods sweep it away.�

For stern as death is love.

When we marry, we die. Our old selves die, and we are born anew into each other; into the unbreakable marital bond.

We are a threat to the sanctity of marriage when we let our selfishness fool us into thinking that our wedding vows weren’t that serious.

Indeed, despite popular sentiment, they were serious. They are serious. They’re as serious as death.

The struggle to protect marriage is also serious. It’s an important battle.

So maybe it’s time we actually start fighting it.

*NOTE. To answer your questions: no, I have not actually been divorced four times. I’ve been married once, and I’m still married to her, and I’ll never be married to anyone else. The title was tongue-in-cheek. I was writing it from the perspective of the sorts of people who rant about the sanctity of marriage, yet have racked up multiple ex-spouses. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. In any case, there it is. I appreciate your concern.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 43 by KCKID]

One major problem with the article quoted:

I remembered that marriage is the ONLY LEGAL CONTRACT A PERSON CAN BREAK WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT FACING ANY LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.

That is an incorrect / false statement. Contracts can be legally broken without the other party's consent for a number of reasons including: Impossibility of performance; Fraud, mistake, misrepresentation; Breach of contract, Prior agreement

http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/ ... racts.html

It seems as though that was a big emotional point for the author (who apologized for screaming).

[bluethread]

Below is what I found to be an interesting article. I hope that Christians on this board will take the time to read it and to consider what it has to say: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/04/ ... -marriage/

Ok, I read it. Am I supposed to be in favor of homosexual marriage now? The author nailed it when he said he was being tongue-in-cheek. That's the problem we are living in a tongue-in-cheek society, where we point at the fault of others to justify our preferences. How many of those who use this argument were in the trenches fighting against easy divorce and open marriage when it counted. No, these people were on the other side calling marriage slavery and telling women to throw the bums out and "love the one your with". Now, that marriage has been all but destroyed as an institution, they want it resurrected it in a form that meets their preferences. However, it's their preferences and nothing more. No polygamy marriage, no incest marriage. No, no, no, how dare you compare their "loving" relationships to those terrible evil relationships. Everyone knows that a man or woman can not truly "love" more than on person at a time and even though marriage is not just about sex, we can not allow siblings to marry. PLEASE, those who favor marriage being between one man and one woman are not the only ones with hypocrites in their midst.

[KCKID]

.
[Replying to post 43 by KCKID]

One major problem with the article quoted:

I remembered that marriage is the ONLY LEGAL CONTRACT A PERSON CAN BREAK WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT FACING ANY LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.

That is an incorrect / false statement. Contracts can be legally broken without the other party's consent for a number of reasons including: Impossibility of performance; Fraud, mistake, misrepresentation; Breach of contract, Prior agreement

http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/ ... racts.html

It seems as though that was a big emotional point for the author (who apologized for screaming).

The author DID say that he 'remembered' the point he was making (and screaming) and so we might say in his defence that he simply remembered incorrectly.

[KCKID]

Below is what I found to be an interesting article. I hope that Christians on this board will take the time to read it and to consider what it has to say: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/04/ ... -marriage/

Ok, I read it. Am I supposed to be in favor of homosexual marriage now? The author nailed it when she said she was being tongue-in-cheek. That's the problem we are living in a tongue-in-cheek society, where we point at the fault of others to justify our preferences. How many of those who use this argument were in the trenches fighting against easy divorce and open marriage when it counted. No, these people were on the other side calling marriage slavery and telling women to throw the bums out and "love the one your with". Now, that marriage has been all but destroyed as an institution, they want it resurrected it in a form that meets their preferences. However, it's their preferences and nothing more. No polygamy marriage, no incest marriage. No, no, no, how dare you compare their "loving" relationships to those terrible evil relationships. Everyone knows that a man or woman can not truly "love" more than on person at a time and even though marriage is not just about sex, we can not allow siblings to marry. PLEASE, those who favor marriage being between one man and one woman are not the only ones with hypocrites in their midst.

Wow. That was quite a blast. Settle down, man. Take a deep breath. No, you're not 'supposed' to be in favor of gay marriage after reading the article. Nor, as you would have read, is the author of that article in favor of gay marriage. It's up to you how you feel about gay marriage. It's up to the author of that item how he feels about gay marriage. It's an individual thing. Changing one's viewpoint about gay marriage from that to another was NOT what the article was about.

