I wasn't precisely sure where a topic like this should be posted. Hopefull, this works. Anyhow, on the subject of discussion:

Yes, I know that divorce is widely considered more acceptable today than ever and I also know that many of you probably either know people who are divorced or perhaps have friends who are divorced or are divorced yourselves. Try to keep these personal relationships from clouding your judgment, though, and consider this issue as objectively as possible.

Divorce is widely considered to be an acceptable thing today. But should it be? Can you justify it? A lot of people would answer that question "yes." In my opinion, a lot of people would be wrong. Now, I am no conservative, so don't think that this is coming from someone who particularly favors traditional ways. But let's consider the issue:

Now I have a sister. Let's say that I don't like my sister. Can I just wake up one day and decide that I won't be her brother anymore? Of course not! Why not? Because we're family. You can't just stop being family. Family is something you're stuck with whether you like it or not. Now when you get married, the two of you choose to become family, do you not (one changes last names and everything)? So, then, if I can't just stop being a brother, why is it that apparently you can stop being a husband or a wife? Husband and wife are family like brother and sister. You can't just stop being family. If you've discovered that you don't get along very well with your partner, then you probably should have thought about that possibility before saying vows declaring lifelong commitment to one another. Marriage is not like dating.

Now besides just this, there are often innocent people that get hurt by divorce. These would be the children. Now you can tell them that they're not to blame for the divorce, but let's face it, more often than not, the kids are a central aspect of the dialogue that leads up to divorce. Of course the kid feels guilty, even though he/she didn't do anything wrong. When a couple splits up, they often have to split up any kids that they have. Now suppose that, as is often the case, one parent or both remarries to someone else who has kids. What does that do to the kids emotionally? It doesn't do anything good, I'll tell you that. It causes a lot of unnecessary pain and confusion to innocent parties. But such things aren't done out of concern for them. They're done out of concern for one's self. Thus, the "responsible" adult acquires satisfaction at the expense of innocent parties. How is that not selfish? And anymore, we see this promoted all the time. The parents used to be the ones who were blamed for the affects it had on their children, but now it's the kids that take the blame for failing to adapt to whatever circumstances they're thrown into by their "responsible" parents. Even shithead conservative Disney movies now attack the kids and not the parents (just to use one example, there was Freaky Friday movie from a couple of years ago. There's another one along the same ethical lines from Disney due out this summer as well. This one stars Hillary Duff).

Another aspect to consider is that marriages are actually beginning to become more about money than anything else. After all, when you can just get divorced and take half, why not? So today, marriages often occur for the sole purpose of divorce. Marriages and divorces are actually staged by celebrities just for the publicity value. Hell, you can go pick up a divorce kit at the local Home Depot now. I believe it's safe to say that marriage has lost some of its value and meaning.

So why do we think this way now? Well, it may have started with the women's rights movement of the 1960s, but basically, I think divorce has gained widespread acceptance because we are a consumer society. We think that we can just snap our fingers and replace everything with a newer model. And we don't even think about who it might affect. After all, it's "our lives." Marriage is not like shopping. It's one thing to be an open and liberal society that values tolerance and such, but it's another to be a culture of self-centered assholes who don't give a shit who gets hurt as long as they benefit, emotionally or monetarily. So I say divorce shouldn't be accepted like it is today. The whole concept is pretty screwed up, I think. What do you think about divorce? Should it be accepted like it is?

I think divorce shouldn't be extremely easy to get....but I think it should be readily available, especially for domestic abuse victims,spouses of felons, etc.In my state,North Carolina, you have to be separated for a year before you are eligible to file for divorce. I think that is reasonable and makes people weigh their decision sufficiently.My issue is with the "quickie" divorces.
But, I also think you should have the right to realize you made a mistake by marrying the wrong person without judgement. Being a husband and wife IS NOT like being a brother and sister...people can misrepresent themselves in a dating scenario the way no sibling can.That whole notion of marriage being permanent and sacred left many people stuck with a spouse they hate.
I do agree divorce is hardest on the kids...but I also think as long as there is less stigma,people should be able to leave a relationship easily before they have babies.Idiots often have kids thinking it will patch things up when they already have problems."staying together for the kids" has the pitfall of the children watching two people who hate each other stay married-hardly good training for functional adult relationships.I have seen people from divorced parents who turned out fine and people who turned into basket cases.I strongly believe it had more to do with how their parents handled the divorce than the divorce itself.

You have made some good points here, but this isn't one of them. You probably should have thought about that possibility before you got married. Marrying is something you do once you've considered those sort of things. Dating is what you do beforehand and how you find out what you have in common.

Keep in mind that "when" you get married depends on where you are on the planet. I have friends from areas in Europe who were married at 20 (and even younger) because it was acceptable to be married at that age, or because it was tradition. In this case, it's not likely that a 20 year old couple has matured enough to understand what's involved in marriage. When they move here to North America, the culture is different and they realize that maybe getting married wasn't such a good idea.

When you're married at a young age, there's a strong chance that your feelings for your spouse will change and you'll start to want to go out with other people.

