Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right. I did not realize that the sanctity of marriage was specific to Catholicism. I was using it in a more general term.
Isn't divorce still a no-no for Catholics? Or has that changed?
From what I can tell, Catholic annulments aren't that difficult to get. I know two people who got them after marriages that lasted for years and produced several children.
Just ask any one of the Kennedy's, that family has racked up plenty of annulments IIRC.
Entire premise of this thread is so bizarre it is beyond belief.
As Scarlett O'Hara Kennedy quipped; "marriage was *fun* for men you mean.
A woman for most of recorded history upon marriage was property that was conveyed from her father/family to a husband. He to the extent possible by laws of man and God was lord and master.
Married women were the unique and exclusive property of their husbands. They could own no property nor dispose of anything they did manage to get without their husband's consent.
Married women had no legal rights to their own children.
Married women could be "corrected" physically within certain limits (i.e. short of causing death).
Married women had no rights to their own body for the law presumed she *MUST* grant her husband access. Summarily a husband could *NOT* be charged with rape either.
Married women couldn't travel without their husband's consent, open bank accounts, charge accounts, etc.... In short they simply legally did not exist aside from being "Mrs, X"
If a married woman fled an abusive spouse she couldn't take her children because they were her husband's property. In France under the Napoleonic Code anyone giving succor to a married woman and her children fleeing could be charged with "custodial interference". Thus a woman was often returned to her husband like a farm animal that had gotten out of the barn. This or husband would use the children to harm his wife mentally. He could send them away to school and order said institution to limit and or prevent *ALL* contact from their mother.
Did all husbands take full advantage of what laws gave them? No, but plenty enough did that married women often found their lives heck on earth. Dolores Claiborne wasn't the first wife to off her husband, a crime by the way which carried harsh penalties, only second to murdering one's father.
Obtaining a divorce was costly and often difficult. Wealthy got divorced all the time; but if you were poor, middle or working class, then things became complicated. Much depended upon local laws.
In any event in Europe and across the USA it began to gradually dawn upon law makers and so forth that keeping persons trapped in "failed" marriages just wasn't working. Like that old song says "I can't make you love me if you don't".
The main sticking point against divorce was what would become of a woman and her children. Courts could award/mandate alimony, property division, and child support all they like; but some men weren't having any of it and simply packed up and vanished.
Governments also began to realize the impact of children being raised in 'unhappy" homes. Children constantly exposed to seeing their mother physically abused, verbal and or physical abuse in the home, drunkenness, open adultery, vice, etc... including the most horrible, abuse (physical and sexual) of the children themselves.
It did not help that wife beating was not taken seriously by local LE until rather recently. It wasn't until about the 1990's at least in the USA where you began to see laws/rules requiring husband or whatever spouse suspected of doing the beating to be taken in regardless of what the injured spouse said.
As the whole gay marriage debate proved the whole "sanctity of marriage" is a farce; foisted upon societies by religion and perhaps governments for various reasons.
You only need a "legal" marriage where there is property and or benefits involved. Indeed for much of recorded history the only persons who legally wed before having children (if at all) were royalty, nobility and anyone else with wealth/assets. The poor simply lived in "sin" until a priest or whomever made the rounds.
Legal marriage and the "sanctity" of it comes into play mainly in elevating one person and any heirs produced as legally above all others in terms of various claims to property and so forth. If you don't have large amounts of assets and or have made other arrangements you really don't need to be legally married.
There is no such thing as an easy divorce for those who are following Gods word.
The problem today is we have few who follow his word and many who revel in breaking it.
I am an atheist and my wife believes in God. We have been married for 48 years. Marriage is about honesty and mutual respect. I see and listen to 'kids' that think, when they get married, that it will be one big orgy and play time for the rest of their lives - it doesn't work like that! There will be good days and bad days and you have to say to yourself that you are now a team - you will be 'lucky' if you can get your own way half of the time!
By the way, on the previous post that mentioned changing attitudes in America: In the 1950's my grandparents owned a hotel/bar. I would run into the bar to grab a soda, pickled egg or hot sausage and play the pinball machines (no video games back then). What I found disturbing at that time was that married couples would sometimes come into the bar and the woman would have a black eye. The other patrons would ask the husband: What has she done this time! So, yes, attitudes have changed here in America. On the other hand we are inviting some immigrants into our Country that do not believe in woman rights; so the pendulum could swing back in the other direction.
