Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Higher divorce rates of today

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 2:18:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I've seen many conservative people complain over how the divorce rates are higher in these days, and how it was better in the past because they were much lower by then. I personally am looking at this in another way. I'm saying, even though they were much lower in the past, was it really better by then? A time where of legal marital rape and legal domestic violence?

Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".

So the way I'm seeing it in, is that people aren't more inclined to infidelity today than before. They are not brainwashed by some "liberal agenda" or anything. They are pretty much only divorcing in a higher extent because they can, when they need to. I can't really wrap my head around the thought of how it would be better for couples tired of each other to try to stick together despite absolutely nothing in common. Still however, we are seeing 60 year old couples who grown sick of each other stick together because they have children, grandchildren and mortgages in common. And that's very nice to do, but if they have an opinion to live their last 30 years happy and free, or their 30 last year together depressed together with someone they don't connect with at all anymore, naturally they shouldn't be forced by norms to do the latter one.

Sometimes, it feels like people condemn divorces only because they are afraid of their partners leaving them, and thus call for reforms only to make it harder for them to leave their marriage. This might be just prejudicious of me however.

What do you think of this topic? Discuss.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:26:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Are we discussing legal marriage or something like holy matrimony?

If your marriage is just a legal agreement, then who cares?

If there's kids involved, or you had wedding vows, you are obligated, hitched by the promises you've made in the face of God, or whatever witness was present in your marriage, including your spouse. Its wrong to go back on whatever promises you've made, and since your married its wrong to go against the terms you agreed to live with till death do you part. Her promises are now your problem, and in a sense, your promises.

I'm not married and for good reason. I take it very seriously. If I ever get married, she will be the one, and I'll accept and support her for better or for worse. Chips are all in. If she makes my life miserable, then so be it, but I won't go back on my word. If I promise the woman I love to do anything, I sure as hell get it done.

As for views on divorce of a "genuine" marriage. I generally consider it a disgrace in my head, but I keep my mouth shut because who am I to judge them without full knowledge of their circumstances an no knowledge of what lies in their hearts? I'm not sure why its becoming so common these days. I guess there is less honor and weight in our word, or maybe holy matrimony has become less common. Does anyone have any info on the subject?

I'm perfectly fine with people not committing to each other, but if they say "for better or for worse" in conjunction with "till death do us part" followed by "I do"......Sorry, I don't care how much she changes. You're hitched by your honor. Love bites.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
sapere_aude
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
We have one life to live. Do we really want to be unhappy, or drag down by a bad marriage just because me made a promise? Especially if their is likely no god that we promised to just each other. Not every marriage can be fixed. Of course they shouldn't give up at the first sign of trouble but if your time had come to move on than people should do that.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:23:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I'm not a conservative, but I generally side with them in this debate, so I'll have a go at responding.

