Before you say, "I do"........

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Too many times I've seen couples get a divorce because it just wasn't turning out the way THEY wanted it to.

 

Because of selfish motivation, divorces wind up hurting millions of innocent people. All because they were not, "happy", with the way things turned out.

Good for them! People shouldn't be forced into staying in a situation where they are unhappy simply because tradition dictates so.

There's no such thing as a marriage broken beyond repair.

It's nice that you think that, and I hope things continue to go well for you--in this case, ignorance truly is bliss.

[Mr Spock]

I think we'd all save ourselves a lot of time and trouble if we all just stopped marrying idiots in the first place..............

[Mustard Bomb]

I respectfully disagree. Again, your initial point about the increasing casualness was interesting and well-taken. This new point is not.

 

The only reason that could be possible is if one of the persons who made that commitment decides to be lazy, or selfish.....that's it. There isn't a senario [sic] that anyone could come up with that wouldn't fit into one of those catagories.

 

If we are going to use extreme examples, there is no way I would ever say an abused spouse, or the spouse of an hitherto unknown pedophile, for example, would be lazy or selfish for initiating divorce. He or she might be, in fact, protecting their children.

 

On a calmer level, I agree that the divorce rate is unfortunate, and likely improvable with some attitude shifts. That's a reasonable position. But every couple is different, and unless I am in their shoes, I can't really presume to understand what's happening or what's right.

 

I don't know if I understand your moralizing grounds, exactly. I certainly fail to see the point of accusing all divorcing people of being lazy and selfish - it just detracts from your earlier point and your credibility.

[Mr Spock]

I will give Moose credit that more and more people appear to be posting things like "I don't like the way he folded the towels-that's IT" in terms of trvial issues that can be worked on in any relationship-but that whole thing points towards idiots not marrying.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone would judge someone for ending their marriage for perceived grevous wrongs done to them....

[Pocky]

Originally posted by Moose

With your eyes wide open and totally willing to accept the person that you swore before God you would stay with until death, how could you leave?

 

Not everyone swears before God when they get married.

 

I guess this is sorta like when you get irritated that people use the term God in a manner that you find offensive. I guess in a way I get tired of the assumption that everyone is Christian.

 

My little pet peeve, I s'pose.

[Moose]

I certainly fail to see the point of accusing all divorcing people of being lazy and selfish - it just detracts from your earlier point and your credibility.

 

I guess you don't understand. I clearly said that people who divorce are just people who made the mistake of not understanding exactly what they're getting into in the first place. And hopefully, they'll learn from it. That's why I started this thread.

 

Heck, I'd love to see the amount of people getting married decrease dramatically, than the divorce rate climbing as much as it does every year.

 

If people sincerely understand, take into account every possible negative that could occur, anticipate the hurdles that they'll encounter, chances are, IF they do marry, it'll be successfull.

 

Good for them! People shouldn't be forced into staying in a situation where they are unhappy simply because tradition dictates so.

 

Again, if you walk into that situation with your eyes wide open with the commitment you placed in your pocket, that's not what I call, "Being Forced". And sticking to a commitment made before God isn't a tradition....it's a covenant......huge difference.

 

If we are going to use extreme examples, there is no way I would ever say an abused spouse, or the spouse of an hitherto unknown pedophile, for example, would be lazy or selfish for initiating divorce. He or she might be, in fact, protecting their children.

 

I believe even in these cases you shouldn't just cut the ties and run. You still made a commitment and should be man/woman enough to give your 100% to help your mate. Too often, I feel, people with these problems that could be rehabilitated are discarded out of laziness, or selfishness. Furthermore, (and I can say this from experience), a mother can stand over her bleeding son with a nose flattened to his face one day, then go out and write a check from the abuser's account for her new pair of shoes the next.

 

It's nice that you think that, and I hope things continue to go well for you--in this case, ignorance truly is bliss.

 

You know me......I live in a blissfull world!

[Moose]

Originally posted by Pocky

Not everyone swears before God when they get married.

 

I guess this is sorta like when you get irritated that people use the term God in a manner that you find offensive. I guess in a way I get tired of the assumption that everyone is Christian.

