Advise

[Gryphin]

kirbyef
"Marriage" is more a leagle institution where you have to go to a government institution to get a licence and to undo it you need to go through a court system. That will never happen to me again.
< Oh, did I mention I'm not bitter >
My love and I will "Hand Fast" which is basicaly where we promise to stay together:
"For a year and a day, and there after for as long as love shall Last"
I belive this "tradition" comes from Pagan / pre Christian Europe.

[Krsqk]

Frankly, the easy availability of no-fault divorce ("Divorce! $99, 2 days") has contributed to the failure of marriages. When divorce was unavailable or socially unacceptable, 1) Couples were more careful about who they married, and 2) There was much more incentive to "make it work" once in marriage. Both partners had to continuously choose to love each other, since divorce just wasn't an option.

[Gryphin]

When divorce was harder to get, a lot of people spent their lives unhappy. I don't know the numbers but, a lot made it work by enduring it pasively.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
When divorce was harder to get, a lot of people spent their lives unhappy. I don't know the numbers but, a lot made it work by enduring it pasively.

FDR messed around, a lot, and Elanor had a female lover.

[Gryphin]

WarDad,
I'm not sure what your point is.
I have no idea what the stats are on poly amoury and open marriages.
And, just hecause they are open, are they happy?

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Frankly, the easy availability of no-fault divorce ("Divorce! $99, 2 days") has contributed to the failure of marriages. When divorce was unavailable or socially unacceptable, 1) Couples were more careful about who they married, and 2) There was much more incentive to "make it work" once in marriage. Both partners had to continuously choose to love each other, since divorce just wasn't an option.

First, "no-fault divorce" doesn't necessarily mean $99 and 2 days. In some states, it means divorce can be granted after 6 months of separation instead of a full year, and still requires lawyers and court dates. And, obviously, at least an order of magnitude more money (more like $1000 - $5000, not $99). And I don't think couples were THAT much more careful about who they married, but I do agree that couples were more likely to stay together when there was greater social stigma against divorce. Just as most homosexuals stayed "in the closet" when there was greater social stigma against homosexuality. (of course, there's still quite a bit of social stigma associated with homosexuality, even if companies like Lockheed Martin are allowing employees to cover "life partners" on company-supported health insurance policies). None of that means people were any happier in the "good old days" when divorce was bad, teenage pregnancies were hidden, alternate lifestyles were even more hidden, and hate Groups were more active than they are today...

[mlmbd]

Gryphin, Oh sure you had to bring up HAPPY.

DirectorTsaarx, Hate Groups are still pretty active, today. As for the rest of your post, I agree. "WE" are getting less cought up with stigmata, than in the past. But, there is still a huge amount of it out there!

mlmbd

[Krsqk]

First, "no-fault divorce" doesn't necessarily mean $99 and 2 days. In some states, it means divorce can be granted after 6 months of separation instead of a full year, and still requires lawyers and court dates. And, obviously, at least an order of magnitude more money (more like $1000 - $5000, not $99).

I realize that not all no-fault divorce is fast or cheap. I was trying to communicate that there is a vast difference in how marriage was entered then and now. Then, it was "till death do us part" and was entered with that mindset. Now, many see marriage as a convenient arrangement that can be disposed of when it becomes inconvenient.

And I don't think couples were THAT much more careful about who they married, but I do agree that couples were more likely to stay together when there was greater social stigma against divorce.

Anyone today who has a moral or religious conviction that marriage is permanent approaches marriage much more carefully, because divorce isn't an option. You make your bed, you lie in it. At the least, you'll spend more time finding out what a potential spouse is really like.

None of that means people were any happier in the "good old days" when divorce was bad, teenage pregnancies were hidden, alternate lifestyles were even more hidden, and hate Groups were more active than they are today...

First, those behaviors were much less common in past times. While social stigma could make people hide their behavior, it would also be a deterrent to adopting those behaviors. Second, quite apart from their rightness or wrongness, divorce and teenage pregnancy haven't exactly brought us happiness. Young girls lose their freedom (while young men get off pretty much free); parents and children (and step-parents and step-children and step-step-parents and step-step-children) are split up and doled out in complex "time-sharing" agreements that look like something by Enron. Not much happiness there.

[Gryphin]

I can only respond with antidotal evidence. For the most part we seem to be proffering ideas that we do not have hard data to supplement.
I would say that we all wish we could have a permanent truly warm and loving relationship like Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver.
I certainly do. One of the areas I have been unable to find any statistical evidence on is the correlation between length of dating and length of relationship
I dated my 1st wife for 3 months before she moved in. The ensuing 5 years and my life now are the finest period of my life.
I dated my 2nd wife for over a year. I then lived in 10 plus years being manipulated, controlled, etc.. by a person would you never suspect capable of such a thing.
I dated my sweetheart for 1 month before she moved in. There is no doubt in my mind that my time with her will be as good as my life with my first wife.

[ December 10, 2002, 16:19: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Anyone today who has a moral or religious conviction that marriage is permanent approaches marriage much more carefully, because divorce isn't an option. You make your bed, you lie in it. At the least, you'll spend more time finding out what a potential spouse is really like.

Then again, I also know people who got married mainly because their moral/religious advisors all but forced them into it (using financial and emotional leverage). And ended up with physically abusive spouses. At least one of them (my cousin) refused to get a divorce (because of those convictions about marriage being permanent) until she got hospitalized, at which point the state police stepped in & arrested the man - fortunately, that state had laws where the state could press charges of abuse without requiring the battered wife to make a statement (and, obviously, risk further abuse). Also fortunately, that prompted my cousin's church to recommend divorce, for the safety of my cousin & her daughter.

And, as Gryphin points out, how long is long enough to decide what a potential spouse is like? And how do you propose doing that without living together for at least some period of time? After all, that's when you really figure out what someone is like. But most people who have religious convictions against divorce also have religious convictions against living together.

Originally posted by Krsqk:
First, those behaviors were much less common in past times. While social stigma could make people hide their behavior, it would also be a deterrent to adopting those behaviors. Second, quite apart from their rightness or wrongness, divorce and teenage pregnancy haven't exactly brought us happiness. Young girls lose their freedom (while young men get off pretty much free); parents and children (and step-parents and step-children and step-step-parents and step-step-children) are split up and doled out in complex "time-sharing" agreements that look like something by Enron. Not much happiness there.

I think there are many cases where divorce has ended some rather unhappy marriages. Teenage pregnancy in and of itself hasn't brought happiness, but the fact that the person isn't completely ostracized from the community for it reduces the unhappiness. "Time-sharing" children isn't happy, but neither is growing up in a household where the parents fight constantly, to the point where they have trouble expressing love for their children. Or worse, grow to resent those children as a root cause for keeping the marriage together. As for social stigma as a deterrent for preferring an "alternate lifestyle", that's just wrong. The social stigma leads to hiding the person's true nature, causing no end of psychological problems.

Oh - mlmbd - I agree hate Groups are still around; that's why I said they were "more active" in the past.