Now suppose that two mature adults decide to get married, this depends on how you play the dating game. You could date someone for a year or two and then marry them only to realize that they've been hiding their true colors. What if the man starts to become violent (I'm not saying all men are violent and beat up on their wives, this is just an example)? The woman has a right to get a divorce and call the cops on him. People have been dishonest with their feelings before. No woman in her right mind would marry a man who constantly throws punches at her and threatens her.

As for me waking up one day and deciding I hate my sister, well sure I can't just "not" be her brother, but there's nothing stopping me from moving out and never talking to her again. A husband and wife can do the exact same thing, except they can do it through paper and thus find someone else who might make them happy.

I agree that divorce should probably be avoided and that celebs make use of it to gain fame. I hope to never even have to consider it. However it remains there as an option for those who really need it.

Having had my parents divorce at a young age, I feel reasonably qualified to speak on this matter. My biological father was a nice guy who worked hard, but he was also a soppy, useless drunken prat 99% of the time. My parents both argued a lot over this as well as other things, and while the breakup was hard for me and my younger brother at the time we've long since got over it. Both my brother and I have grown up into good, honest and relatively stable young men. I doubt I could say the same if my parents' marriage had been allowed to drag on even further than it did.


"Friends are the family of the 21st Century" - Tim Bisley

The whole "family is family" argument is in my opinion a load of old rot. I have plenty of relatives I haven't seen in donkeys years and whom I really couldn't give a shit about (and probably likewise with them too), so I don't feel under any obligation to them. Just because they're technically "family" does not mean I have to go out of my way to cater to whatever bleating demands they make, especially if my more immediate family or my closest friends need me more. There are too many people who use the "But I'm Family!" flag as an excuse to take blatant liberties and generally act like dicks.


I sincerely fucking hope not!

(To clarify; brothers and sisters are blood-relatives whereas husbands and wives are related by marriage only. Comparing the two is like comparing wine to vinegar.)


I put it to you that staying together "for the sake of the children" is more selfish. Is it really preferable that children have to live with the constant reminder that mummy and daddy are only staying together because of them? If I were a kid in that situation I'd feel a hell of a lot worse than if they simply split up. The whole "Won't somebody pleeeeeeeeease think of the children!" phenomena rarely takes the views of kids into genuine consideration. How would you feel if you believed your parents were trapped in an unhappy marriage because of you?


Could you elaborate on this please, because I'm getting uncomfortable images of a time when women were considered little more than property. Of course I may simple be misinterpreting your post, but I'm sure that if women had the same rights back then as they do now, the divorce rates would be roughly the same (if not higher).

It's all very well saying "people should consider these things before they get married," and I wholeheartedly agree, but whose fault is it that they don't?

- trag, well-adjusted product of a "broken home"

The argument that divorce should be considered unacceptable because "you should have thought of that before you got married" doesn't hold much water.

No, divorce shouldn't be easy, but it's also a very personal decision between the people involved that can be made for a myriad of reasons. Until you've lived inside a marriage, you can't really judge whether or not divorce is/was the right decision.

Many times, two people can enter into a marriage with complete love, after dating and being friends for many years, and with complete commitment to work through whatever comes and toward similar goals, only to end up in a place where unforseen circumstances present the couple with what are truly irreconcilable differences. Should two people be denied the opportunity to admit their mistake and move on to find happiness after every effort to reconcile has failed? I don't think so.



Edited By scarlettdraelynkhar on 1118946356

Well, I can speak with some authority on this, as I have been divorced.
I lived with my ex for two years before I married him.One would think that would be enough time to know a person.But, as soon as we became man and wife, he changed and began treating me like property.I divorced him in the end because he became physically violent with me,but our relationship had been on the rocks for about a year.
People can change after marriage and can change in general.I am hardly the woman I was 10 years ago.Granted, I think the whole "irreconcilable differences" clause is a bit over used, but it could very well be unbearable for the parties involved.Again, if divorce is only available for people who REALLY want it, I think the ones you object to would dissapear.

P.S. I have remarried, this time for good, to a wonderful and exceptional man.I call him my "husband upgrade". :p
He has only changed for the better.

Now, I know you asked that we try to keep our personal experiences from coloring what we say here, but this truly made me laugh out loud.

Why? Because, in my opinion, such a notion is utterly ridiculous.

When I got married in 2001, I changed my name. Did it make me any more "family" to my new husband and in-laws than I would have been if I had chosen to keep my maiden name (as many women opt to do)? Did it make me less family to my parents or paternal grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousins? Was I always less familial with my paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins because we don't share the same last name? Of course not.

My familial bond with my new husband was defined by my commitment to our marriage, and if we'd had children, my familial bond with him and them would have been defined by that commitment as well.

As it was, the degradation of my familial bond with my in-laws and with my husband was irreconcilable long before the divorce was finalized and I was able to legally begin using my birth name once more (I began using it socially long before that day) and was caused by the systematic destruction of trust and respect within those relationships without regard to what our last names were.

In the end, the change of my last name upon my marriage was more of a symbol to the outside world of my commitment to building a future with a particular person than a magical spell to weave the fabric of a new family. Even during the time I was most committed to that, I was never a "<insert married surname here>" since I never felt I was accepted as part of that family. I was always a "<insert current/birth surname here>" and always will be regardless of any future surname I may carry.