When it comes to religion and marriage; has anybody followed Leah Remini's interview on Scientology? To me religion should never be an excuse to abuse anybody or to restrain them against their will. That should be illegal and enforced.
I am an atheist and my wife believes in God. We have been married for 48 years. Marriage is about honesty and mutual respect. I see and listen to 'kids' that think, when they get married, that it will be one big orgy and play time for the rest of their lives - it doesn't work like that! There will be good days and bad days and you have to say to yourself that you are now a team - you will be 'lucky' if you can get your own way half of the time!
By the way, on the previous post that mentioned changing attitudes in America: In the 1950's my grandparents owned a hotel/bar. I would run into the bar to grab a soda, pickled egg or hot sausage and play the pinball machines (no video games back then). What I found disturbing at that time was that married couples would sometimes come into the bar and the woman would have a black eye. The other patrons would ask the husband: What has she done this time! So, yes, attitudes have changed here in America. On the other hand we are inviting some immigrants into our Country that do not believe in woman rights; so the pendulum could swing back in the other direction.
When it comes to religion and marriage; has anybody followed Leah Remini's interview on Scientology? To me religion should never be an excuse to abuse anybody or to restrain them against their will. That should be illegal and enforced.
Nothing forces the women to stay and be abused. It just does not allow for the divorce and marriage of another (ie sexual actions with another as this would be adultery).
Marriage is a very big commitment and should not be taken lightly. I think that is why Paul spoke that it should be avoided if one has the ability to abstain.
Entire premise of this thread is so bizarre it is beyond belief.
As Scarlett O'Hara Kennedy quipped; "marriage was *fun* for men you mean.
A woman for most of recorded history upon marriage was property that was conveyed from her father/family to a husband. He to the extent possible by laws of man and God was lord and master.
Married women were the unique and exclusive property of their husbands. They could own no property nor dispose of anything they did manage to get without their husband's consent.
Married women had no legal rights to their own children.
Married women could be "corrected" physically within certain limits (i.e. short of causing death).
Married women had no rights to their own body for the law presumed she *MUST* grant her husband access. Summarily a husband could *NOT* be charged with rape either.
Married women couldn't travel without their husband's consent, open bank accounts, charge accounts, etc.... In short they simply legally did not exist aside from being "Mrs, X"
If a married woman fled an abusive spouse she couldn't take her children because they were her husband's property. In France under the Napoleonic Code anyone giving succor to a married woman and her children fleeing could be charged with "custodial interference". Thus a woman was often returned to her husband like a farm animal that had gotten out of the barn. This or husband would use the children to harm his wife mentally. He could send them away to school and order said institution to limit and or prevent *ALL* contact from their mother.
Did all husbands take full advantage of what laws gave them? No, but plenty enough did that married women often found their lives heck on earth. Dolores Claiborne wasn't the first wife to off her husband, a crime by the way which carried harsh penalties, only second to murdering one's father.
Obtaining a divorce was costly and often difficult. Wealthy got divorced all the time; but if you were poor, middle or working class, then things became complicated. Much depended upon local laws.
In any event in Europe and across the USA it began to gradually dawn upon law makers and so forth that keeping persons trapped in "failed" marriages just wasn't working. Like that old song says "I can't make you love me if you don't".
The main sticking point against divorce was what would become of a woman and her children. Courts could award/mandate alimony, property division, and child support all they like; but some men weren't having any of it and simply packed up and vanished.
Governments also began to realize the impact of children being raised in 'unhappy" homes. Children constantly exposed to seeing their mother physically abused, verbal and or physical abuse in the home, drunkenness, open adultery, vice, etc... including the most horrible, abuse (physical and sexual) of the children themselves.
It did not help that wife beating was not taken seriously by local LE until rather recently. It wasn't until about the 1990's at least in the USA where you began to see laws/rules requiring husband or whatever spouse suspected of doing the beating to be taken in regardless of what the injured spouse said.
