PLEASE! I NEED YOUR OPINION.
THANKS.... [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img]

I think everyone should have an open mind and know that Divorce IS necessary sometimes. I think when people believe in saving the marriage "at all costs" they fall into a trap and lose site of their boundaries and their sanity. I think believing in divorce enables you to set appropriate healthy boundaries in your marriage.
I also think Divorce does not define your success in life.

Interesting first post.<p>It is my belief that 100% of divorces were preceded by a wedding or marriage of some sort.

I believe if a divorce is deemed necessary by Both parties (husband & wife), then it needs to be an enthusiastic POJA. <p>Notice in my answer where there isn't any mention of a third party (OM/OW/OP) having say or the right to influence this life altering decision.<p>Jo<p>[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Resilient ]</p>

Princess, Resilient,

You two are on it! Am I hearing you say you suspect our poster is a lurking TOW.

I didn't even think TOW, I thought all caps + typo + first post + extremely vague ... grade schooler doing a research report?? ... not worth the time better spent with folks here in pain. <p>Tell YOUR story, opinions, and I may change my POV.

Hi I Luv,<p>It's possible "Opinions" may be an OP (OW), but when I wrote my response I wasn't gearing it based on what title Opinions holds, be it OP, OW, OM, WS, BS, etc.<p>What I wrote is what I believe. IMHO, not all marriages should be saved, a good example would be a marriage fraught with physical abuse where a spouse and/or children's well being is at risk.<p>Then "IF" a divorce is necessary, an OP should not be a determining factor or aspect leading to that marriage's dissolution.<p>I hope you are well, I Luv. [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Lv,
Jo

OOOHHHH [img]images/icons/blush.gif" border="0[/img] <p>All is very well, thanks for asking!

If you walk out with an OP in tow...you walk out with the clothes on your back and no say in anything else...<p>That's my vision of how the big "D" should work.<p>Lisa

I beleive divorce is an option only when physical abuse is involved. At that point, not only you suffer(mentally and physically) but children can as well. In all other situations, to me divorce is NOT an option. If you at one time loved your spouse, then you owe it yourself and to them to rediscover the reasons why. I think to many people run away from their problems nowadays. At some point, you have to face them. When most people finally do face their problems, they often realize their problems are not as bad as they think they are.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Malachi 2:13-14,16:
<strong>You flood the Lord's altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.<p>"I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the Lord Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Divorce sucks but sometimes it becomes a necessary evil or just another evil imposed against your will.<p>Joe

it's bull**** and it only hurts the kids. if we were so bad for each other then we'd have seen it sooner. falling out of love is what damages each other but once you committ to raise children together then you need to grow up and stop being selfish.<p>my kids are confused and i can't explain to them why mommy doesn't love daddy anymore 'cuz i don't understand it myself. she's got OM staying at my house with my DC since the day she filed 04/30/02. i'm lucky not to be in jail with the way iv'e been feeling. but time is doing its job.<p>"to thine ownself be true" [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img]

I have no problem with and/or see no sin in divorce, if there are real reasons and both parties agree that it is necessary. In some instances, it may be the best outcome for everyone. In my case, my WS seems to be heading down the D trail as a way to justify the A and prove that it was worth it. Although she has said it may only be a matter of time (if we D) before the A ends and OP moves to Canada to be near his XS and kids. I can&#8217;t imagine the pain inflicted on kids. So pathetically sad. [img]images/icons/confused.gif" border="0[/img] <p>I am in complete disagreement w/ WS that D should be the next step for us. I believe in serious counseling and a real attempt at working on our M &#8211; outside of the emotions and at the complete end of her A. D should never be used as punishment or a way to justify actions. <p>I like the idea of a POJA applied to a D. I also like the idea of a public un-union ceremony w/ friends and family. Although my WS would never have the courage to do this. I&#8217;m hanging in > Karl

Divorce is a fact of life. There are some divorces that are necessary and some that shouldn't have taken place. When their aren't any children...it isn't as hard. Kids are the real victims...they have no say in having their life turned upside down. I think people change and really do fall out of love...unfortunately lots of people are selfish and can justify their actions no matter how horrendous they seem. Long term abuse of any kind warrants a divorce...kids are damaged by that just as much.