At 3/20/2016 2:18:19 PM, Jovian wrote:
I've seen many conservative people complain over how the divorce rates are higher in these days, and how it was better in the past because they were much lower by then. I personally am looking at this in another way. I'm saying, even though they were much lower in the past, was it really better by then? A time where of legal marital rape and legal domestic violence?
Some aspects of marriage have improved, the reduction in domestic violence being an important improvement, while others aspects have deteriorated. I do think divorce is justified when the husband is incorrigibly violent and abusive. However, the accessibility of divorce has been exploited not only by victims of domestic abuse, but also by couples who engage in 'lightning marriages' and 'lightning divorces' (that's the way we call them in the Chinese world). Many young people these days are no longer seeing marriage as a lifelong commitment, and divorce at their whim with excuses like 'incompatibility'. Is that not absurd?
Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".
Yes, but I'm not sure how desensitisation to divorce is a good thing. Do we really want a society like contemporary France, where half of marriages end in divorce and stepchildren are routinely ignored and hated by their new families?
So the way I'm seeing it in, is that people aren't more inclined to infidelity today than before. They are not brainwashed by some "liberal agenda" or anything. They are pretty much only divorcing in a higher extent because they can, when they need to.
I agree, they aren't brainwashed by some liberal agenda. That's just conservative propaganda. The fact remains that the culture surrounding dating and marriage has been deteriorating fast, and it's contributing to moral decadence. In the old pre-War days, the generation that gave birth to the baby boomers, marriage was a responsibility, a commitment to continue your family line and nurture the humans of tomorrow. Two generations later, what has become of marriage now? Nothing more than a symbol of the absurd, inane concept labelled as 'romantic love'. You date someone if you have 'feelings' for her, and dump her the day you lose those feelings. I don't know about the Netherlands, but this sort of attitude has become increasingly prevalent here, and it's sickening.
I can't really wrap my head around the thought of how it would be better for couples tired of each other to try to stick together despite absolutely nothing in common. Still however, we are seeing 60 year old couples who grown sick of each other stick together because they have children, grandchildren and mortgages in common. And that's very nice to do, but if they have an opinion to live their last 30 years happy and free, or their 30 last year together depressed together with someone they don't connect with at all anymore, naturally they shouldn't be forced by norms to do the latter one.
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'. Once you have children - actually, once you're married - you're family, and family does not simply abandon each other.
Sometimes, it feels like people condemn divorces only because they are afraid of their partners leaving them, and thus call for reforms only to make it harder for them to leave their marriage. This might be just prejudicious of me however.
Lol, certainly not in my case.
What do you think of this topic? Discuss.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:30:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:57:35 PM, sapere_aude wrote:
We have one life to live. Do we really want to be unhappy, or drag down by a bad marriage just because me made a promise? Especially if their is likely no god that we promised to just each other. Not every marriage can be fixed. Of course they shouldn't give up at the first sign of trouble but if your time had come to move on than people should do that.

I don't think we should get to far off the core subject of why people view marriage differently now, but for insight....

If you truly believe that then would you ever go through with the typical love story wedding vows, or would you just get married? You don't have to have a God to know how wrong it is take back your word, and a witness is generally required so you can't claim you didn't say what you said.

For me, I'm basically giving my life to her. Its the greatest gift I can give her because my love demands the best I can offer. If I'm not willing to do that, then I simply won't get married. That's just my romantic view on the subject. Some people probably just do it for the benefits, but if I'm not all in then I'll just keep dating. If I am, then I'll officially state that I am. My marriage is on level with God. He is not above it. He is just a witness like anyone else. God is not part of my decision to marry, so I don't think its right to say that religious people marry out of biblical context.

Intentionally making each other miserable is also a disgrace according to most wedding vows. Its just considered even less of the outsiders business then the state of being married/divorced itself, which is why I think its less frowned upon. Holy matrimony isn't just being with her for most people. Its loving and supporting her, for the rest of their/your life. That includes holding hope, and making the conscious effort to maintain your love, and rekindle if necessary. If you promise to do so, then you are obligated not to give up. That's why their called vows.

The idea that either one of the parties can give up on the other defeats the ideals of marriage. You both take the vows, you both keep them, and you both MAKE it work or die trying. Without honor, and honesty obviously the system collapses on itself if luck and good fortune doesn't intervene. Marriage is beyond riding love. Once your married (not legally), you need to ensure it to the best of your ability.

Anyway, that's the basic idea without getting into complications too much. Bottom line, if one person fails the marriage to the point of divorce, whether official or not, the marriage is a disgrace if it was held in Holy matrimony, but in the case of an official divorce we can plainly see that they've both completely given up, so we can condemn them with some level of confidence if that's your thing.

Now lets discuss why that is fading. Was there never much idealism to begin with? Maybe people just had a fear of divorce in older society for some reason that is no longer prevalent.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:25:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:23:28 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I'm not a conservative, but I generally side with them in this debate, so I'll have a go at responding.

