Originally posted by FMF
'Condemning divorce is not a moral stance.' Thoughts?
Well, if to disapprove is to take a moral stance, then condemning divorce ("Express[ing] complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure." ) is taking a moral stance -- what else would it be?
I have one divorce behind me and we both thought we were doing what was best for our child, given the circumstances. Were we right? Things seem to have worked out pretty well, although as a scientist by training and nature, I have to say, where do we go to examine the "control" on this -- the marriage where we did not divorce -- and how did it work out?
One thing I would say should be condemned is a social system that makes early marriage -- and I mean before about 25 years of age, given that actually assessing emotional readiness is just guesswork -- the socially expected and accepted route out of their parent's home and into their adult freedoms, like sexual freedom, for a lot of young people. Fortunately in the US anyway, the social revolution of the 60's has reduced the effect of these pressures on young people. Secondly, if young marrieds wait a few years before having children, this would give the marriage time to be at least minimally tested -- and marriages will be tested.
Of course this leaves one area unmentioned that should be of great concern as well -- teenage pregnancy. But the topic is divorce. WRT teen pregnancy, shotgun weddings bring all the above risks, in spades.
I now yield the Sunday Soapbox to the next in line.