I would, and have, condemned people for their behaviour which precipitates the divorce.
I could, I suppose, conceive of scenarios where I might condemn people for seeking a divorce.
I would, and have, condemned people for the way they have behaved during their divorce.
These may indeed be moral issues. The mere fact of going through a divorce is not.
A real-life situation (I know / knew both parties personally):
Two persons both suffering from chronic depression since childhood formed a relationship and married. There were no children.
After 12 years both had reached a point of personal despair and were contemplating suicide, even though to the rest of the world the marriage was fine. One day they started making preparations for a suicide pact, since neither wanted to leave the other behind. Since the will to survive can sometimes, in such sufferers, be stronger than the will to end the suffering, one found the courage to separate and divorce.
Not only did neither suicide happen, they both went on to form new relationships and eventually long-term marriages with partners who did not have the condition.
Anyone who would condemn the fact of divorce in this case, or any case for that matter, has in my opinion no entitlement to do so. Only the two parties, and those very close to them, have that right.
Originally posted by KewpieVery interesting story. But I want to ask, why would only "those very close to them" have any more or less "right [to condemn the divorce]" on moral grounds, assuming that the fact about the relationship were known? And in this particular case[as a matter of interest], on what grounds might "those very close to them" condemn their divorce?
Anyone who would condemn the fact of divorce in this case, or any case for that matter, has in my opinion no entitlement to do so. Only the two parties, and those very close to them, have that right.
Originally posted by FMFYes, but its not so simple. As I say, because of the potential for moral harm a general rule is made which then becomes the moral rule even though individual instances may not be harmful.
So it's the harm to others that a divorce might do that is the moral issue rather than the divorce itself. Am I encapsulating what you are saying correctly?
So for example, a girl showing too much skin may be considered immoral (though the amount varies by society) because it is seen as having the potential to lead to undesirable behavior (which may lead to harm). But because of the potential for harm a general rule is made which is then applied to everyone and violating that rule is called 'immoral' even in instances that do not cause harm. Often these rules are enforced using religious institutions/teachings.
Originally posted by FMFThe infringement is a failure to honor an agreement you have made (usually "until death do us part..." ). The victim is the one who wished to continue honoring the agreement and continue the partnership.
If divorce can, to your way of thinking, be condemned from a moral point of view [although it's not a stance that you yourself would take], what exactly is the infringement and who exactly is the victim?
edit: an immoral act has to have a victim in some way, right?
Also, the victim is usually the one who hires the bad lawyer. 😛
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by FMFWell, if to disapprove is to take a moral stance, then condemning divorce ("Express[ing] complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure." ) is taking a moral stance -- what else would it be?
'Condemning divorce is not a moral stance.' Thoughts?
I have one divorce behind me and we both thought we were doing what was best for our child, given the circumstances. Were we right? Things seem to have worked out pretty well, although as a scientist by training and nature, I have to say, where do we go to examine the "control" on this -- the marriage where we did not divorce -- and how did it work out?
One thing I would say should be condemned is a social system that makes early marriage -- and I mean before about 25 years of age, given that actually assessing emotional readiness is just guesswork -- the socially expected and accepted route out of their parent's home and into their adult freedoms, like sexual freedom, for a lot of young people. Fortunately in the US anyway, the social revolution of the 60's has reduced the effect of these pressures on young people. Secondly, if young marrieds wait a few years before having children, this would give the marriage time to be at least minimally tested -- and marriages will be tested.
Of course this leaves one area unmentioned that should be of great concern as well -- teenage pregnancy. But the topic is divorce. WRT teen pregnancy, shotgun weddings bring all the above risks, in spades.
I now yield the Sunday Soapbox to the next in line.
“The Pharisees came up to [Jesus], intent on tempting him and saying: ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?’”—Matthew 19:3.
Some who lived in Jesus’ day questioned whether marriages could or should last. To them, Jesus said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:4-6) Obviously, God intended for marriages to last.
In many lands today, some 40 percent or more of all marriages are “put apart,” ending in divorce. Is the Bible’s advice regarding marriage hopelessly out-of-date? Could it be that marriages fail because the arrangement itself is faulty?
Consider this illustration: Two couples buy the same model car. One couple maintain their vehicle well and drive it carefully. Their car does not break down. The other couple invest no time or energy in maintaining their vehicle, and they drive recklessly. That car breaks down and is abandoned. Where does the fault lie for the second outcome—with the car or with the owners? Obviously, the owners bear much of the responsibility.
Similarly, the fact that many marriages fail does not mean that the institution of marriage is somehow flawed. The millions of marriages that succeed prove otherwise. Those marriages bring happiness and stability to individuals, to families, and to communities. But marriage, like a car, needs good care and regular maintenance if it is to last.
Watchtower 2/11/12 page3.