 

My little pet peeve, I s'pose.

 

Pocky, I apologize, please rephrase what I said to:

 

"With your eyes wide open and totally willing to accept the person that you swore upon all you take sacred you would stay with until death, how could you leave?

[moimeme]

I personally don't believe there is any situation, ANY, situation that would make a marriage unworkable. The only reason that could be possible is if one of the persons who made that commitment decides to be lazy, or selfish.....that's it.

 

That's 'it'? That's exactly what the problem is that you are supposedly talking about. Why do you think people are divorcing now if not because one of the partners isn't pulling his or her weight? So, right, that's what makes a marriage unworkable. You can't tell, necessarily, if you've picked someone who will stay in it for the long haul. Some people did their very best to try to pick good people and still were blindsided.

 

If people sincerely understand, take into account every possible negative that could occur, anticipate the hurdles that they'll encounter, chances are, IF they do marry, it'll be successfull.

 

Nobody's that smart nor that prescient. I absolutely agree that people should know each other a long time before deciding to marry, that they try not to let hormones befuddle them (translation, don't make it all about sex), and that people ought to attend marriage prep courses but there will always be untenable situations.

 

and should be man/woman enough to give your 100% to help your mate. Too often, I feel, people with these problems that could be rehabilitated are discarded out of laziness, or selfishness.

 

You have *no* idea, Moose. You can't begin to comprehend abuse. And your belief that these people can be rehabilitated can be dangerously wrong. Certain problems will be rehabilitated ONLY with the cooperation of the person with the problem. Nobody should have to live with a crackhead, someone on crystal meth, or an alcoholic who refuses help. I understand you're greatful that your wife didn't ditch you when you treated her badly, but you at least decided to wise up.

 

a mother can stand over her bleeding son with a nose flattened to his face one day, then go out and write a check from the abuser's account for her new pair of shoes the next.

 

That is very bad for the woman and the child. It's not, I'm sorry, to anybody's credit to remain in a situation such as this. I'm willing to bet you would never have become an alcoholic had you not had the life you had as a child. I'm not slanging you, Moose, but to say a situation was bad or that a person was not doing a good thing doesn't mean that was a bad person; just someone who maybe made mistakes. Like all us humans do.

 

BTW Hoke had a thread on almost this identical topic. Maybe one of you can link them since both have valid thoughts on people and relationships these days.

[Mustard Bomb]

I think specifically where we disagree is that I believe problems can develop after marriage, whereas you believe all problems, or events that might give rise to problems, during the marriage are somehow present before marriage, and can be detected by anyone with enough effort.

 

That seems to me a very illogical viewpoint, and I suspect we can go no further in this discussion. I have a great deal of respect for physics.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Heck, I'd love to see the amount of people getting married decrease dramatically, than the divorce rate climbing as much as it does every year.

Why does it matter to you?

 

I don't see how the rising divorce rate is upsetting at all. You marry, you don't like it, you leave--sounds good to me. I'd rather have people happy than ideal.

And sticking to a commitment made before God isn't a tradition....it's a covenant......huge difference.

1. I was talking about marriage, not Holy Matrimony. It's signing a paper, nothing more.

 

2. People were marrying a long time before anyone believed in one God.

Too often, I feel, people with these problems that could be rehabilitated are discarded out of laziness, or selfishness.

What qualifies you to feel this way?

[Moose]

You can't tell, necessarily, if you've picked someone who will stay in it for the long haul. Some people did their very best to try to pick good people and still were blindsided.

 

I agree. That's when ignorance becomes bliss.......still, no excuse to run away from your responsibilties and this again, (if I can remind everyone), is why if you have any doubt.......whatsoever.......revaluate. But at least learn from what you experienced.

 

Nobody's that smart nor that prescient.

 

Again, I agree. But if you're thinking of these things BEFOREHAND, wouldn't you agree these things would be a deciding factor if you should marry or not?

 

This is what I'm talking about people. Understand what you're getting into before you do it.

 

Somebody is going to read this thread, (with our help), and think for a second.........."what if", and search themselves further.

 

You have *no* idea, Moose. You can't begin to comprehend abuse.

