Originally posted by PsychoPawn
It's ridiculous to suggest that just because someone gets a divorce then they shouldn't be allowed to marry again.

That wouldn't make marriages last longer, it would just create more previously married people who can't marry the one they love because of an arbitrary rule.

When most people get married they don't honestly think "I'm gonna get divorc nd then split up - let them! It's their lives, they aren't hurting anyone by doing so.

I was not suggesting that it be made a law. I was merely trying to make a point. In fact, I dare say that the Christian right would never embrace such a position. After all, the divorce rate within the church is no better than the rest of society.

Originally posted by whodey
I was not suggesting that it be made a law. I was merely trying to make a point. In fact, I dare say that the Christian right would never embrace such a position. After all, the divorce rate within the church is no better than the rest of society.

What is your opinion on the matter though?

Originally posted by whodey
I was not suggesting that it be made a law. I was merely trying to make a point. In fact, I dare say that the Christian right would never embrace such a position. After all, the divorce rate within the church is no better than the rest of society.

Some Christians would embrace it. I believe the Roman Catholics - in theory - have always done so. Of course they came up with the work-around of annulling the first marriage so as to legitimize the second.

The problem with your views is that you seek to unify the spiritual, social, legal and religious aspects of marriage. I fully agree that in a religious setting, a priest should (and often does) refuse to marry a couple who do not take counseling etc prior to getting married. However, he has a right to do so. The government, on the other hand should not. If I wish to get married for no apparent reason, then get divorce the next day, I have the right to do so. The priest may reject such a plan since a religious marriage is more than a legal act, it is a commitment by the couple as defined by the religion and culture in question.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What is your opinion on the matter though?

My feeling is that if couples want the endorsment of the state/church for them to recognize their union then they both should then have a criterea for that endorsement. Some churchs do this with counciling etc but the state by in large endorses any union for any reason without any criterea whatsoever. Who knows, maybe with some counciling before the fact people may be able to avert future disasters that await them.

Also you may require counciling before a divorce occurs. This may also avert some divorces. If only one divorce is prevented, would it be worth it? I think it would. Of course there are other things you could do to make divorce a less pleasant option. My only point in all this is to make people think a little longer on their course of action rather than a knee jerk reaction and a quick fix out of a tough situation. More often than not the quick fix is the most desirable option out of a problem but seldom the best one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
. I fully agree that in a religious setting, a priest should (and often does) refuse to marry a couple who do not take counseling etc prior to getting married. However, he has a right to do so. The government, on the other hand should not.

Why? People are coming to the state for a marriage license so the state has the right to call the shots. Any other attitude is one of entitlement. Don't get me wrong, many have the attitude of governmental entitlement covering a wide range of issues, however, I am not one.

Originally posted by whodey
My feeling is that if couples want the endorsment of the state/church for them to recognize their union then they both should then have a criterea for that endorsement. Some churchs do this with counciling etc but the state by in large endorses any union for any reason without any criterea whatsoever. Who knows, maybe with some counciling before the fact pe ...[text shortened]... en than not the quick fix is the most desirable option out of a problem but seldom the best one.

I think the state should not have any criteria for endorsement other than "are both of you consenting adults?".


You suggested before that you aren't suggesting that going to therapy before divorce shouldn't be made a law, but here you say "you may require counseling before a divorce" - but how do you require it without a law?

I don't think it would be worth forcing everyone who wants a divorce to go through counseling just to prevent one divorce.

I do agree that many people do go into marriage frivolously and people probably once married should probably try and make it work (depending on their situation). However it's their decision how much effort they want to put into saving their marriage and only theirs.

I don't think it should be made more painful at all.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn

You suggested before that you aren't suggesting that going to therapy before divorce shouldn't be made a law, but here you say "you may require counseling before a divorce" - but how do you require it without a law?

Incentives. For example, one might be given a financial incentives for going to counciling before getting hitched. Insurance companies do this by giving you discounts when you choose not to smoke or have good driving records without speeding tickets etc.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I do agree that many people do go into marriage frivolously and people probably once married should probably try and make it work (depending on their situation). However it's their decision how much effort they want to put into saving their marriage and only theirs.

So you either let things go as is or take steps to improve them. As a society we have that choice.

Originally posted by whodey
Incentives. For example, one might be given a financial incentives for going to counciling before getting hitched. Insurance companies do this by giving you discounts when you choose not to smoke or have good driving records without speeding tickets etc.

Yes. That's exactly why the government gives tax breaks for being married.

I actually think that would be the only way it would be feasible, although I don't completely agree.

The difference is that insurance companies do it based on data that shows that it actually costs them less to insure a non-smoker or a good driver since they are statistically more likely to be paying for longer.

Originally posted by whodey
So you either let things go as is or take steps to improve them. As a society we have that choice.

