Originally posted by whodey
Thats why we have laws. Society determains what is "good" and what is "bad" for society. I was not attempting to lay out laws concerning sex, rather, I was merely saying that there are laws needed, as we have today, that deal with sexual issues.

As far as authoritarianism negatively effecting society, I would agree that it can as well.

"Society" determines nothing. In the US, the citizens decide what we will permit and what we will violently suppress.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Society" determines nothing. In the US, the citizens decide what we will permit and what we will violently suppress.

So, what do you all violently suppress? Marijuana smoking?

Originally posted by twhitehead


However, divorce is NEVER the ideal outcome of a marriage
I disagree, but then 'ideals' are relative.

So you would say that an ideal outcome of marriage would be that people would some day divorce? Is that why people get married?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree, but legislation against divorce, is not the solution.

I never said that one might only legislate "against" divorce. There are other legislative avenues othen than preventing or penalizing those that divorce. One might make it mandatory, for example, to recieve training/education before marring or even recieve education/counciling before divorcing. I am not saying we should do these things, rather, they are only examples of possibilities. Either that or society can continue the madness of rampant divorce causing those involved untold loss of money and small fortunes as well as emotional turmoil effecting generations to come.

Originally posted by twhitehead
After all, the family unit is the foundation of a society and it seems that the foundation is on some shaky ground.
No it is not 'the foundation of a society'. Societies can exist without family units and according to you, 50% of it, already does.[/b]

So what exactly is a family unit? No matter your answer, when such a unit self destructs from the inside out all involved in that family unit are negativly effected. Either that or perhaps you should write a book entitled "Live life to the fullest; Embrace the therapy of divorce".

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Society" determines nothing. In the US, the citizens decide what we will permit and what we will violently suppress.

Actaully, sometimes it is only a handfull of unelected judges. For example, when abortion was made legal, the majority of the "citizens" veiwed it as immoral. If they had put it to a vote, it more than likely would have been turned the other way.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So, what do you all violently suppress? Marijuana smoking?

Among other things.

Some other examples include driving an unregistered vehicle, prostitution, crossing against the "don't walk" sign, and public nudity.

Oh, yeah. That and gangs of paramilitary thugs with automatic weapons who rob suburban homes. We suppress those too. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Actaully, sometimes it is only a handfull of unelected judges. For example, when abortion was made legal, the majority of the "citizens" veiwed it as immoral. If they had put it to a vote, it more than likely would have been turned the other way.

Those judges were appointed according to the laws which our forebears chose and which we implicitly accepted. They judged with the consent of the people.

Originally posted by whodey
So what exactly is a family unit? No matter your answer, when such a unit self destructs from the inside out all involved in that family unit are negativly effected. Either that or perhaps you should write a book entitled "Live life to the fullest; Embrace the therapy of divorce".

That is a short sighted view. There are negative effects in a divorce, but how do you compare those with the negative effects of staying in a marriage with someone you can't stand anymore?

My parents divorced when I was ten years old and it was devastating to me. As bad as it was, I can only imagine how bad it would be if they stayed together. It is always better to change to a better situation - even though the change can be painful.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
That is a short sighted view. There are negative effects in a divorce, but how do you compare those with the negative effects of staying in a marriage with someone you can't stand anymore?

My parents divorced when I was ten years old and it was devastating to me. As bad as it was, I can only imagine how bad it would be if they stayed together. It is always better to change to a better situation - even though the change can be painful.

I never intended on saying that no one should ever get divorced. I am merely saying that it would be better to address the problems that make divorce the better choice than simply giving into the problems by divorcing. I think more often than not people take the quick or easy way out of a problem by divorcing than they do addressing the demons that reside within that are driving them to divorce in the first place.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Those judges were appointed according to the laws which our forebears chose and which we implicitly accepted. They judged with the consent of the people.

That is a fancy way of saying that the decision was made for the citizens by a handful of judges.

Originally posted by whodey
I never intended on saying that no one should ever get divorced. I am merely saying that it would be better to address the problems that make divorce the better choice than simply giving into the problems by divorcing. I think more often than not people take the quick or easy way out of a problem by divorcing than they do addressing the demons that reside within that are driving them to divorce in the first place.

You have a point, but I would rather have the freedom to get an easy divorce than have anyone other than those involved make people go into therapy when they don't want to.

You only get out of therapy what you put into it. Two people(or even just one) who wants a divorce will make it happen, even if they are forced to waste a therapist's time to do it.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You have a point, but I would rather have the freedom to get an easy divorce than have anyone other than those involved make people go into therapy when they don't want to.

You only get out of therapy what you put into it. Two people(or even just one) who wants a divorce will make it happen, even if they are forced to waste a therapist's time to do it.

And you have a point as well. Christ once said that the Mosaic law provided people with the ability to divorce, not because divorce is desirable, rather, it was becuase of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, if both parties would attend to the condition of their hearts divorce would not be necessary. However, how does one get both parties to agree that this is what they should do? It seems to me they instead point the finger at the other and blame the other for their own failures. It seems to be far easier than dealing with the demons within. Therefore, my reasoning would be that making it harder to divorce by requiring counciling etc. may curtail some to take this course of action to quickly because it is no longer the "easy" thing to do. This is far different than taking away the freedom to do it.

Then again, if the key is getting people to desire to tend to the condition of their own hearts as Christ once suggested, is my solution really a good one? Perhaps Christ was in agreement with my line of thinking. After all, if memory serves he then said that if you divorce you then should forfiet your ability to marry again. Perhaps this teaching was to make you think twice about doing something that seems far to easy on the surface than it should seem? His apostles seemed to think that this teaching was one of the hardest Christ gave to follow.

Originally posted by whodey
So you would say that an ideal outcome of marriage would be that people would some day divorce? Is that why people get married?

In some cases, it is the ideal outcome.

Originally posted by whodey
After all, if memory serves he then said that if you divorce you then should forfiet your ability to marry again. Perhaps this teaching was to make you think twice about doing something that seems far to easy on the surface than it should seem? His apostles seemed to think that this teaching was one of the hardest Christ gave to follow.

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 divorced in three years!" - People change and people drift apart. We should recognize that and allow people the freedom to marry when and how and for whatever reasons they want.

If people want to get married for a year and then split up - let them! It's their lives, they aren't hurting anyone by doing so.