At 3/20/2016 2:18:19 PM, Jovian wrote:
I've seen many conservative people complain over how the divorce rates are higher in these days, and how it was better in the past because they were much lower by then. I personally am looking at this in another way. I'm saying, even though they were much lower in the past, was it really better by then? A time where of legal marital rape and legal domestic violence?
Some aspects of marriage have improved, the reduction in domestic violence being an important improvement, while others aspects have deteriorated. I do think divorce is justified when the husband is incorrigibly violent and abusive. However, the accessibility of divorce has been exploited not only by victims of domestic abuse, but also by couples who engage in 'lightning marriages' and 'lightning divorces' (that's the way we call them in the Chinese world). Many young people these days are no longer seeing marriage as a lifelong commitment, and divorce at their whim with excuses like 'incompatibility'. Is that not absurd?

In my country, most people marry at the age of like 30-35. Before that, they tend to have had some relationships and even one night stands. If they have had those before, and grown until the age of 35, then they tend to know when they have met the right one.

In many conservative places although, marrying is often done as early in the age of 18-20. Exactly how mature are you at that age? At least how I'm seeing it, people change quite much when they're 20-25, and thus, here you can talk about marrying on a whim.

Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".
Yes, but I'm not sure how desensitisation to divorce is a good thing.

What would the option be, really? Shaming people for having got new experience and discovered their choice of marrying partner maybe wasn't the best one? Maybe this is a false dichotomy, but you have to elaborate.

Do we really want a society like contemporary France, where half of marriages end in divorce and stepchildren are routinely ignored and hated by their new families?

Divorces per se aren't causing that. It must had been wrong with the new family in the first place if this happened.

So the way I'm seeing it in, is that people aren't more inclined to infidelity today than before. They are not brainwashed by some "liberal agenda" or anything. They are pretty much only divorcing in a higher extent because they can, when they need to.
I agree, they aren't brainwashed by some liberal agenda. That's just conservative propaganda. The fact remains that the culture surrounding dating and marriage has been deteriorating fast, and it's contributing to moral decadence. In the old pre-War days, the generation that gave birth to the baby boomers, marriage was a responsibility, a commitment to continue your family line and nurture the humans of tomorrow. Two generations later, what has become of marriage now? Nothing more than a symbol of the absurd, inane concept labelled as 'romantic love'. You date someone if you have 'feelings' for her, and dump her the day you lose those feelings.

The only option to what you just described, is only having to choose one partner your entire life, instead of people experimenting, finding out what they truly would want in their future husband/wife etc. Some conservatives would call that experimenting as "denigrating someone", but that is only the case if they are not consenting. And what is "denigrating" to people is also so subjective.

I don't know about the Netherlands,

Virtually all northern European countries are the epitome of what conservatists hate, with some local exceptions.

but this sort of attitude has become increasingly prevalent here, and it's sickening.

So what? Why is it that important what others do? You are 100% allowed to be conservative in this, and it's not like your country hasn't been depleted of women with your conservative values too. We live in a time where you could find closeminded dates within 10 minutes on a dating site.

I can't really wrap my head around the thought of how it would be better for couples tired of each other to try to stick together despite absolutely nothing in common. Still however, we are seeing 60 year old couples who grown sick of each other stick together because they have children, grandchildren and mortgages in common. And that's very nice to do, but if they have an opinion to live their last 30 years happy and free, or their 30 last year together depressed together with someone they don't connect with at all anymore, naturally they shouldn't be forced by norms to do the latter one.
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

False analogy since your child is dependent of you, or at least optimally you, whereas your wife is an independent adult.

Once you have children - actually, once you're married - you're family, and family does not simply abandon each other.

Yes, and it's either not like people here in the liberal belt of the world are thinking "Hey I had a slight thought of how bad this marriage with 3 children is, so I'm divorcing. Ciao!". They do try to see it in all perspectives, they go to family counselors, they think of what is best for children, but sometimes it just doesn't work.

Sometimes, it feels like people condemn divorces only because they are afraid of their partners leaving them, and thus call for reforms only to make it harder for them to leave their marriage. This might be just prejudicious of me however.
Lol, certainly not in my case.
What do you think of this topic? Discuss.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 9:45:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:57:35 PM, sapere_aude wrote:
We have one life to live. Do we really want to be unhappy, or drag down by a bad marriage just because me made a promise? Especially if their is likely no god that we promised to just each other. Not every marriage can be fixed. Of course they shouldn't give up at the first sign of trouble but if your time had come to move on than people should do that.

