04 Aug 06
Originally posted by BromageI don't really know but now all you need now is to be over a certain age and have enough money to pay the bus fair to the registry office.
An interesting idea. In what way should it be made more difficult?
B.
Perhaps making it administratively difficult might help i.e it takes a year to get the paperwork sorted out. Persuading people to live together first would definitely help but many people would object to that.
Those that want to get married in a church just because it's cute, are the ones most at risk, in my view, and the Church itself could, and perhaps should, insist on regular attendance which could be fore a year or more.
Personally I think people should take a test, wait five years, take another test, sign a document handing all their possessions over to their partner and then have to hang glide over Niagra Falls wearing a bananna suit. I don't think many would accept this though.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by WheelyMaybe there could be a compulsory 12 month "cooling down period" in which the couple remains separated, and takes time to contemplate their decision with the help of spiritual guidance from their local priest and regualr counselling.
I don't really know but now all you need now is to be over a certain age and have enough money to pay the bus fair to the registry office.
Perhaps making it administratively difficult might help i.e it takes a year to get the paperwork sorted out. Persuading people to live together first would definitely help but many people would object to that.
Those ...[text shortened]... glide over Niagra Falls wearing a bananna suit. I don't think many would accept this though.
B.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by BromageWould you truly advise a woman that gets beaten to a pulp every day by her husband to stick around and 'help' him?
Yes, some people do become violent, homicidal, psychotic, after a marriage and this is always sad. However, if they really did mean what they said when they swore to stay together "for better or for worse", perhaps they would find ways to support/help the person they love, rather than abandoning them.
To me there are instant deal breakers (violence being one, cheating being another), which render any promises null and void. The importance of keeping a vow pales in comparison to the prospect of losing your life, whether literally or figuratively speaking.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by WheelyPerhaps running a gauntlet together like in "The Running Man" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger?
I don't really know but now all you need now is to be over a certain age and have enough money to pay the bus fair to the registry office.
Perhaps making it administratively difficult might help i.e it takes a year to get the paperwork sorted out. Persuading people to live together first would definitely help but many people would object to that.
Those ...[text shortened]... glide over Niagra Falls wearing a bananna suit. I don't think many would accept this though.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by VargGood point though the figures need to be broken down more to be sure. For example are the ones that live together first less likely to divorce than those that don't (if there are any of those). What is the average time people live together before getting married and does this time have any effect on the likely hood of divorce.
Seriously, more people are living together before getting married than ever before, yet we are told that the divorce rate is higher than ever before.
So, a trial period does not appear to work.
Is divorce actually a problem to worry about anyway?
04 Aug 06
1 edit
My parents were married for 62 years, so it can be done. If both parties are serious about it, there is no reason why two people cannot live together in love and harmony. This is not always the case however. If one of the parties is not faithful or is abusive, the other is not obligated to remain in that kind of abusive relationship. As Paul put it in the Bible, if one person is a Christian and the other is not, and the non-Christian is not pleased to remain married, then divorce is permitted (or, as Paul put it, let them depart.) I would interpret Paul’s remark to mean that if a man is beating, or otherwise abusing his wife and family, then he is not “pleased” to be married. The same holds true in the case of adultery; the innocent party has a right to divorce. I think it would apply regardless of religious beliefs.
04 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightI think pagan marriage was like that. You renewed (or not) each year.
Marriage licenses should be like driver's licenses. You should periodically have to go in an re-new your license.
That wqay, you don't have to get a divorce, you just let your license lapse.
That system worked for hundreds of years.
In fact it only stopped because the christians started killing everyone for it.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by BromagePeople change, feelings change and no one knows how they will feel about their other half 30 years down the line. What is the point of staying in an unhappy marriage for the sake of it? for the sake of respectability? Society values marriage to the extent that some people (especially women) stay in unhappy/unhealthy marriages . . . The premise of marriage is absurd.
I personally believe divorce is wrong. Regardless of its spiritual significance, marriage is a serious commitment: a vow between two people that they will stay together for the rest of their lives, no matter what. To break this vow is immoral.
What's your opinion? If you think divorce is acceptable, why marry in the first place? If you think it's wrong, wha ...[text shortened]... merely expressing my personal opinion, and welcome the opinions of others wholeheartedly.
B.
Some of the posts here seem to suggest that divorce is an easy option out of marriage but there's still a stigma attached to it.
But I also feel that it should be made widely available to same-sex couples so that the privileges that come with marriage can be enjoyed by all.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by VargIn Spain people have two surnames, the father's surname followed by the mother's surname. When a woman gets married, she drops the maternal surname, and the husband's surname is added to her father's surname.
Quite right - I meant to add "on the whole" or "the majority of...".
In other countries, it is much more common for women to retain their own names, in the UK I think it's still done by most people.
An article I read yesterday on 'meshing' names, apparently the latest fad for newlyweds in the US:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5239464.stm
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by FrenchQueenyou dont stay unhappy you fix it
People change, feelings change and no one knows how they will feel about their other half 30 years down the line. What is the point of staying in an unhappy marriage for the sake of it? for the sake of respectability? Society values marriage to the extent that some people (especially women) stay in unhappy/unhealthy marriages . . . The premise of marriag ...[text shortened]... lable to same-sex couples so that the privileges that come with marriage can be enjoyed by all.