Originally posted by JS357Sometimes it seems to me that catagorizing acts that affect no one, except the person performing the act, as being either "moral" or "immoral" is making the mistake of passing off personal preferences or even mere thoughts as having some objective, external substance or meaning that apply to other people, when they do not, and that projecting these perspectives or 'meanings' onto other people [insisting that they are obliged to do or think likewise, for instance] is just an expression of personal, subjective prejudice and self-regard disguised as a "moral stance".
Well, if to disapprove is to take a moral stance, then condemning divorce ("Express[ing] complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure." ) is taking a moral stance -- what else would it be?
Originally posted by galveston75In other words, you want religion to control people's lives, even in the bedroom. You don't give a dam if a woman is beaten to within an inch of her life, she better by god stay with her animal husband.
“The Pharisees came up to [Jesus], intent on tempting him and saying: ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?’”—Matthew 19:3.
Some who lived in Jesus’ day questioned whether marriages could or should last. To them, Jesus said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ...[text shortened]... a car, needs good care and regular maintenance if it is to last.
Watchtower 2/11/12 page3.
You are the sick one, the controlling one, the ones who think women have no right to control their own bodies, abortion to be illegal even in rape where the father has aids.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by FMFYes, acts that affect no one except the actor should not be classified as moral or immoral, in my view, because morality is a relevant factor only when other persons are affected. Of course the person who does the act that affects no one but themselves, may classify it as moral or not, but that is up to them, not me.
Sometimes it seems to me that catagorizing acts that affect no one, except the person performing the act, as being either "moral" or "immoral" is making the mistake of passing off personal preferences or even mere thoughts as having some objective, external substance or meaning that apply to other people, when they do not, and that projecting these perspectives ...[text shortened]... ression of personal, subjective prejudice and self-regard disguised as a "moral stance".
There is a catch here. A person may say that allowing certain "victimless" acts somehow affects them morally, by their being allowed in the society this person lives in. IOW they impose themselves and their moral code into the situation. They think if their god says something is immoral, they are obligated to fight against allowing it, because their god demands this of them. I think this is behind a lot of the repression we see.
Originally posted by sonhouseDid I say that? Where did I even imply that? It seems there is mental problem running thru RHP that is common among you guys to make up crap and add to all you can that was never said.
In other words, you want religion to control people's lives, even in the bedroom. You don't give a dam if a woman is beaten to within an inch of her life, she better by god stay with her animal husband.
You are the sick one, the controlling one, the ones who think women have no right to control their own bodies, abortion to be illegal even in rape where the father has aids.
So you are a lier for even suggesting I would ever aprove of a man beating a woman. Your sick and pretty arrogent for just a start...........
Originally posted by galveston75Just having religion controlling marriage is control. I wasn't suggesting you yourself would condone women being beaten, I said there are those who would try to force such a marriage to continue to be right with your god.
Did I say that? Where did I even imply that? It seems there is mental problem running thru RHP that is common among you guys to make up crap and add to all you can that was never said.
So you are a lier for even suggesting I would ever aprove of a man beating a woman. Your sick and pretty arrogent for just a start...........
I don't want freedom OF religion. I want freedom FROM religion. A place I can go where I can live in peace without worrying if an abortion clinic will get bombed or if a woman raped can decide for herself if she carries the baby of the animal that did that to her.
If I was a woman, and pregnant, I probably would carry it through but I would fight for the rights of women in general to be able to make their own decision without bullying from the religious right wing nut society.
Where we can live without some right wing religious nutters forcing creationism fairy tales to be taught along side evolution in a science class when in fact those nutters could care less about real science and ONLY care for the propagation of their fairy tales.
Where I can live in a society that doesn't have the threat of ultra right wing terrorists of any religion attacking me and my family BECAUSE I we would not be religious.
Where I can live in a society that doesn't have to become a member of some church or other to be accepted into that society to get jobs, like in Utah, where if you are not Mormon, you are unlikely to get ahead in that society.
These are some of the things I would like to have freedom FROM religion.
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks for clearing that up for me. Sorry if I jumped back at you.
Just having religion controlling marriage is control. I wasn't suggesting you yourself would condone women being beaten, I said there are those who would try to force such a marriage to continue to be right with your god.
I don't want freedom OF religion. I want freedom FROM religion. A place I can go where I can live in peace without worrying if an abor ...[text shortened]... be able to make their own decision without bullying from the religious right wing nut society.
Yes the Bible is clear on God's view but that does not mean that a woman or man would have to stay under the roof of the abusive person, especially if ones life is danger.
One would have to use common sense for their safety and if there are children their safety should be considered too.
But if one does leave their home because of a circumstance like that, it does not mean the one that has left should give up on the marriage. That is still an active marriage in Gods eyes and all efforts should be made by both parties to reconsile and get the marriage back on track, especially if there are children involved. It can be done if they allow God to be a part of that healing process and to keep God in it for ever.
Also some type of therapy would not be out of the question too.
Originally posted by galveston75What if these efforts do not work?
That is still an active marriage in Gods eyes and all efforts should be made by both parties to reconsile and get the marriage back on track, especially if there are children involved. It can be done if they allow God to be a part of that healing process and to keep God in it for ever.