I agree that we shouldn't allow social conventions to shape our lives to the extent that we are stuck in unhappy situations.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 9:46:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Haven't read it, but here's an article on the social judgement surrounding divorce and how it makes life harder for divorcees.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I haven't been able to research well enough yet, but I bet one of the heavy contributors to divorce rates was women seriously entering the workforce because of WWII, and then climbing up the latter over the years and expanding their financial stability as a population.

The less woman who stay at home, the more women willing to leave that home? It would make sense that the stability of marriage is a larger asset to a stay at home wife with few career opportunities.

We also have other things to weigh in like this.
http://nationalaffairs.com...

Here's a good quote from the article
"But the psychological revolution's focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth changed all that. Increasingly, marriage was seen as a vehicle for a self-oriented ethic of romance, intimacy, and fulfillment. In this new psychological approach to married life, one's primary obligation was not to one's family but to one's self; hence, marital success was defined not by successfully meeting obligations to one's spouse and children but by a strong sense of subjective happiness in marriage " usually to be found in and through an intense, emotional relationship with one's spouse. The 1970s marked the period when, for many Americans, a more institutional model of marriage gave way to the "soul-mate model" of marriage."

This coincides pretty well with my previous posts. Old school marriage generally has a larger sense of being committed to the people within your marriage, while the semi-committed marriage based on continued happiness is becoming more the norm.

If multiple generations of people have held the view that the marriage is primarily about one's self which is the current trend to my perception, and not as much about the marriage itself, we can see how it would become more acceptable over the years.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:59:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Here is a really good sight with easy to read graphs of marriage/divorce rates since the 1800's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

According the graphs, rates were rising all through the 1900's, but WWII acts like a primer. After World War two we can see marriage and divorce rates having almost a direct relationship, where before world war 2 we can see that their obviously related, but more vaguely, indicating that their were stronger forces against divorce, just as you would expect. We can see pretty clearly that the Baby Boomers, and therefore their parents, definitely had some serious influence on the initial rise in divorce rates we see today.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 5:04:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 4:59:36 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Here is a really good sight with easy to read graphs of marriage/divorce rates since the 1800's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

According the graphs, rates were rising all through the 1900's, but WWII acts like a primer. After World War two we can see marriage and divorce rates having almost a direct relationship, where before world war 2 we can see that their obviously related, but more vaguely, indicating that their were stronger forces against divorce, just as you would expect. We can see pretty clearly that the Baby Boomers, and therefore their parents, definitely had some serious influence on the initial rise in divorce rates we see today.

It has a lot to do with overall liberation and independence. Marriage now is just a viable alternative, and not necessarily a need.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 6:24:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:25:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
In my country, most people marry at the age of like 30-35. Before that, they tend to have had some relationships and even one night stands. If they have had those before, and grown until the age of 35, then they tend to know when they have met the right one.

In many conservative places although, marrying is often done as early in the age of 18-20. Exactly how mature are you at that age? At least how I'm seeing it, people change quite much when they're 20-25, and thus, here you can talk about marrying on a whim.
Like I said, I'm not a conservative. I fully agree that people shouldn't marry before they're 25 (if it's not an arranged marriage). It takes some time after college to settle down at work and stuff, so a hasty marriage will not work out well. (N.B. Most people where I live marry late because it's so hard to afford a marriage.)

I don't think you understand the point I was making... I'm not complaining about people having multiple dates until they meet the right partner. That's not a bad thing. I'm saying that some people are not dating with marriage in mind. They're dating merely to show off, to feel good about achieving 'romance', or to have sex. (One-night stands would belong to the last category, for example.) That's a terrible attitude towards love and relationships.
Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".
Yes, but I'm not sure how desensitisation to divorce is a good thing.

