Is divorce ever justified?
You meet someone, fall in love, and marry.
You vow to be together "for better or worse, until death do us part."
Sometime later, you ask for a divorce.
What about that vow you took?
Doesn't your violating it reflect on your moral character?
By definition, can someone who seeks a divorce EVER again be considered "good?"
Quote: MrVHere's a "goodness" test.
You meet someone, fall in love, and marry.
You vow to be together "for better or worse, until death do us part."
Sometime later, you ask for a divorce.
What about that vow you took?
Doesn't your violating it reflect on your moral character?
By definition, can someone who seeks a divorce EVER again be considered "good?"
I'd say the vow no longer is to be taken at face value. It's more of a ritual, perhaps an expression of optimism.
Even if it is meant in earnest, circumstances change. I don't know that abiding by a vow taken years ago when doing so makes all parties miserable is really a sign of high character.
If you took the vow, knowing that the other person meant it and believed you, while you had plans to seek a divorce when something better came along, then that would reflect poorly on your character.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think good people can be ill-suited to each other and only find out after they marry. I don't hold divorce itself in the same light as some of these other examples. An honest break is better than grudgingly staying.
Yes, its often reflected in the saying: better to come from a broken home than to live in one.
Many women, when interviewed afterwards, say they knew their marriage would not last but felt compelled by social pressure to give the jerk her hand instead of the finger.
I know one man who got married and had already arranged for his first assignation with his mistress after he got back from his honeymoon.
No one really expects saintly behavior, particularly in a casino where "the buzz" may have a mental effect on people's character.
Quote: MrVBy definition, can someone who seeks a divorce EVER again be considered "good?"
May I ask what is your track record in marriage?
Here is a related, seemingly insoluble moral dilemna:
If one accepts the notion that breaking wedding vows is "bad," then what is the moral position of one who helps people to get divorced, i.e. their divorce lawyer?
Is an attorney, ipso facto, deemed to be "bad" if he makes his living helping people actualize the breaking of their wedding vows?
Quote: MrVYour question is personal; we are speaking generally here.
You were the one judging those who get divorced. I'll accept that judgment from somebody who has been married for decades and never divorced. Otherwise, I think people should not be judgmental about what they haven't experienced directly.
Let me ask you this, do you think a woman should stay true to her vows if the husband is physically abusive?
WAG kind of thing.
Quote: MrVYour question is personal; we are speaking generally here.
Here is a related, seemingly insoluble moral dilemna:
If one accepts the notion that breaking wedding vows is "bad," then what is the moral position of one who helps people to get divorced, i.e. their divorce lawyer?
Is an attorney, ipso facto, deemed to be "bad" if he makes his living helping people actualize the breaking of their wedding vows?
Of course. If that's an outcome they both want, then the vows are meaningless. If it's an outcome one of them wants, then there's no point in making that person adhere to the vows.
I think you're overstating how society views those vows. In medieval times, they were an ironclad contract but nowadays...not so much.
Quote: WizardYou were the one judging those who get divorced. I'll accept that judgment from somebody who has been married for decades and never divorced. Otherwise, I think people should not be judgmental about what they haven't experienced directly.
Let me ask you this, do you think a woman should stay true to her vows if the husband is physically abusive?
I "judged" nobody; I only asked a question.
So then, by your logic, only someone who has beaten his wife is qualified to discuss whether it is right or wrong?
Only murderers have the right to discuss whether murder is right or wrong?
I think not.
Hello, moral relativism.
But it's fascinating all the same.
Quote: MrVI "judged" nobody; I only asked a question.
So then, by your logic, only someone who has beaten his wife is qualified to discuss whether it is right or wrong?
Only murderers have the right to discuss whether murder is right or wrong?
I think not.
Hello, moral relativism.
The way you asked the question, as well as asking it in the first place (importing some kind of moral code from a couple of centuries ago), definitely implies some kind of moral judgment on your part. You WEREN'T, in fact, "only asking a question." You were making a statement, and your question was rhetorical. Yet, the Wizard (and I) had the courtesy to answer it as if it had been legitimate.
And as far as the morality of marriage, marriage vows, and divorce is concerned, yes, definitely, that morality is relative. Society evolves. Moral absolutism isn't valid or societally healthy. How many unhappy married couples have been FORCED to stay together because of moral absolutism? How many families have experienced misery and constant conflict because the parents couldn't get divorced?