 

Moi, it's a good thing that we can't do the mind melt thingy majingy......you'd be in a corner, fingers in your mouth, rocking in the fetal position if you could re-live the abuse I've been through......no joke.....and please, i beg you, leave it at that.

 

That seems to me a very illogical viewpoint, and I suspect we can go no further in this discussion. I have a great deal of respect for physics.

 

And out of the smallest seed, will a giant rise.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Why does it matter to you?

 

I don't see how the rising divorce rate is upsetting at all. You marry, you don't like it, you leave--sounds good to me. I'd rather have people happy than ideal.

 

The main reason why the rising divorce rate is upsetting DYERMAKER is cause it is the beginning of the down fall of our society.

 

I would like you to go and study why all the great and powerful empires failed over the last coupla thousand yrs. ROmans, British, French, Egyptians, etc....

 

Basically what happend is that these "superpowers" overextended themselves militarily and financially while their culitures and societies started to lose moral guidance. Now, I am not a religous person whatsoever but I do belive that a socieity need to have a moral compass and the US is losing its moral compass. The compass it had 50 or sixty yrs ago.

 

Families are falling apart. Kids are not being brought up right. A whole generation or two are totally f***ked up cause of the break down of the family unit. Drugs, alcohol, abuse, viiolence, sex, etc..... much of this is caused by the break down of the family unit and divorce is a big part of that.

 

What do you think of them apples???

 

I would like the courtesy of a response on this please.

 

Respectfully submittted.

AM

[Moose]

<<<<<<<<<<<< thought I'd never agree with you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

And out of the smallest seed, will a giant rise.

From a botanical standpoint, most small seeds wash away and never take root at all. Or they're eaten. By birds. Hungry, disease-ridden birds.

Originally posted by alphamale

the main reason why the rising divorce rate is upsetting DYERMAKER is cause it is the beginning of the down fall of our society.

 

I would like you to go and study why all the great and powerful empires failed over the last coupla thousand yrs. ROmans, British, French, Egyptians, etc....

 

Basically what happend is that these "superpowers" overextended themselves militarily and financially while their culitures and societies started to lose moral guidance. Now, I am not a religous person whatsoever but I do belive that a socieity need to have a moral compass and the US is losing its moral compass. The compass it had 50 or sixty yrs ago.

I'm unimpressed with your scholarship.

 

Where's your evidence that somehow divorce is immoral? I think divorce is an incredible societal advancement--for one, it undermines the digsusting patriarchy--I'm happy to live in a country where an unhappy spouse of either gender can pursue happiness.

 

Marriage shouldn't be bondage. It should be wholly voluntary.

Families are falling apart.

Families are often long broken up before divorce occurs. What good is a broken family stuck together? I hope you're not agreeing with Moose that every marriage can be fixed, because that's simply an idealistic delusion.

Kids are not being brought up right. Drugs, alcohol, abuse, viiolence, sex, etc..... much of this is caused by the break down of the family unit and divorce is a big part of that.

You are confusing cause and effect.

[Mustard Bomb]

And out of the smallest seed, will a giant rise.

 

What does that mean, if anything?

 

I was having a bit of fun with you by pointing out your odd understanding of how time works - one cannot always predict beforehand what is going to happen during the course of a marriage - but evidently you might misunderstand my humour as some sort of concession. It is not.

 

Your point remains invalid because you wildly overstated it; it's an easy mistake to fix, but you are choosing not to.

 

To be even more clear, I still do not think it's a good idea for a desperately unhappy/abused spouse to stay in a relationship to satisfy some fantasy you have of a traditional marriage. Your argument regarding this point is flawed and pretty much just personal and emotional, imo.

[Moose]

Marriage shouldn't be bondage. It should be wholly voluntary.

 

You're exactly right. But earlier you also said:

 

You marry, you don't like it, you leave--sounds good to me.

 

To me, that sounds like, "I made a promise, if it get's too difficult to deliver, I retract that promise"......then I say to myself, "Self,........ what's the sense in a promise to begin with?"

 

"Shake on it"......a famous clause. Doesn't mean anything unless you mean it.

 

And out of the smallest seed, will a giant rise.

 

 

 

What does that mean, if anything?