What would the option be, really? Shaming people for having got new experience and discovered their choice of marrying partner maybe wasn't the best one? Maybe this is a false dichotomy, but you have to elaborate.
If they get divorced just because the marriage 'wasn't the best one', it seems to show that their marriage was not well thought out in the first place. So yes, I think social stigma attached to divorce is necessary to some extent, in order to motivate people to think everything through before they marry.
Do we really want a society like contemporary France, where half of marriages end in divorce and stepchildren are routinely ignored and hated by their new families?

Divorces per se aren't causing that. It must had been wrong with the new family in the first place if this happened.
But the problem would be much less serious if there were fewer divorces in the first place.

The only option to what you just described, is only having to choose one partner your entire life, instead of people experimenting, finding out what they truly would want in their future husband/wife etc. Some conservatives would call that experimenting as "denigrating someone", but that is only the case if they are not consenting. And what is "denigrating" to people is also so subjective.
Like I said, I don't condemn experimenting before marriage. I condemn people's attitudes towards love, which is much less about marriage and children than before, and more about sex, 'romance' (which is probably no more than a few chemicals getting worked up in your body) and whatnot. This is the attitude that encourages people to get in relationships and even marriages without ample consideration. Look at the high school students of today and you'll know what I mean - people are dating before they even have steady incomes.
I don't know about the Netherlands,

Virtually all northern European countries are the epitome of what conservatists hate, with some local exceptions.
Haha, okay. lol
but this sort of attitude has become increasingly prevalent here, and it's sickening.

So what? Why is it that important what others do? You are 100% allowed to be conservative in this, and it's not like your country hasn't been depleted of women with your conservative values too. We live in a time where you could find closeminded dates within 10 minutes on a dating site.
I'm concerned about society. Why wouldn't I? I'm concerned about problems like poverty or environmental damage even if I'm not affected by them. Why shouldn't I be concerned about cultural degradation as well?
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

False analogy since your child is dependent of you, or at least optimally you, whereas your wife is an independent adult.
Okay, I admit it, but the point I'm making is that family shouldn't abandon each other.
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

Yes, and it's either not like people here in the liberal belt of the world are thinking "Hey I had a slight thought of how bad this marriage with 3 children is, so I'm divorcing. Ciao!". They do try to see it in all perspectives, they go to family counselors, they think of what is best for children, but sometimes it just doesn't work.
But why do they feel that the marriage 'just doesn't work'? Aren't such situations preventable? Probably they didn't plan everything through before marrying, because one party had an affair (no doubt a consequence of increasing liberalism), or because they're arguing on some matter that gets both sides angry. Aren't these avoidable?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 7:05:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:24:42 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:25:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
In my country, most people marry at the age of like 30-35. Before that, they tend to have had some relationships and even one night stands. If they have had those before, and grown until the age of 35, then they tend to know when they have met the right one.

In many conservative places although, marrying is often done as early in the age of 18-20. Exactly how mature are you at that age? At least how I'm seeing it, people change quite much when they're 20-25, and thus, here you can talk about marrying on a whim.
Like I said, I'm not a conservative. I fully agree that people shouldn't marry before they're 25 (if it's not an arranged marriage). It takes some time after college to settle down at work and stuff, so a hasty marriage will not work out well. (N.B. Most people where I live marry late because it's so hard to afford a marriage.)

I don't think you understand the point I was making... I'm not complaining about people having multiple dates until they meet the right partner. That's not a bad thing. I'm saying that some people are not dating with marriage in mind. They're dating merely to show off, to feel good about achieving 'romance', or to have sex. (One-night stands would belong to the last category, for example.) That's a terrible attitude towards love and relationships.
Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".
Yes, but I'm not sure how desensitisation to divorce is a good thing.

What would the option be, really? Shaming people for having got new experience and discovered their choice of marrying partner maybe wasn't the best one? Maybe this is a false dichotomy, but you have to elaborate.
If they get divorced just because the marriage 'wasn't the best one', it seems to show that their marriage was not well thought out in the first place. So yes, I think social stigma attached to divorce is necessary to some extent, in order to motivate people to think everything through before they marry.
Do we really want a society like contemporary France, where half of marriages end in divorce and stepchildren are routinely ignored and hated by their new families?