So yes indeedy, hello, moral relativism. Definitely, goodbye, moral absolutism.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe way you asked the question, as well as asking it in the first place (importing some kind of moral code from a couple of centuries ago), definitely implies some kind of moral judgment on your part. You WEREN'T, in fact, "only asking a question." You were making a statement, and your question was rhetorical. Yet, the Wizard (and I) had the courtesy to answer it as if it had been legitimate.
And as far as the morality of marriage, marriage vows, and divorce is concerned, yes, definitely, that morality is relative. Society evolves. Moral absolutism isn't valid or societally healthy. How many unhappy married couples have been FORCED to stay together because of moral absolutism? How many families have experienced misery and constant conflict because the parents couldn't get divorced?
So yes indeedy, hello, moral relativism. Definitely, goodbye, moral absolutism.
So when the Wizard's non-"friend" promises to pay, but breaks that contract, it is okay because he would be really unhappy if he had to give the Wizard his money?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe way you asked the question, as well as asking it in the first place (importing some kind of moral code from a couple of centuries ago)...
The Catholic church still objects if parishoners divorce civilly, as opposed to getting a church-sanctioned annulment, so the notion of honoring wedding vows certainly is not a seventeenth century anachronism.
The point I was making is that people routinely make a solemn VOW, or PROMISE, not to divorce, yet at least half ultimately do.
How does that reality mesh with notions of "good" and morality?
How can anyone who ever breaks a solemn vow consider themselves to be a "good" person?
Seems akin to welshing on a bet.
Quote: MrVThe Catholic church still objects if parishoners divorce civilly, as opposed to getting a church-sanctioned annulment, so the notion of honoring wedding vows certainly is not a seventeenth century anachronism.
The point I was making is that people routinely make a solemn VOW, or PROMISE, not to divorce, yet at least half ultimately do.
How does that reality mesh with notions of "good" and morality?
How can anyone who ever breaks a solemn vow consider themselves to be a "good" person?
Seems akin to welshing on a bet.
I would say you are passing judgement here for sure, even if you didn't intend to with your initial question. And I disagree with you, and possibly the Catholic Church, if divorce makes you a bad person. I don't think divorce even fits on the good/bad scale we're discussing. It's not one of the 10 Commandments. It's really just a manipulation tactic to make it a moral issue, when it's a financial and practical issue.
Marriage preserves or creates wealth, provides shelter and a stable framework for raising children, and/or provides companionship, usually with a sexual component, for the partners. If those needs are not being met, divorce is an option when other options fail.
There's no moral component to its existence or dissolution necessary, though one has been superimposed over it in the past (and by you here). There may be moral components to post-divorce comportment of the separated partners, especially concerning underage children, but the divorce can easily be between two good people rectifying a personal mistake.
Quote: MrVSo then, by your logic, only someone who has beaten his wife is qualified to discuss whether it is right or wrong?
I'm just saying there are legitimate reasons for breaking of marriage vows and sited an example.
Too lazy to snip out, the fluff from above.Quote: WizardSorry I didn't reply to this earlier, Barbara. Very good post. I also thank you for all the kind things you said about me.
I fully agree that the more sheep are in a society, the better it is. Absolutely no question about that. Games like Friend or Foe prove that on a smaller scale.
The body of your post I agree with 100%. However, a couple minor points of departure or comment.
Let me tell you about another scam I've been a victim to twice.
The first time I was in Atlanta and walking to my hotel room, which was located near a major highway. A man approaches me saying that his car broke down and he doesn't have any money on him and just desperately needs money for a tow. He makes great promises to meet me in the hotel lobby at a certain time the following evening to repay me. He says the issue isn't not having money but that he left it at home. That was the gist of it. So, I gave him the money. The next day I wait at the appointed time, and then some, for him to show up. You guessed it -- He never shows.
Fast forward about six months and I'm near the Los Angeles airport, just off the 405 Freeway. I'm supposed to pick up my dad for a flight and am way too early so I'm reading a book in a Taco Bell restaurant. A woman taps on my window and has pretty much the same story. The details are a little different and she definitely played the damsel in distress card. I'm skeptical but I didn't want the Atlanta incident to harden my heart so I give her the money. She gives me her number and a peck on the cheek. When I call the number the next day it was to some restaurant that she was previously fired from, well before finding me. The manager had no idea what became of her and seemed glad to be rid of her.