 

Because when you get it, (comprehend it), it'll hit you........big.

 

So grab onto the soil and take hold so that:

 

From a botanical standpoint, most small seeds wash away and never take root at all. Or they're eaten. By birds. Hungry, disease-ridden birds.

 

 

PS

 

Don't confuse tradition with covenant.

[Mustard Bomb]

It's always interesting when an argument descends into wispy vague abstractions. It's a form of back-pedalling.

 

Have some rigour, Moose. You have addressed none of the points presented to you.

[Moose]

Originally posted by Mustard Bomb

It's always pleasing when an argument descends into wispy vague abstractions. It's a form of back-pedalling.

 

Have some rigour, Moose. You have addressed none of the points presented to you.

 

Prove it.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

To me, that sounds like, "I made a promise, if it get's too difficult to deliver, I retract that promise"......then I say to myself, "Self,........ what's the sense in a promise to begin with?"

The promise in no way implies permanence--It's a simple civic contract that can be suspended at will.

"Shake on it"......a famous clause. Doesn't mean anything unless you mean it.

Er, sounds like a pretty repressed wedding ceremony.

Don't confuse tradition with covenant.

Likewise, because marriage has some religious applications does not mean it's a religious ceremony--because you chose to make a conenant with God in no way implies that others have done so as well.

[Mustard Bomb]

Er, perhaps you are unclear how an argument works. You have made an assertion, to which there are several arguments against.

 

My argument has to do with how you seem to think one can know all problems or events that may happen during a marriage, beforehand. Since your assertion is in contradiction to the known laws of physics, it is your logical burden to prove that one can can know all marital events before they happen. You have not done so.

 

Dyer, Mr.Spock, and Moimeme have also made valid claims against your second assertion which I will leave you to review, and hopefully answer at some point.

[Moose]

Er, perhaps you are unclear how an argument works. You have made an assertion, to which there are several arguments against.

 

Errrr, perhaps you just don't grasp the whole concept I'm presenting.......

 

My argument has to do with how you seem to think one can know all problems or events that may happen during a marriage, beforehand. Since your assertion is in contradiction to the known laws of physics, it is your logical burden to prove that one can can know all marital events before they happen. You have not done so.

 

Let me break this down for you:

 

My argument has to do with how you seem to think one can know all problems or events that may happen during a marriage, beforehand.

 

Maybe not so much, "know", all the problems or events that will or will not happen, more like, "Can I survive going through these problems and/or events with this person", is what I believe you should throw into the equation......BEFOREHAND. This is the message I'm trying to deliver.

 

Dyer, Mr.Spock, and Moimeme have also made valid claims against your second assertion which I will leave you to review, and hopefully answer at some point.

 

Why don't you just come out and ask me.......chicken?

 

The promise in no way implies permanence--It's a simple civic contract that can be suspended at will.

 

Then your very voice carries no weight in the wind.

 

Likewise, because marriage has some religious applications does not mean it's a religious ceremony--because you chose to make a conenant with God in no way implies that others have done so as well.

 

Please......here we go again......I'm changing my signature to cover my arse for whenever I refer to my Saviour.

[Mustard Bomb]

Ok, we just disagree on foreknowledge and what is an acceptable way to live. If I were being abused, or with an alcoholic, or a pedophile, and it developed within the marriage, it would be logical for me to leave, and to remove those in my care from that situation.

 

I would never enter marriage without the idea that I want to be married forever, but I simply cannot foresee the future. So, our logic is decidely different, and we will not agree. <shrugs> I have to say I am glad you cannot legislate your opinion and fantastic idea of actual marriage.

 

As to this:

 

Why don't you just come out and ask me.......chicken?

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but where I am this tactic is comical in its grostesqueness, if from an adult. I simply respect those posters' capacity to make their own arguments, while I make my own.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Then your very voice carries no weight in the wind.

That doesn't even make sense. At all. Voice is comprised of sound waves, which, as far as I know, have no measurable weight. If they did have a weight, I suspect wind would only lessen it's measurability.

 

My point remains, despite your valliant attempt at rhetorically whisking it away. I'll repeat: The promise in no way implies permanence--It's a simple civic contract that can be suspended at will. You've yet to provide coherent arguments why the inceasing number of terminations is distressing to society.