Divorces per se aren't causing that. It must had been wrong with the new family in the first place if this happened.
But the problem would be much less serious if there were fewer divorces in the first place.

The only option to what you just described, is only having to choose one partner your entire life, instead of people experimenting, finding out what they truly would want in their future husband/wife etc. Some conservatives would call that experimenting as "denigrating someone", but that is only the case if they are not consenting. And what is "denigrating" to people is also so subjective.
Like I said, I don't condemn experimenting before marriage. I condemn people's attitudes towards love, which is much less about marriage and children than before, and more about sex, 'romance' (which is probably no more than a few chemicals getting worked up in your body) and whatnot. This is the attitude that encourages people to get in relationships and even marriages without ample consideration. Look at the high school students of today and you'll know what I mean - people are dating before they even have steady incomes.
I don't know about the Netherlands,

Virtually all northern European countries are the epitome of what conservatists hate, with some local exceptions.
Haha, okay. lol
but this sort of attitude has become increasingly prevalent here, and it's sickening.

So what? Why is it that important what others do? You are 100% allowed to be conservative in this, and it's not like your country hasn't been depleted of women with your conservative values too. We live in a time where you could find closeminded dates within 10 minutes on a dating site.
I'm concerned about society. Why wouldn't I? I'm concerned about problems like poverty or environmental damage even if I'm not affected by them. Why shouldn't I be concerned about cultural degradation as well?
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

False analogy since your child is dependent of you, or at least optimally you, whereas your wife is an independent adult.
Okay, I admit it, but the point I'm making is that family shouldn't abandon each other.
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

Yes, and it's either not like people here in the liberal belt of the world are thinking "Hey I had a slight thought of how bad this marriage with 3 children is, so I'm divorcing. Ciao!". They do try to see it in all perspectives, they go to family counselors, they think of what is best for children, but sometimes it just doesn't work.
But why do they feel that the marriage 'just doesn't work'? Aren't such situations preventable? Probably they didn't plan everything through before marrying, because one party had an affair (no doubt a consequence of increasing liberalism), or because they're arguing on some matter that gets both sides angry. Aren't these avoidable?

Marriage does work. But many humans fail to recognize their twin flame, or soulmate. The person they were ordained to be with since birth. Simple.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 7:30:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 5:04:30 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:59:36 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Here is a really good sight with easy to read graphs of marriage/divorce rates since the 1800's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

According the graphs, rates were rising all through the 1900's, but WWII acts like a primer. After World War two we can see marriage and divorce rates having almost a direct relationship, where before world war 2 we can see that their obviously related, but more vaguely, indicating that their were stronger forces against divorce, just as you would expect. We can see pretty clearly that the Baby Boomers, and therefore their parents, definitely had some serious influence on the initial rise in divorce rates we see today.

It has a lot to do with overall liberation and independence. Marriage now is just a viable alternative, and not necessarily a need.

What time period would you consider marriage to be a need and why?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 7:49:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 7:30:55 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/21/2016 5:04:30 PM, inferno wrote:
At 3/21/2016 4:59:36 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
Here is a really good sight with easy to read graphs of marriage/divorce rates since the 1800's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

According the graphs, rates were rising all through the 1900's, but WWII acts like a primer. After World War two we can see marriage and divorce rates having almost a direct relationship, where before world war 2 we can see that their obviously related, but more vaguely, indicating that their were stronger forces against divorce, just as you would expect. We can see pretty clearly that the Baby Boomers, and therefore their parents, definitely had some serious influence on the initial rise in divorce rates we see today.

It has a lot to do with overall liberation and independence. Marriage now is just a viable alternative, and not necessarily a need.

What time period would you consider marriage to be a need and why?