Fast forward about two years this time and I'm walking along route 40 in Baltimore outside the Old Country Buffet (where our own FrG liked to eat). A man approaches me with again the same story but with minor variations. What did I do this time? I said, "I've been a victim of this trick twice already and am not going to make it three." The man bowed his head a bit and said, "It's a shame that bad people cause good people to become jaded." This was some 20 years ago so I don't recall the words exactly, but that was the gist of it.
So, Barbara, was I wrong to say "no" that third time? Clearly my heart had become hardened over the first two incidents and, yes, I was jaded.
I see now that this person is not a good person. I'm pretty sure there would be retaliation if I warned others in a public manner. This is not somebody who runs in gambling circles so a whisper campaign wouldn't reach the audience that he scams. Also, I see now this person is self destructive and absent another sucker like me coming along will probably soon suffer the consequences of his actions. So, maybe I'll just leave it up to karma, not that I believe in it.
The answer (s).
Someone is in need and approaches you for money.
Offer to call, actually dial 911 as you speak, a public service officer that can come and provide the proper assistance. That is why they are are called public service officers. They can direct an unfortunate soul to established organizations that are always more than happy to help. It's a lovely world in many ways, but it is still the world.
To OneNickel.
Could you PM me your Ex's #?
You say she is attractive and sexy, I'd like to meet her.
If she should happen to wake up in a bathtub, missing a kidney or a large part of her liver, obviously I wouldn't know anything about it.....
Actually, the church does not object to civil divorce, per se. Now if either two parties wishes to re-marry within the church, then there would be need for the annulment.Quote: MrVThe Catholic church still objects if parishoners divorce civilly, as opposed to getting a church-sanctioned annulment, so the notion of honoring wedding vows certainly is not a seventeenth century anachronism.
Quote: MrVThe point I was making is that people routinely make a solemn VOW, or PROMISE, not to divorce, yet at least half ultimately do.
How does that reality mesh with notions of "good" and morality?
How can anyone who ever breaks a solemn vow consider themselves to be a "good" person?
Seems akin to welshing on a bet.
I'm all for keeping your word as a generality but sometimes breaking a promise is the lesser of two evils. Again, my example of a physically abusive husband. I've been to a lot of wedding and never heard an exception for abuse, or anything, in the vows. Nevertheless, I think it is a valid exception.
My opinion is that marriage vows are a ceremonial thing we've been doing for hundreds of years, I assume. Probably contrived by the church. Like the Boy Scout oath, it is something every Scout says but few really try hard to follow.
I certainly am not going to accept somebody preaching about the sanctity of marriage vows unless they've been in the marriage trenches for decades and never faltered.
My second wife ran off with her boss.
My third wife is very uncomplimentary of her current boss.
It could be a trick ,-)
Quote: Wizard
Let me ask you this, do you think a woman should stay true to her vows if the husband is physically abusive?
She could just get that beer to him a little quicker next time (-;
And why do you assume the woman is being abused? I flinch every time my GF moves.
Is it ever alright to leave an abusive spouse?
Quote: WizardI certainly am not going to accept somebody preaching about the sanctity of marriage vows unless they've been in the marriage trenches for decades and never faltered.
I for one am NOT "preaching about the sanctity of marriage vows;" far from it.
I only asked whether people can, with a straight face and clear conscience, still consider themselves to be "good" after breaking a solemn vow.
The vow need not be marital; it could be a promise to quit drinking, or gambling, or whoring: anything not flippant.
Fact is, I earn my daily bread by helping wedding vow breakers achieve their ultimate goal.
Q: "Why is divorce so expensive?"
A: "Because it's worth it."
Quote: MrVI only asked whether people can, with a straight face and clear conscience, still consider themselves to be "good" after breaking a solemn vow.
I took it as a rhetorical question.
Reminds me of a story from another member, I forget who. When he got married and it was his wife's turn to repeat the minister in saying, "For as long as you both shall live," she instead said, "For as long as I can stand it."
Quote: billryanI'll answer with another question.
Is it ever alright to leave an abusive spouse?
Is it ever NOT all right?
Quote: MrVThe Catholic church still objects if parishoners divorce civilly, as opposed to getting a church-sanctioned annulment, so the notion of honoring wedding vows certainly is not a seventeenth century anachronism.
