The Breakdown Of The Family

[major_merrick]

What should the Christian man do?

 

Marry or avoid? One one hand, I see God's commandment about marriage. On the other, I see the massive disadvantages to men for government marriage. Personally, I wish the government was not involved in marriage at all (no tax breaks, flat tax). But I know my theoretical ambitions are not going to happen in my lifetime. Any options in the interim?

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight, and due to my orientation/lifestyle I might be unwelcome in this thread, but here it goes....

 

I've found a growing movement, even within some churches, to separate religious marriage and state marriage. This means that you could find a pastor who would be willing to marry you in the sight of God, but not in the sight of the law. There's actually more justification to this than you might think. Some people believe that since gay marriage was legalized, the marriage ceremony is tainted by the state's involvement in the process, so by avoiding it you can speak out against something that you don't believe in. Doing so has the happy benefit of shielding you from the financial consequences of divorce, although it also makes things like medical insurance, inheritance, and child custody much more difficult.

 

Personally, I think the divorce rate is ridiculous, both inside and outside of the church. We have a crisis of LOYALTY. Few people are loyal to anything but themselves. Few people realize that love is a way of acting, rather than a way of feeling. Women tend to be more emotionally driven than men, and when society approves of the idea that you can divorce when you "fall out of love" then women will initiate it because society has given them permission. It happened to a good friend of mine. His wife suddenly decided she wasn't in love anymore, and asked for a divorce out of the blue.

 

As for people's idea that women were dependent on men for money, and that's why they didn't divorce in the old days, I call that hogwash. Men needed women just as badly - caring for the home, preserving food, etc.. was a tough full-time job and was very much respected. Life was harder for our grandparents and great-grandparents. It really took two people to survive, whether they liked each other or not. It was loyalty and necessity that bonded them together. Life is easier and more convenient now, and so people split up on a whim. If we get a really BAD period of time (worse than the Depression, or maybe a terrible war) I suspect that the divorce rate will plummet once people realize that their choices are to stick together or die. And frankly, I don't think it would be such a bad thing if our society would become a bit less convenient and less comfortable. In times like that, you tend to focus on what really matters.

[truthtripper]

I think infidelity would be as old as marriage. As other posters have mentioned, infidelity is nothing new, but more in the open now.

 

We are not perfect and never will be. Maintaining a marriage is hard work. Self-reflection is a necessity.

[Gr8fuln2020]

Divorce is socially acceptable today. Also, women are able to work, so they do not need to use marriage as a means to financially support themselves. When divorce was socially unacceptable, it was acceptable and even expected that a man would have outside affairs. People like my grandparents stayed together because it was expected, but they hated each other. My grandmother had no education and had to rely on my grandfather for support. That setup was not uncommon.

 

Today, people aren't deciding to get divorces because they are less moral. The option to divorce is simply available in a way that it wasn't 100 years ago.

 

Amen brother!

 

Studies, surveys have shown that our parents' marriages were hardly sublime as Leave it to Beaver episodes would convey. When laws and social norms are dictated by a single segment of our population (white and definitely MALE), the rules of the game are going to favor that group. Divorce is a long historical reality and accepted in scripture under certain circumstances. Sexual morality being one of them. A lot of that going on now days, but it has been going on since the beginning of time. The biggest difference is that we have quick access to media, opportunities with the advent of the internet, etc.

 

Men have long had affairs within and out of the church.

 

As for the deterioriation of the church. You can blame the church FROM THE INSIDE. It's demise is predominantly a result of the church itself being incapable of remainging faithful to its own interpretation of god.

 

As per leaving the government out of marriage. How interesting. For those of you who claim a disadvantage to government (state-recognized) being involved in marriage, is that b/c you don't being held responsible for the dissolution of said marriage? Or that you believe that marriage should only be based on your own interpretations of an acceptable union?

 

There is one thing I have discoverd in my 40+ years of life in this country (USA), people are lot more afraid of the law, the legal system, than they are of god.

[BC1980]

As per leaving the government out of marriage. How interesting. For those of you who claim a disadvantage to government (state-recognized) being involved in marriage, is that b/c you don't being held responsible for the dissolution of said marriage? Or that you believe that marriage should only be based on your own interpretations of an acceptable union?

 

There is one thing I have discoverd in my 40+ years of life in this country (USA), people are lot more afraid of the law, the legal system, than they are of god.