Before the Industrial Revolution. Around the Antebellum Victorian era.
This was a time in history where Women were considered to be second class citizens, and played a much more submissive subservient role than they do now. At around about the 1950s at the dawn of the sexual revolution, Women started becoming more educated. They joined the military. They were on the big screen and had a rise in politics, religion, and government. The feminist movement of the 1970s perhaps was the deal breaker. Women felt like they could have a normal life without living underneath a Man. This is turn made them also adopt the idea of casual relationships n childbearing years. This single mother concept is no longer an old maid idea. Things have changed, and so has marriage.

What do you think.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 10:45:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 2:18:19 PM, Jovian wrote:
I've seen many conservative people complain over how the divorce rates are higher in these days, and how it was better in the past because they were much lower by then. I personally am looking at this in another way. I'm saying, even though they were much lower in the past, was it really better by then? A time where of legal marital rape and legal domestic violence?

Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".

So the way I'm seeing it in, is that people aren't more inclined to infidelity today than before. They are not brainwashed by some "liberal agenda" or anything. They are pretty much only divorcing in a higher extent because they can, when they need to. I can't really wrap my head around the thought of how it would be better for couples tired of each other to try to stick together despite absolutely nothing in common. Still however, we are seeing 60 year old couples who grown sick of each other stick together because they have children, grandchildren and mortgages in common. And that's very nice to do, but if they have an opinion to live their last 30 years happy and free, or their 30 last year together depressed together with someone they don't connect with at all anymore, naturally they shouldn't be forced by norms to do the latter one.

Sometimes, it feels like people condemn divorces only because they are afraid of their partners leaving them, and thus call for reforms only to make it harder for them to leave their marriage. This might be just prejudicious of me however.

I think people are a little more selfish than we used to be. We get married for all the wrong reasons and divorce as soon as things really start to get tough. People assume marrige comes with "no assembly necessary". Just say I DO and live in everlasting bliss. We are not willing to be vulnerable, wrong and exposed. Marrige truly us a battle. Now or days people dnt want to fight they just want to win.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 5:11:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.

The message that you replied is self-explanatory.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 5:16:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 5:11:00 AM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.

The message that you replied is self-explanatory.

You said you don't know, but you didn't explain why.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 12:18:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 5:16:43 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/24/2016 5:11:00 AM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.

The message that you replied is self-explanatory.

You said you don't know, but you didn't explain why.

Because I don't know. What do I need to explain?
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 12:18:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/24/2016 5:16:43 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/24/2016 5:11:00 AM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.

The message that you replied is self-explanatory.

You said you don't know, but you didn't explain why.

Because I don't know. What do I need to explain?

Why do you think that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
XLAV
Posts: 13,715
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:12:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:33:41 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/24/2016 12:18:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/24/2016 5:16:43 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/24/2016 5:11:00 AM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/21/2016 3:32:58 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 3:59:13 PM, CodingSource wrote:
I don't really know if divorce is truly moral.

Explain.

The message that you replied is self-explanatory.

You said you don't know, but you didn't explain why.

Because I don't know. What do I need to explain?

Why do you think that.

He's from the Philippines, thats why.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 1:14:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/22/2016 6:24:42 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:25:15 PM, Jovian wrote:
In my country, most people marry at the age of like 30-35. Before that, they tend to have had some relationships and even one night stands. If they have had those before, and grown until the age of 35, then they tend to know when they have met the right one.

In many conservative places although, marrying is often done as early in the age of 18-20. Exactly how mature are you at that age? At least how I'm seeing it, people change quite much when they're 20-25, and thus, here you can talk about marrying on a whim.
Like I said, I'm not a conservative. I fully agree that people shouldn't marry before they're 25 (if it's not an arranged marriage). It takes some time after college to settle down at work and stuff, so a hasty marriage will not work out well. (N.B. Most people where I live marry late because it's so hard to afford a marriage.)

I don't think you understand the point I was making... I'm not complaining about people having multiple dates until they meet the right partner. That's not a bad thing. I'm saying that some people are not dating with marriage in mind. They're dating merely to show off, to feel good about achieving 'romance', or to have sex. (One-night stands would belong to the last category, for example.) That's a terrible attitude towards love and relationships.