Please......here we go again......I'm changing my signature to cover my arse for whenever I refer to my Saviour.

If I were you, I'd eagerly await judgement day, because Christ seems to have a dreadful pattern of faililng to save you in arguments. He seems to leave you out to dry--perhaps you entertain him?

[moimeme]

The compass it had 50 or sixty yrs ago.

 

Oh right. That would be when people abused children but nobody believed the children. When men could beat the tar out of their wives with impunity because they functionally 'owned' their wives. When women were mostly little hausefraus who didn't need brains because they were only needed to tend house. 'When women, because they were not earning their own money and could not get credit on their own, were stuck in horrible marriages because they had no escape. Yes, indeedy, those were the 'good old days'.

 

Nothing is new, AM. It's just now out in the open. It's not sex or drugs that's 'ruining' society. It's greed and selfishness, and they are the results of mass consumerism and the 'my happiness comes first' philosophy of people these days - again, mostly based on the love of the almighty dollar and all the goodies it will buy.

 

The 'moral compass' of a nation should mean that its citizens will settle for no less than an honest set of leaders - for it is when the leadership becomes corrupt and power-hungry that the nation falls.

[Moose]

Ok, we just disagree on foreknowledge and what is an acceptable way to live. If I were being abused, or with an alcoholic, or a pedophile, and it developed within the marriage, it would be logical for me to leave, and to remove those in my care from that situation.

 

Without trying to help your spouse? If so, that falls into the catagory of laziness.

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but where I am this tactic is comical in its grostesqueness, if from an adult. I simply respect those posters' capacity to make their own arguments, while I make my own.

 

Then I see me intention was carried out. Why are you trying to sound so intellegent? You're not very good at it. Lighten up.....all of you....jeeez.

 

That doesn't even make sense. At all. Voice is comprised of sound waves, which, as far as I know, have no measurable weight. If they did have a weight, I suspect wind would only lessen it's measurability.

 

Dyer.....why must you take everything I say and dismiss it with logic? Jeez.....I couldn't even say it's raining cats and dogs without you writing a paragraph explaining how that could never happen......I simply mean that there isn't any sense in you marrying if your core belief is that, It's a simple civic contract that can be suspended at will. I'm keeping a mental note to never make a deal with you whether it's verbal or written.......your idea of honor in this aspect is very weak.

 

You've yet to provide coherent arguments why the inceasing number of terminations is distressing to society.

 

Are you friggin' serious? Or are you just the dumbest smart person around? Broken homes, millions of tax dollars to keep the divorce courts open, bankruptcies, dead beat dads going to jail for failure to pay, homeless single parent families who can't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads, all these things are distressing to society and I just barley scratched the surface. The, "coherent arguement", you're wanting is so obvious I didn't see any point of bringing it up.......

 

If I were you, I'd eagerly await judgement day, because Christ seems to have a dreadful pattern of faililng to save you in arguments.

 

Funny, seems you're the only one who seems to think this way.

 

He seems to leave you out to dry--perhaps you entertain him?

 

Maybe, if so great! I'd be happy to just be cleaning His toilets, (if there are any), so to entertain Him would be a great honor.

 

I thought you were totally against assuming what God does or doesn't do......and here you are playing the hypocrite, not surprising.

 

Oh right. That would be when people abused children but nobody believed the children. When men could beat the tar out of their wives with impunity because they functionally 'owned' their wives. When women were mostly little hausefraus who didn't need brains because they were only needed to tend house. 'When women, because they were not earning their own money and could not get credit on their own, were stuck in horrible marriages because they had no escape. Yes, indeedy, those were the 'good old days'.

 

Seems to me that you always focus on the negatives of how things used to be. There wasn't anything wrong with how things were 50 years ago.....what you described wasn't the norm in every household, it's just what YOU chose to focus on.

 

The 'moral compass' of a nation should mean that its citizens will settle for no less than an honest set of leaders - for it is when the leadership becomes corrupt and power-hungry that the nation falls.

 

"Honest", and "Leader" is an oxy-moron. You can't have both......sorry.