Divorce

[Corvus]

Although we have a very large problem with divorce in our countries, strictly speaking, would it actually be better for society if the option of divorce didn't exist at all?

[perspective]

Sorry, I can't really comprehend your question because it is above my head. Could you restate it?

"I'm curious to know what scope of existence or importance beyond ourselves is dependant on a monogamous adulthood?"

I was asking Quark to clarify what he meant by his statement:

The problem is not that divorce is too easy or too hard - the problem is in our lack of willingness to accept a scope of existence or importance beyond ourselves.

Because I didn't understand what he was implying with this statement.

[adherent]

I am equally, if not even more, confused by that statement. I hope quarkhead clears it up for us.

[Quarkhead]

I'll try...

Firstly, perspective, it was not my intention to say that in any case divorce is somehow wrong or bad, nor that selflessness is somehow tied inextricably to marriage (or monogamy). My point was this: the problem is not that getting a divorce is "too easy." Originally, the question (as I understood it) was positing that perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate was because it was simply too easy - there are perhaps too few hurdles one must jump in order to obtain one. I do not think this is the case. I think, indeed, that divorce should be legally easy to come by.

However, I think that the high divorce rate is a part of a larger issue - as a culture, we are becoming increasingly self-centered. When things get rocky, our inclination becomes, change the situation - find a new deal, get away from that which is causing displeasure. But this thought is often held with an extremely short-sighted view of what "pleasure" and "displeasure" really are.

Ultimately, perhaps, this is a symptom of the Cartesian duality - the subject-object split. Look at our culture - in a way, we are already divorced from our neighbors, our community, even from the meat of our own lives. We see the next thing as the still point in the turning universe, always the next thing, and not this moment, which is, after all, all that exists in the world. Focused on the "next," we choose our course for the wrong reasons - we choose our profession for the wrong reasons, we choose our friends for the wrong reasons, we fall in love for the wrong reasons, we get married for the wrong reasons...

Hmmm... clear as mud, right?

[perspective]

However, I think that the high divorce rate is a part of a larger issue - as a culture, we are becoming increasingly self-centered. When things get rocky, our inclination becomes, change the situation - find a new deal, get away from that which is causing displeasure. But this thought is often held with an extremely short-sighted view of what "pleasure" and "displeasure" really are.

I suppose that when you look at the situation abstractly as a culture we may not know what pleasure and displeasure really are. I would disagree, though, that we are becoming increasingly self-centered. I propose that Americans as a culture throughout time have always been self-centered. Also transient, impatient, and shallow-thinking -- As a group - looking at the general population, not necessarily individually.

Ultimately, perhaps, this is a symptom of the Cartesian duality - the subject-object split. Look at our culture - in a way, we are already divorced from our neighbors, our community, even from the meat of our own lives. We see the next thing as the still point in the turning universe, always the next thing, and not this moment, which is, after all, all that exists in the world.

Yes, many of us are guilty of this. I think it's our capitalist tendency to try to get ahead all the time, to never stop and smell the roses.

Focused on the "next," we choose our course for the wrong reasons - we choose our profession for the wrong reasons, we choose our friends for the wrong reasons, we fall in love for the wrong reasons, we get married for the wrong reasons...

Many do. But this has been the fallacy of the past too. On average, each individual doesn't make the decisions that would most fit into his/her own heart, but would most fit his/her circumstances. The problem, I think, is that many people don't sufficiently reflect on their desires and they don't understand their moods. In essence they don't learn their own hearts until it is much too late. They sell themselves short in their early lives by settling for the paths of least resistance and they miss out on the rewarding feeling of accomplishment and self awareness that comes with taking the paths less traveled. Of feeling proud of something. They define their lives in the sand by the ocean instead of in the rock on the mountain side. People need to be more grounded in their hearts in order to really know what they want.

Hmmm... clear as mud, right?

Yeah about as clear as my ramblings.

[filiasan]

Divorce is right and only right if the marriage is bringing hurt to one or both of the spouses. If, however, the hurt is only a temporary problem which can be fixed, then you'd better damn well fix it! I also believe that most people rush into marriages too hastily. As a person who holds a partnership at high esteem, I will not marry for fear that it would end in a bad way.
(P.S. can I say "damn"? Is that a curse word? My grandmother thinks it is, but then again she also thinks darn is a curse word! )

[Illyricum]

Divorce is right and only right if the marriage is bringing hurt to one or both of the spouses. If, however, the hurt is only a temporary problem which can be fixed, then you'd better damn well fix it! I also believe that most people rush into marriages too hastily.

I don't think I could agree with you more.

[fried beef sandwich]

(P.S. can I say "damn"? Is that a curse word? My grandmother thinks it is, but then again she also thinks darn is a curse word! )

Oh fiddlesticks! Nothin' wrong with that word, don'tcha know.

[Native American]

Personally, i think one should be able to divorce if one wants to. Yes, i agree it can be painful, as my parents divorced a couple of years ago. But think about it.....what if the love is gone? Feelings have faded? You cant even stand each other anymore....would you rather live the rest of your life miserable and hateful than just to divorce and make the both of you happy ( by which i mean any random or made up married couple)?

[Insomniac]

***

A country without the option of divorce? That idea could be both good and bad. Divorce isn't always a bad thing, I think it depends on the situation. If a man beats his wife, then yes, the woman should be able to divorce her husand without being looked down upon. If two people don't get along and their marriage is tearing them apart emotionally, then divorce is needed. But, I don't think people should use the option of divorce as a 'quick fix', it should only be used as a last resort.

Why is divorce sinful? Or is it only sinful if the motivation behind it isn't fair?

[Arthra]

In my faith, the Baha'i Faith, divorce is permitted after a "year of patience" in which both spouses have to live apart and cannot reconcile... The spouses cannot cohabit for one year and they must agree during that time to try to work out there difficulties... If these conditions are met the Spiritual Assembly will grant the divorce.

If the couple begin to cohabit during the year of patience the "year of patience" is nullified...

Baha'is who have a civil divorce without going through the "year of patience" can be sanctioned administratively...

We know that nearly half of all marriages in society end in divorce or separation after only a few years... so the institution of marriage itself needs to be supported more and strengthened.

In the Baha'i Faith marriage occurs with the agreement of all living parents of the prospective spouses...so if the extended family supports the marriage there will be added strength.

- Art