It is terrible if you're doing it against someone who believes he or she will have a serious relationship with you. Not with a consensual one though. You don't have any obligation whatsoever to have a serious relationship nor marriage.

Another thing which could explain the low divorce rates by that time is that someone doing divorce at that time probably would become a pariah of his/her society. Whereas you today are being encountered with "sad that it didn't work, but hey, that's life".
Yes, but I'm not sure how desensitisation to divorce is a good thing.

What would the option be, really? Shaming people for having got new experience and discovered their choice of marrying partner maybe wasn't the best one? Maybe this is a false dichotomy, but you have to elaborate.
If they get divorced just because the marriage 'wasn't the best one', it seems to show that their marriage was not well thought out in the first place. So yes, I think social stigma attached to divorce is necessary to some extent, in order to motivate people to think everything through before they marry.

You are talking as it is impossible for people to ever change after their 25th birthday. People change all the time. Some people turn homosexual in their 60s for example.

Do we really want a society like contemporary France, where half of marriages end in divorce and stepchildren are routinely ignored and hated by their new families?

Divorces per se aren't causing that. It must had been wrong with the new family in the first place if this happened.
But the problem would be much less serious if there were fewer divorces in the first place.
The only option to what you just described, is only having to choose one partner your entire life, instead of people experimenting, finding out what they truly would want in their future husband/wife etc. Some conservatives would call that experimenting as "denigrating someone", but that is only the case if they are not consenting. And what is "denigrating" to people is also so subjective.
Like I said, I don't condemn experimenting before marriage. I condemn people's attitudes towards love, which is much less about marriage and children than before, and more about sex, 'romance' (which is probably no more than a few chemicals getting worked up in your body) and whatnot. This is the attitude that encourages people to get in relationships and even marriages without ample consideration. Look at the high school students of today and you'll know what I mean - people are dating before they even have steady incomes.

So it seems like you are against unserious relationships even if they are between two consensuals? Why? Again, you have no obligation in having a dead serious relationship or marriage. Neither are you obliged to have children.

I don't know about the Netherlands,

Virtually all northern European countries are the epitome of what conservatists hate, with some local exceptions.
Haha, okay. lol
but this sort of attitude has become increasingly prevalent here, and it's sickening.

So what? Why is it that important what others do? You are 100% allowed to be conservative in this, and it's not like your country hasn't been depleted of women with your conservative values too. We live in a time where you could find closeminded dates within 10 minutes on a dating site.
I'm concerned about society. Why wouldn't I? I'm concerned about problems like poverty or environmental damage even if I'm not affected by them. Why shouldn't I be concerned about cultural degradation as well?

There are victims in poverty. In correctly performed sexual/romantic liberation, there is no victim. Unless someone wilfully fools their partner into believing the relationship will turn into a marriage, when the first one have no such thoughts. But that is incorrectly performed. So why do you care so much over this, really?

Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

False analogy since your child is dependent of you, or at least optimally you, whereas your wife is an independent adult.
Okay, I admit it, but the point I'm making is that family shouldn't abandon each other.
Just as a parent cannot abandon a child he dislikes and a child cannot run away from a household he abhors, I don't think it's acceptable for a couple to divorce merely on the grounds that 'they don't connect with each other any more'.

Yes, and it's either not like people here in the liberal belt of the world are thinking "Hey I had a slight thought of how bad this marriage with 3 children is, so I'm divorcing. Ciao!". They do try to see it in all perspectives, they go to family counselors, they think of what is best for children, but sometimes it just doesn't work.
But why do they feel that the marriage 'just doesn't work'? Aren't such situations preventable? Probably they didn't plan everything through before marrying,

People could plan everything inside out, they could still evolve throughout life and get new perspectives.

because one party had an affair (no doubt a consequence of increasing liberalism),

Which liberal has promoted infidelity? I'm one of the most liberal people in the world and I would slit my wrists if I found myself doing this.

or because they're arguing on some matter that gets both sides angry.

This will always happen though. Couples eventually learn to handle such things.

Aren't these avoidable?