As the whole gay marriage debate proved the whole "sanctity of marriage" is a farce; foisted upon societies by religion and perhaps governments for various reasons.
You only need a "legal" marriage where there is property and or benefits involved. Indeed for much of recorded history the only persons who legally wed before having children (if at all) were royalty, nobility and anyone else with wealth/assets. The poor simply lived in "sin" until a priest or whomever made the rounds.
Legal marriage and the "sanctity" of it comes into play mainly in elevating one person and any heirs produced as legally above all others in terms of various claims to property and so forth. If you don't have large amounts of assets and or have made other arrangements you really don't need to be legally married.
Great summary.
Lot has changed over the last 100 years. When my mother was born, women in the U.S. did not have the right to vote. When I was a young adult, women couldn't open a bank account or get a mortgage without a male co-signer. Jobs were listed in the paper by sex. There were a lot of jobs that women couldn't even apply for.
"Sanctity of marriage" applied to women. Not so much to men.
As to divorces, that was more of an upper class thing. Ordinary people just moved on from unhappy marriages. I had great aunt who was widowed with three young children before she was eighteen. She married at least half a dozen times after that. No record of any divorces.
As to domestic abuse, when I grew up it was not uncommon to see women with black eyes, split lips, broken arms... One neighbor had her jaw broken and her front teeth knocked out. No one did a thing.
It was not that long ago that police would even arrest an abusive spouse. Until then, the victim would have to sign a complaint to have them even taken away. This was a fool's move as men would soon be back and mad as hell.
Sanctity of marriage (not Catholic, but in general) meant that women had to put up with whatever men dished out.
Even now, it can be dangerous for a woman to leave a marriage. It is not unusual to read stories in the paper about women who are shot and killed by distraught, soon-to-be ex-husbands. Happened a few blocks away over the holidays. Woman was coming out of her parents' home and her estranged husband shot and killed her. It's why Women's Shelters have gates, security guards, and secret locations.
Kennedy carried on liaisons more less openly. Was there anybody who didn't know about Marilyn Monroe? No one even suggested Jackie Kennedy leave him.
A few decades later, Clinton suffered considerable public embarrassment over a blow job. In the lead up to the election, I can't tell you how many posts I read on this very forum about how Hillary betrayed her "supposed feminist" sensibilities by not leaving Bill because of this.
The only time I've heard men talk about sanctity of marriage was when they were stunned to find themselves paying child support and seeing their kids every other weekend.
The sanctity of marriage hasn't changed, the respect for one another has. Cheating, spousal abuse, alcoholism, drugs, lack of employment, etc. are some of the reasons people divorce. Divorce should be easy instead of the way it used to be years ago when consent was needed. Why should someone live in an abusive situation with no way out?
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Gay marriage does not destroy families. Divorce does.
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Gay marriage does not destroy families. Divorce does.
NO! destroyed marriage comes from - infidelity- cruelness and stupid expectations 2nd from lack of training-- men used to talk to the men and women to the younger women- specially at church- no one goes any more-- there is NO leadership you can trust and #3 ECONOMICS,,,, you inflated the costs so much, that women had to go to work- the keeper of the nest is no longer at home-- greedy corporations did that when i was 12- and have no stopped - when they OBAMACARE came -they cut all full time jobs to part time-- now moms have to got to 2/3 jobs to feed the kids not rear them - and i worked P/T time- at HDepot when that happened- and people were crying--they slashed hours one week to the next- - but HD had a big whoop to do- for having the HIGHEST profits on record that year -
greedy men in corps are evil and much decay of the family is owed to them
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2nd from lack of training-- men used to talk to the men and women to the younger women- specially at church- no one goes any more-- there is NO leadership you can trust and #3 ECONOMICS,,,, you inflated the costs so much, that women had to go to work- the keeper of the nest is no longer at home-- greedy corporations did that when i was 12- and have no stopped - when they OBAMACARE came -they cut all full time jobs to part time-- now moms have to got to 2/3 jobs to feed the kids not rear them - and i worked P/T time- at HDepot when that happened- and people were crying--they slashed hours one week to the next- - but HD had a big whoop to do- for having the HIGHEST profits on record that year - 
