....

If you notice, I havn't been on this board much in the last few months. Well, a lot of the debate gets somewhat repetitive... we seem to debate the same things over and over and over again. Anyhow, lets debate something new... or old. I've never seen divorce debated on this board, so I figure i'll start this thread.

...

While i'm not sure divorce should be illegal entirely, it is somewhat offensive to me that ( according to some statistic i read ) 50% of people can't keep whats arguably the most important promise they ever make. I think people today are far to quick to get divorced, and don't work hard enough to work it out.

...

I'll start with an absurd hypothetical situation.

A person signs a formal contract which reads, among other things: "If Y happens, I must spend the rest of my life bashing my head against the wall. "

If Y does indeed happen, is he then obligated to follow the contract?
Or should this type of contract not be binding?

I suppose a marraige can say whatever you want it too, and depending on what religion, if any, you are may or may not allow include a clause on whether divorce is allowed, about whether divorce is not allowed, or about how its allowed but only in certain situations.

...

lets assume the most extreme case. Say your religion/marraige agreement says "Until death do us part" and offers no exceptions. You want to get married, and you go into the contract in full agreement that you are not permitted to get divorced. Are you then allowed to divorce? If you answered "Yes" , should this require the consent of only one partner or both partners? Also, should it be required that some kind of "fault" be offered as to why the contract is dissolved?

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

I am sure there are some cases where the two don't try hard enough. For the majority, however, I don't think they should be forced to be permanently unhappy if their marriage was indeed a mistake. I don't think that making divorces illegal would 'save' marriage. I think it would further kill it because far fewer would 'take the plunge'.

Of course divorce should be legal. Once married, people have two ways to "get out" when they are miserable: (1) divorce, and (2) killing their spouses. I think we should encourage the former.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I disagree that they are in the majority, but I guess it greatly depends on your criteria of "don't try hard enough." I also think many people very much need to re-evaluate what makes them "happy" or "unhappy." If so many more people are getting divorced than compared to previous times or different countries, it is an indication to me, at least, that the majority of people getting divorced are doing so for frivilous reasons.

You make a good point. However, if people are not willing to "Take the plunge" at the *beginning* of a marriage, perhaps they should not be exchanging vows in the first place? Also, if you read my post, i suggested that marriage contracts could say different things; some allowing for divorce and some not. Perhaps if they are not willing to "take the plunge" they should sign a marriage contract that does not prohibit divorce?

...

I'm not trying to characterize this in religious terms. However, it does come down to general principles of honesty. If people sign an agreement, should they not be bound to follow it? Otherwise, what good is it?

...

I also do not think that divorces should be granted when the couple has children, except in cases involving abuse or serious criminal activity.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

or (3) Re-evaluate what is making them miserable, and try to work it out.

and (2) is already illegal for numerous other reasons ;-P

...

Historically, Divorce has been illegal for a long time in lots of places. Perhaps I am ignorant, but i think murdering your spouse is a bit less common than you would make it out to be.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

Don't you think the persons actually involved should get to decide their own happiness and what are valid reasons for divorce....instead of us or the government?

Again, this wrongly harms people who opt for the no-divorce option and later recant. Why should they be forced to remain with someone they are not happy with? Its sad to say, but sometimes people do change over time.


I kind of agree with you in this sense...if they do sign a contract that is unbreakable they should be bound by it. I do not, however, think the government should allow these kinds of contracts for reasons I have stated before. Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage to begin with.


Again, this would force people to remain in unhappy situations. This however adds a new problem to the mix. It is now teaching the children that it is acceptable or normal to be in an unhappy marriage.

Did they not already decide when they agreed to get married?


You are correct, people do change over time. They get older, they get uglier, and they get fatter. They run out of good stories to tell, or poems to write, they get settled in. Additionally, people stop wearing makeup, and stop using "Masks" and stop trying to present themselves to eachother in what one might call choreographed ways. Should their husbands and wives then find different people who are not old or ugly or fat, who still have stories to tell and poems to write?

... They are not going anywhere, so they are unhappy. But what makes one happy? In my experience, Happiness is not related to position, it is related to acceleration and velocity. If people perceive that they are past their peak, they will become unhappy. Should this be an excuse to break agreements that one has made in the past?

What kinds of contracts should be allowed? Most contracts involve written agreements about what each party should do in the future. I suppose that contracts signed under duress are not considered binding, would you consider love a form of duress?

I tend to agree, however, who, then, would run the divorce courts? I think we may have a different idea about how this would work. The catholic church? ;-P A divorce needs to be mediated by someone, does it not? If you treat marriage as a simple contract, the question still remains, is the contract binding?

Let us take another example:

The government renounces all involvement with marriage, and leaves it up to religion or just plain contract law.

Lets say that the Catholic Church, being anti-divorce, makes what you might call a "cookie cutter" marriage contract, which designates the church as the legal mediator in case of a dispute about the marriage between the couples signing the contract. If the couple then wants to get divorced, are they then bound to whatever the Catholic Church decides? And if not, who is to decide what party will get what portion of the properly or custody that was formerly shared? Also, what if the Church reaches a decision, and neither party agrees with it? And what if the catholic church decided to not grant a divorce?
The dispute would need to be resolved somewhere, would it not?

...

or perhaps in your version of a marriage, there is no legally shared property to begin with? This would certainly make the situation much simpler and also put many of the scourge of family court attourneys out of business ;-P


Your argument is circular logic. If divorce were not granted to a couple that has children, then it would be both acceptable and normal to remain in an unhappy marriage. And in my opinion, it should be both acceptable and normal to remain in an unhappy marriage.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

And what happens when the couple can't "work it out?" Should they be unable to end the misery and find happiness elsewhere?

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

I think the words "Can't work it out" in this context have about as much legitimacy as the words "I do"

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

I do think that many take marriage to lightly and go into it without thought. I also feel that many people get divorced over things that can be worked out (studies of marriage show that it starts getting worse directly after the "I do" then stays in a dip, then begins to go up at some point [usually after the kids leave] and raises to its highest peaks).
But my parents were divorced and honestly I can't figure out why they married in the first place (actually I know WHY they got married, but still...). Any mental disorders I've picked up if any most likely came from the younger years when they were together and extremely unhappy rather than after divorce. However I'd probably be worse off had they never married because I most likely by default would have been raised in poverty by my mother.
The trouble is that marriage is an institution with several purposes, some which come into conflict with one another. And as for the child-raising years, it seems that it can have a different impact based on the age of the child and other varying circumstances. Due to all this variability, I side with keeping divorce legal. We also have to take into consideration abusive marriages.
But perhaps it should be regulated or it should have taxes or penalties attached to it. There are heavy weaknesses to both of these techniques however. Regulation would involve governmental intrusion into the family and taxes and penalties would keep a lot of less affluent women in abusive relationships even longer.
I personally just don't see any way to apply such techniques without doing further harm. Best just to keep it legal. Maybe there should be more positive incentives for people who stay married? I don't know. Any way you do it, there's going to be a lot of exceptions that will force the law to be tweaked. The least horrible thing I can think of is forced marriage counseling for those getting married and those getting divorced. But even with that, people will feel oppressed and its effectiveness is questionable.

So maybe we have to accept the good relationships that end prematurely to allow for the escape of abused spouses and divorces for the good of children.

And as for the contract thing, very few people who later divorce are sane when they get married. Insane people cannot be held to a contract.