"I" am in favor of gay marriage or, rather, I should say that I don't make it my business to tell people who they should or should not love and who desire to spend their lives together in a committed relationship. In fact, I have no idea why there are those that ARE so hell-bent on standing in the way of gay marriage. To me it makes no sense. It makes LESS sense, to me again, if some of these folks use the Bible to support this anti-gay marriage stance. Gay marriage is a non-Bible issue as far as I'm concerned. And, here's something for ya ...since I'm in regular contact with Jesus, I'm as pleased as Punch to announce to one and all that He is fine with gay marriage. He just desires that people love one another . . . true!

Most of us, I would guess, are hypocrites in some form or another. I know that I am at times, though perhaps a little less these days than I used to be. Once you recognize your hypocrisy it perhaps makes you more careful ...or maybe not. With Christians and "The Church", however, their hypocrisy is more evident since they preach publicly - and often LOUDLY - against 'the sin' of homosexuality and gay marriage while being fine with 'the sin' of divorce and remarriage. And THAT was the main gist of the said article.

[bluethread]

Wow. That was quite a blast. Settle down, man. Take a deep breath. No, you're not 'supposed' to be in favor of gay marriage after reading the article. Nor, as you would have read, is the author of that article in favor of gay marriage. It's up to you how you feel about gay marriage. It's up to the author of that item how he feels about gay marriage. It's an individual thing. Changing one's viewpoint about gay marriage from that to another was NOT what the article was about.

"I" am in favor of gay marriage or, rather, I should say that I don't make it my business to tell people who they should or should not love and who desire to spend their lives together in a committed relationship. In fact, I have no idea why there are those that ARE so hell-bent on standing in the way of gay marriage. To me it makes no sense. It makes LESS sense, to me again, if some of these folks use the Bible to support this anti-gay marriage stance. Gay marriage is a non-Bible issue as far as I'm concerned. And, here's something for ya ...since I'm in regular contact with Jesus, I'm as pleased as Punch to announce to one and all that He is fine with gay marriage. He just desires that people love one another . . . true!

Most of us, I would guess, are hypocrites in some form or another. I know that I am at times, though perhaps a little less these days than I used to be. Once you recognize your hypocrisy it perhaps makes you more careful ...or maybe not. With Christians and "The Church", however, their hypocrisy is more evident since they preach publicly - and often LOUDLY - against 'the sin' of homosexuality and gay marriage while being fine with 'the sin' of divorce and remarriage. And THAT was the main gist of the said article.

Interesting turn. My post is no more of a blast than the article you posted. Yes, I had better settle down, lest I expose the fight for "marriage equality" for what it is. I acknowledge that many Christians speak loudly against the sin of homosexuality and homosexual marriage while being fine with the sin of divorce and remarriage. I believe that to be detestable behavior. My question is why aren't those who are now shouting so loudly for homosexual marriage not protesting the reduction of marriage to nothing more than government sanctioned temporary cohabitation? Why do those who promote "marriage equality", by saying it is not their business to tell people who they should or should not love and who desire to spend their lives together in a committed relationship, not defend polygamists or fathers who might wish to marry their sons or aunts who would like to marry their nieces?

The author of the article may be decrying the acceptance of divorce and remarriage among Christians, but don't pretend that is really what you are concerned about. Do you really believe it is none of your business who marries whom, or is it just those relationships you personally find acceptable?

[Zzyzx]

.

Interesting turn. My post is no more of a blast than the article you posted. Yes, I had better settle down, lest I expose the fight for "marriage equality" for what it is. I acknowledge that many Christians speak loudly against the sin of homosexuality and homosexual marriage while being fine with the sin of divorce and remarriage. I believe that to be detestable behavior.

Christians often speak loudly to condemn the "sins" of others while practicing their own preferred "sins." So what?

My question is why aren't those who are now shouting so loudly for homosexual marriage not protesting the reduction of marriage to nothing more than government sanctioned temporary cohabitation?

Marriage has changed a great deal through time and place. The only legitimate interest of the state in today's US society is in contract enforcement (including the parties involved decision to terminate the contract). The church should be involved only to the extent that the parties choose.

No one else is involved – and should have no right to influence the contract.

Why do those who promote "marriage equality", by saying it is not their business to tell people who they should or should not love and who desire to spend their lives together in a committed relationship, not defend polygamists or fathers who might wish to marry their sons or aunts who would like to marry their nieces?

None of those conditions make any difference to me if that is chosen by the people involved. Though I may not choose any of them for myself, what others do with their lives is not my concern. I have enough to do being responsible for my own decisions.

The author of the article may be decrying the acceptance of divorce and remarriage among Christians, but don't pretend that is really what you are concerned about.

My concern is: "Mind your own business and stop interfering with the personal lives of others."

Do you really believe it is none of your business who marries whom, or is it just those relationships you personally find acceptable?

I state clearly that it is none of anyone else's business who marries whom.