 

I think the idea of leaving the government out is mainly because people don't want to be financially responsible for the loss of the marriage. At least, not in the long term. I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but the one I mainly hear is financial.

 

I think it does make sense to be more afraid of the legal system than God because the legal system is a real, tangible threat. We know what can actually happen with the legal system. When it comes to God punishing us, all of that is in theory.

[Gr8fuln2020]

I think the idea of leaving the government out is mainly because people don't want to be financially responsible for the loss of the marriage. At least, not in the long term. I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but the one I mainly hear is financial.

 

I think it does make sense to be more afraid of the legal system than God because the legal system is a real, tangible threat. We know what can actually happen with the legal system. When it comes to God punishing us, all of that is in theory.

 

I have no doubts you are correct. It seems that some are arguing to leave the State out of marriage b/c they desire to be held LESS responsible. But, their is a traditional reason for this and it should not be dismissed. Men, in the not so distant past, were the only source of income and our society maintained that expectation. When men bailed or women realized it was time to bail, children were involved. Men needed to continue providing, remaining "responsible." It should also be noted that men, far more often than women, were the ones who created circumstances for divorce...infidelity for the most part.

 

Now days, such a thing can easily be rectified by legal means as well....prenupts...to an extent.

 

The State's involvement is or should be secular. Not everyone should nor feels inclined to have a religious ceremony. It also serves to maintain some semblance or order/organization/registration of such events. If not for the state, men (and some women, perhaps) would be marrying more one spouse from place to place. Churches would NEVER engage in such registration or monitory across municipalities, let alone counties or states.

[Popsicle]

I'm a hopeless romantic and would like to get married but there are too many men running around crying about divorce. All that does is makes me yawn, but I keep looking.

[major_merrick]

I have no doubts you are correct. It seems that some are arguing to leave the State out of marriage b/c they desire to be held LESS responsible. But, their is a traditional reason for this and it should not be dismissed. Men, in the not so distant past, were the only source of income and our society maintained that expectation. When men bailed or women realized it was time to bail, children were involved. Men needed to continue providing, remaining "responsible." It should also be noted that men, far more often than women, were the ones who created circumstances for divorce...infidelity for the most part.

 

Now days, such a thing can easily be rectified by legal means as well....prenupts...to an extent.

 

Unfortunately, prenups do not provide any protection for "marital" assets. Everything earned during the marriage is considered marital property, no matter who worked for it. There's also no consideration of who was involved in infidelity. I think this leads a lot of men to be unfairly victimized by the court system. Personally, I would leave the state out of it because the corrupt government itself disgusts me.

 

My friend got lucky with his divorce. They had no property and no kids, so he didn't lose money. One of his friends is going through a divorce now. In spite of him paying on his wife's house that she had before marriage, and putting her kids from another marriage through school, he's having to fight to exit the marriage without having to pay more, even though the court ought to rule in his favor and have her pay him back. It's really crazy.

 

As for men creating the circumstances for divorce, I really don't see it. What I do see and hear about are WOMEN cheating. It might not have been that way in the past, but society today is totally upside down from what it was in the 60's when no-fault divorce became common. The law hasn't caught up with the times, and justice hasn't actually been just for many years.

[planning4later]

Unfortunately, prenups do not provide any protection for "marital" assets. Everything earned during the marriage is considered marital property, no matter who worked for it. There's also no consideration of who was involved in infidelity. I think this leads a lot of men to be unfairly victimized by the court system. Personally, I would leave the state out of it because the corrupt government itself disgusts me.

 

My friend got lucky with his divorce. They had no property and no kids, so he didn't lose money. One of his friends is going through a divorce now. In spite of him paying on his wife's house that she had before marriage, and putting her kids from another marriage through school, he's having to fight to exit the marriage without having to pay more, even though the court ought to rule in his favor and have her pay him back. It's really crazy.

 

As for men creating the circumstances for divorce, I really don't see it. What I do see and hear about are WOMEN cheating. It might not have been that way in the past, but society today is totally upside down from what it was in the 60's when no-fault divorce became common. The law hasn't caught up with the times, and justice hasn't actually been just for many years.

 

The formula is simple. Whichever group or section of society has the least restrictions imposed upon them and has the least consequences for bad action...will logically behave the worst. Today this happens to be women. It's nothing against women, inherently. I would probably do the same if I could get away with as much as they do.