I didn't change my surname either time I got married.It is not something that happens automatically because you're married,nor is it necessary.
Besides, my ex had a sucky last name..not that that is the reason I didn't take it.

Uhm, no. Divorce became more accepted when King Henry VIII decided he was tired of his wife and didn't want to bother asking the Catholic church for an annulment.

To suggest that divorce should be harder imposes your morality and standards upon someone else. It's no better than suggesting that getting married should be harder.

A relationship between two people is just that: between those two people. Let everyone else stay out of it. If they have children, forcing those children to watch while mom and dad argue non-stop, knowing those two people would both be a lot happier apart, is ridiculous.

The comparison between marriage and siblings is a poor one indeed. Why? Because
(1) You don't have to live with a sibling for the rest of your life (I'm barely on speaking terms with my brother), and
(2) Sibling relationships are not exclusive like marriage is. I don't get along well with my brother, but I can still have plenty of friends and hang out with who I want to. If I got married to someone and it turned out to be a huge mistake, and then I later met the love of my life, where would I be without divorce?

Saying "divorce is bad for children" is also not valid in my opinion. Bad compared to what? To a household with two parents who love each other, certainly. But are divorced parents--each now in a happy, healthy new relationship with stepparents who care about the kids--really worse than a broken home where the two parents feel trapped and take that out on each other and everyone else? I say no.

And, as other people ahve said, the "people should have thought it out beforehand" argument is weak as well. First, people do change over time as people have noted. No one can predict that. Second, so what if they did make a mistake when they were 18 or even 25? What does the state and society gain from punishing them for the rest of their natural life, by not allowing them to change their mind ten years later?

Divorce is not a "good thing." But in many situations it's the lesser evil. And adding restrictions to divorce does not cure the societal problems that lead to divorce. All those restrictions do are harm people who are in really bad situations who need to get out now.

Imagine a spouse who is the victim of continual emotional abuse. That may be very, very hard to prove if you had to prove it to get a divorce. Furthermore, many victims may value their privacy, and do not want to have to prove such a thing in order to move on with their lives. "Mutual differences" provides an escape route in that situation. We should not remove that escape route for the folks who really need it.

SS

Essentially, I think that whether divorce is acceptable depends greatly on what "marriage" is.

Marriage, as a religious institution, is subject to rather different "rules" than is marriage as a civil union.

By that, I mean that a civil union is a kind of contract conducted between two people. It is entirely human in nature, and so humans have the right to define both the nature and terms of the marriage, and that includes the nature and terms of that union's dissolution.

Religious marriage is different. As a general rule, God is considered to have been involved in the formation of the marriage, and also has mandated the terms and nature of that marriage - including the nature and terms of that union's dissolution.

See what I'm getting at here? "Divorce", as a term, is reliant on the concept of "marriage". You can't decide whether divorce is "acceptable" until you've defined the terms of your argument - that is, "what is marriage"?

You think so? I'd say the reverse is true, in my experience. Lots of american teens, particularly from the south, talk about getting married as soon as possible. In the UK on the other hand, nobody really wants to at all, it seems.

I can't say I'm 100% right, I wasn't basing my statements on statistics, just personal experience of a few couples I know who got married at 20 and are now having marital problems after being married for 2 years because they can't stand each other or one of them is no longer attracted to their spouse. I don't know anyone from the South personally, so I can't comment on that.

Okay, before we go any further, I would like to clarify my statement that the husband and wife relationship is like that of a brother and sister, as that statement clearly isn't understood very well. What I meant by that was that you are family like brother and sister. I understand that you have sex with one (your husband/wife) and you don't with the other (your brother/sister...well, unless you're really screwed up). Believe it or not, I am not quite so stupid as to have not figured out that distinction exists. Okay, now that we've all matured beyond the mental age of 2, let's continue:



I, too, have had my parents divorce. In fact, I have seen it happen several times. My mother has been married and divorced four times so far and my father has once and is in the process of getting his current marriage annuled (an annulment is what you call a divorce when you don't want to call it a divorce). While I would definitely say I have gotten over these experiences, I can't say that they haven't left me with an impression on the state of the world. Now, on top of this, my parents are all quite religious, so to them, divorce is something that has be scripturally justified. So, in my relatively few years of living (20), I have heard quite a few pathetic excuses for such things. The suggestion that the world would be a happier place if we never had to make a commitment just doesn't ring true to me, having had some experience in this field myself. Though I have gotten over the fact that my parents have serious commitment issues, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it has made my life better.



Allow me to provide Webster's definition of marriage:

Marriage: n: 1. a. "the state of being married" b. "the mutual relation of husband and wife." c. "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." 2. "an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected esp: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities" 3. "an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry>"

Mirriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition

Obviously, the only applicable definition to what we are discussing is definitions 1c. I think that should provide us with a good idea of what it is we're talking about. Marriage may have started out as a religious conception, but in today's world, it has developed its own definition outside of religion. Today, 'married' is a legal status recognized by the state, not just the church.