Frankly, what is the real problem? How is a high rate of divorce costly to society in real terms?

I think maybe society should be more resistant to put such a high stake in being married. Maybe if the only incentive to being married was to share your life (i.e. no tax benefits, etc..) then more people would wait until they were sure?

Maybe we just need more "common law" marriages and less official ones?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Yes. That's exactly why the government gives tax breaks for being married.

I actually think that would be the only way it would be feasible, although I don't completely agree.

The difference is that insurance companies do it based on data that shows that it actually costs them less to insure a non-smoker or a good driver since they are statistically more likely to be paying for longer.

I would argue that it would cost the government less in the long run by helping to strengthen the family unit by decreasing the need for divorces. There would be less need for governmental assistance and parents would not frivously spend their wealth fighting each other that should by all rights be passed down to their children. I know, I have experienced this first hand. My father and mother divorced and he was the only one working. This meant that my mother was left to raise us in poverty like conditions and in need of governmental assistance at times. At the same time, my father blew untold thousands of dollars on lawyers fighting her. Oh sure, he was ordered to pay child support but collecting it was another problem all in itself. Yep, thats right, more tax payer money paid to go after dead beat dads. Then comes the problem of higher education. I was penniless and had to go to college via tax payer money that my father could have paid for had he not blown his wad on lawyers. That is, as long as it lasted. Grants only lasted so long so that I had to work full time and go to school meaning that it took me far longer than the average person to graduate. This meant less tax money for uncle sam in the long run because it took me far longer to start earning a half way decent wage.

So here we have tax payers paying for going after dead beat dads, tax payers paying various forms of welfare to broken families in need such as my mother, tax payers paying for the higher education of children in need via grants, and uncle sam being robbed of higher tax revenue from me had I been afforded the oppurtunity to graduate sooner and make a higher wage sooner. That is of course, assuming I even chose to go to college at all after coming from a broken home. I know a lot of kids who get really messed up in all that ugliness and it effects every aspect of their lives including the ability to make a decent wage later on in life. This can triggor such individuals to live their entire lives needing governmental assistance.

Originally posted by whodey
I would argue that it would cost the government less in the long run by helping to strengthen the family unit by decreasing the need for divorces. There would be less need for governmental assistance and parents would not frivously spend their wealth fighting each other that should by all rights be passed down to their children. I know, I have experienced t ...[text shortened]... uncle sam in the long run because it took me far longer to start earning a half way decent wage.

Do you think your father would have stayed if the government gave a financial incentive to get counseling?

While your case is a sad one that unfortunately is all too often seen, I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent it.

I admit that I was lucky, although my parents' divorce was hard on me, my parents fortunately never fought over custody or that both wanted to support my sister and myself. The thing is though, as much as it hurt me I do think my life would have been even worse if they had stayed together.

I'm not sure if in your case it wouldn't have been the same way.

I tend to think that the best way is for people to stop pressuring people to get married. If people don't feel the pressure to get married - even if they have a child together for example, then they won't feel like they need to hurry into something they don't want to do.

I think it's something that we can do culturally to stress the fact that you don't need to be married to be a family or to care for a child.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Do you think your father would have stayed if the government gave a financial incentive to get counseling?

While your case is a sad one that unfortunately is all too often seen, I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent it.

I admit that I was lucky, although my parents' divorce was hard on me, my parents fortunately never fought over custo tress the fact that you don't need to be married to be a family or to care for a child.

To be honest, it probably would not have stopped him from leaving. However, it may have made a difference had they gotten some counciling advice before they got married. Who knows?

I think that another route to take is to mandatorily take money from both parties to be set aside for their children for education etc, and limit dollar amounts they are able to spend trying to find the best lawyers to fight one another. You know there are all sorts of angles you could take to help alieviate the true victims in a divorce which are the children which would help stop perpetuating poverty brought about by divorce. I think had people like my dad seen more dollar signs flying out the window without his control he would have thought better of the way he handled things. Really his angle was getting around the laws and preserving as much capital as possible, and it worked. However, if the law does not allow for this it would make people think twice before taking such action.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think it's something that we can do culturally to stress the fact that you don't need to be married to be a family or to care for a child.[/b]

I think most African American women would agree because most are single mothers. In fact, they contribute to a large segment of the population who live in poverty.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I tend to think that the best way is for people to stop pressuring people to get married. If people don't feel the pressure to get married - even if they have a child together for example, then they won't feel like they need to hurry into something they don't want to do.

I think just the opposite. Couples who bring innocent children into the world should feel more pressure in terms of providing a stable and loving home for their children. You may argue that marraige is not needed for this equation and you are welcomed to your opinion. However, I think that to have a stable home you must have parents who are committed to being together. Marriage is simply a statement to society and to themselves about such commitment. I would also dare say that the statistics are stacked in my favor concerning the correlation between poverty and children born out of wedlock.