The point I was making is that people routinely make a solemn VOW, or PROMISE, not to divorce, yet at least half ultimately do.
How does that reality mesh with notions of "good" and morality?
How can anyone who ever breaks a solemn vow consider themselves to be a "good" person?
Seems akin to welshing on a bet.
I already explained why that "solemn vow" does not have the force of obligation that you seem to think it does. Aside from anything else, modern society does not stone to death, excommunicate, or burn alive anyone who gets a divorce. You don't even get removed from casino slot clubs.
We haven't heard your views on divorce yet.Quote: GWAEI wonder if this topic will bring AoS out of retirement.
-----------------------------------------
Best question ever.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI already explained why that "solemn vow" does not have the force of obligation that you seem to think it does.
We are not talking about an "obligation."
There is no LEGAL OBLIGATION to stay married if in fact you want out.
Rather, we are talking about something more ephemeral and intangible: morality, i.e. an individual's chosen method of comporting themselves in their dealings with others, their fundamental notion of right and wrong.
I ask again: can a person break a solemn vow and still think of themselves as "good?"
I say "No."
Good people keep their promises.
Oh sure, we are justified in leaving an abusive spouse, but that doesn't change the fact that a solemn vow, a vow without stated conditions, was made at the inception of the marriage.
We sometimes strive for goodness, but in the end our flaws do us in.
Quote: WizardI'm just saying there are legitimate reasons for breaking of marriage vows and sited an example.
You don't want to know what I have seen in divorce records.
I will promise it will lower your faith in humanity to near zero.
Quote: AxelWolfWe haven't heard your views on divorce yet.
-----------------------------------------
Best question ever.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I have always said. I am too lazy to ever get a divorce. Besides she tells me that I am happy.
I plead the 5th on the last part.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe heck with divorce, there's no justification to get married!
++;
The best wedding vows I ever heard were the two hippies who pledged themselves to each other 'for as long as we each shall dig it'.Quote: IbeatyouracesThe heck with divorce, there's no justification to get married!
Heck, let people be happy. If the promise is not exactly literal but more hopeful, so what.
In a casino, the waiting time is three hours before a Nevada license becomes valid.
So, good luck to all... through rice if its allowed, but don't throw rice pudding.
Other than that, mind your own business.
The vow is very important. Some people even take it as sacred. In any case, a marriage (to me) is something to be taken very seriously as a lifelong commitment to be with someone, no matter what cards are thrown at you.
This includes bouts where your spouse goes through drug addiction, illness, cancer, inlaw issues, financial issues, alcoholism, etc. It can be very tough, but I expect my spouse to be there for me as much as I am for her.
I don't accept getting out of a marriage because "you are no longer in love". Work on it. The only reason I would accept getting out of marriage is when the other party clearly doesn't want any part of you, be it through strong infidelity (aka ongoing sexual relations OR intimacy) or abuse. For me, I took a vow. That means for me, an attempt to be as good a husband as possible despite my weaknesses (and there are plenty). I hope my wife has the character to behave the same way towards me (and as far as I know, she has). I don't accept getting out of marriage just because it isn't working out.
Now, of course, there is forgiveness. You can get divorced and still be good despite you violating a vow. Just because I don't pay the Wizard the $50 I owe him doesn't make me a bad person. There are plenty of other good qualities about me. It just means I have weaknesses. Everyone does.
Quote: DeanDivorce is justified if the husband starts beating up his wife. He may KILL her if she doesn't divorce his abusive ass! And it's time to put him in jail for abuse. If the husband starts raping her 12 year old daughter,(his stepdaughter), it's time to divorce his rapist ass and time to put him in jail. If the husband starts having sex with his 23 year old employee, it's time to divorce his cheating ass!
What if he keeps hogging the remote?
What if his ass does it?
Apparently for him it's happiness.Quote: onenickelmiracleDivorce is always justified as long as one side wants one. I know an old man who is still married and has lived in his own apartment by himself for decades. What's the point of that?
Should be "Can those who divorce be considered "good?"
The question is not whether a divorce can ever be justified; of course it can.
No, the question is whether the individual who initiates the divorce can still consider himself / herself to be "good" as they intentionally broke their vow to stay together, "for better or worse, until death do us part."
Really people, if the common consensus is that the vow means nothing in this day and age, then just get rid of it.