Happy Mac - divorce destroys kids of all ages. I know, I hear our kids (16-23 yrs) 2 girls 2 boys. The oldest doesn't want me to talk about dad and I, she said she heard enough from dad, and she just wants to stay out of it. So she heard dads side, and mom doesn't get to tell her side. Another BS attack. She is hurting, and would love to have a intack family again. I know our youngest is hurting, and for sure our 3rd child, that read dads sexual e-mail that dad sent to sons printer instead of dads printer. Psychiatrist told me to get him into counseling, that he is hurting deep inside, and is totally confused. The e-mail was quite graphic.<p>Divorce could stop if both parties wants it to stop. In my situation, SNL was basically by his OW's side while we were doing MB. It takes two to have a marriage, not three. <p>I have a problem with christianity, and remarriage. I will not remarry with the belief that God does not like divorce, and does not allow you to remarry after divorce, except your spouse. Also, I feel God is looking at us as we both are selfish and if we both were to get this selfishness out, we could have a fine marriage. But SNL doesn't see it that way, says he now knows what in-love is with the OW, and he knows how it feels. The OW dumped him, so how does that feel? Confusing statements made by WH [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Divorce is the end of a family. The family will never be a unit again. When two people go to the altar for vows, for better or worse, sickness & health, this was a committment made in front of God. The WS committed adultery in front of God's eyes. If the WS feels no remorse or guilt, then the WS is inflicted with sin, and God doesnot want this person to be living in sin, therefore the outcome will be pure h*ll! [img]images/icons/frown.gif" border="0[/img] <p>Divorce costs lots of money, and when one spouse uses it against the other, that your lawyer is soaking you, is that to be of disrespect or jealousy? Divorce is ugly, the WS is very ugly, very selfish, and very controlling in my situation. Divorce is putting so much pressure in the house, kids, pets, relatives, parents, friends. Divorce is pure UGLY!!!!!

Given the over 50% divorce rate in this country (and higher for subsequent marriages) it is clear that most Americans are not capable of making or keeping a lifetime commitment. Therefore, "marriage" and "divorce" are really just convenient legal terms designed to assign responsibility for financial and childcare duties. "Marriage" also holds some lingering status left over from a time when it did actually mean something--hence people's desire to do it over and over and over. My guess is that those people aren't any more capable of keeping a life time commitment than they were the first time--they just prefer having the label to give their (usually temporary) relationship some pseudo legitimacy.

I don't think people are any less committed than they ever were; divorce is just easier to get. It wasn't until the late 60's that women were able to file for divorce. If her husband wanted to beat the crap out her, commit adultery, drink away the family fortune...he could and there wasn't a thing she could do about it. Yes, there was a stigma if you divorced, but people were just as selfish. A lot of women stayed married because they couldn't afford to leave. For some reason people like to romanticize the past and think people were so much more into sticking it out. They weren't...they just tolerated more and wound up bitter and hating each other when they died. Marriage is hard work for both involved, put kids into the mix, duel careers, or just the stress of everyday life and things get harder...but its always been that way. I doubt raising a family during the Depression was fun. No, people didn't divorce as much...they just took off.

Happymac,<p>Your theory doesn't explain why the divorce rate in the US is the highest among "first world" countries. In Europe and the Netherlands, for instance, women have the ability to get divorced and can often support themselves very easily due to socialized medicine and child support. Even in a very liberal country like Sweden, the divorce rate is only about 35%. Not only that, your argument is based on the idea that men are pigs and only recently have women been able to escape them. Well, I would put maybe 10-15% of marriages into that category (abuse, drinking, rampant infidelity, etc). Certainly not more than 50%. Nope. I think Americans are very shortsighted, materialistic, and not family oriented, compared to cultures where the divorce rate is lower.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TheStudent:
<strong>Given the over 50% divorce rate in this country (and higher for subsequent marriages) it is clear that most Americans are not capable of making or keeping a lifetime commitment. Therefore, "marriage" and "divorce" are really just convenient legal terms designed to assign responsibility for financial and childcare duties. "Marriage" also holds some lingering status left over from a time when it did actually mean something--hence people's desire to do it over and over and over. My guess is that those people aren't any more capable of keeping a life time commitment than they were the first time--they just prefer having the label to give their (usually temporary) relationship some pseudo legitimacy.</strong><hr></blockquote><p>It's my understanding that most couples in Sweden don't bother getting married. Apparently in Sweden there is less of a stigma attached to unmarried couples who live together. Therefore, I would imagine that those couples who do get married are likely to take marriage more seriously than in a country like the United States where marriage is still a mainstream tradition. For that reason, I don't think Sweden provides much support for TheStudent's position.<p>That said, I am extremely close to agreeing with TheStudent's opinion about what marriage means in the United States. (I seem to differ mainly in my opinion that Americans fail to keep a lifetime commitment not because they are incapable of doing so, but because they choose not to do so. As I have observed before, the individualistic pursuit of one's own self-interest is now considered to be the highest virtue, to the extent that if you espouse an alternative value system you are suspected of being dangerously insane.)<p>I think people really are less committed than in previous generations, and I think that one of the reasons is that divorce is easier to get. When you know that circumstances will force you to stay together, you are more likely to be inclined to find ways to make your marriage work than if you know you can just walk without any apparent negative consequences.<p>The legal system contributes to the situation by adopting a concept of marriage which makes no sense. If the courts considered marriage to be a contract, then the party who violated the terms of the contract would be penalized; but divorce laws are just as likely to penalize the party who was betrayed and defrauded instead. Furthermore, the court is set up as an enabler of a psychologically impaired spouse, acting to protect that person from the consequences of his or her own actions. Where once the courts would require the demonstration of grounds for desertion, now they will blithely issue a restraining order preventing the betrayed spouse from initiating any contact with the wayward spouse and will garnish the betrayed spouse's wages, all without any kind of hearing or any questions asked. They will award a divorce without so much as giving the betrayed spouse an opportunity to defend himself, and will add insult to injury by forcing the betrayed spouse to pay the wayward spouse's legal expenses.