Why would you want to spend your entire lifetime with each other, if the relationship simply isn't working out?
There is no good or bad here at all. Even if kids are involved, as long as both parties work hard to remain cordial and put the interests of the children first, divorce can still be a viable option, and probably a far healthier one then involving your children in constant tension, stress and fighting.
Quote: denstarrThere is no good or bad here at all.
Ah, so then it is GOOD to break a promise/vow?
Quote: MrVThe Wiz mislabeled the title of the thread.
Should be "Can those who divorce be considered "good?"
The question is not whether a divorce can ever be justified; of course it can.
No, the question is whether the individual who initiates the divorce can still consider himself / herself to be "good" as they intentionally broke their vow to stay together, "for better or worse, until death do us part."
Really people, if the common consensus is that the vow means nothing in this day and age, then just get rid of it.
It doesn't mean "nothing ". You're kind of living in absolutes on this question, when it's a lot more nuanced than that. You also see folks at.their very worst as a divorce lawyer, and I don't think it's nothing to any of them. I would think at least a small component of their distress is that they are having to break a vow they took in all sincerity. But lots more people, including many of your clients, worked hard to honor their vow long before they came to you.
I know that was true for me. I didn't take that vow until I was 36, I knew we were in trouble within 3 years, but hung in there for 10, trying to fix it, in part because of that vow. It wasn't fixable. I don't think finally admitting it and getting divorced made me a bad person. Or made him one. It just made us real, and honest about our problems.
Quote: MrVThe Wiz mislabeled the title of the thread.
Should be "Can those who divorce be considered "good?"
The question is not whether a divorce can ever be justified; of course it can.
No, the question is whether the individual who initiates the divorce can still consider himself / herself to be "good" as they intentionally broke their vow to stay together, "for better or worse, until death do us part."
Really people, if the common consensus is that the vow means nothing in this day and age, then just get rid of it.
You know, you're beating this topic to death. You asked a rhetorical question and got answers you don't like. Clearly, you have some kind of agenda and an inflexible moral stance. Were you seeking agreement? Validation? Because you probably didn't get it-- but asking people about their opinions and then telling then those opinions are incorrect is not only futile but also kind of obnoxious.
Quote: MrVAh, so then it is GOOD to break a promise/vow?
He just said there was no good or bad involved!!!!! Please don't disrespect people by twisting their words! Really, what on earth are you trying to prove? We largely don't agree with you, and your moral high-handedness is becoming highly irritating. You asked a question . You have been answered. Now, I strongly suggest you put a sock in it.
Quote: Joeshlabotnikyour moral high-handedness is becoming highly irritating. You asked a question . You have been answered. Now, I strongly suggest you put a sock in it.
Pshaw.
Your admonitions have the weight and force of flatulance in a wind storm.
My question was never whether divorce is justified.
I "strongly suggest" you block me if you don't care for what I have to say.
Quote: onenickelmiracleWhat's the point of that?
Maybe they have one income only, thus saving on income taxes.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYou know, you're beating this topic to death. You asked a rhetorical question and got answers you don't like. Clearly, you have some kind of agenda and an inflexible moral stance. Were you seeking agreement? Validation? Because you probably didn't get it-- but asking people about their opinions and then telling then those opinions are incorrect is not only futile but also kind of obnoxious.
Actually, I agree with MrV.
Divorce is "bad". I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It was not the goal of anyone making a marriage vow. If both parties were intent on putting the well being of their spouse first, it would not be a topic of discussion. Instead, "personal happiness" is more important to one or both parties, resulting in a split.
The answer to the question of whether the individuals involved in a divorce are "good" or "bad" depends on the perspective of the one doing the "judging". Many of the responses here support moral relativism, so each position can be right, even if they are in opposition. Personally, I don't believe in moral relativism, and do believe that we are all "bad" to start with, so breaking promises and vows is part of our base nature.
Quote: AyecarumbaActually, I agree with MrV.
Divorce is "bad". I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Really????? You don't think anyone would disagree with that??? REALLY????????
I think that quite a few people would view continuing a marriage where one or both partners are unhappy as far worse. You seem to be painting divorce as a selfish act. In reality, it can be a sensible, even compassionate act.
Why do you pooh-pooh personal happiness as a concept? Isn't that something we are all entitled to strive for?
