Studies show, Studies show, Studies show..  gag me!!!

by whom? paid for by whom? with what presuppositions and bias?

This is utter BS!!!

I've been in homes with loveless marriages, and the tension is so thick, you feel it on your clothes. I don't see how that can possibly be good for children.  I'm not talking about marriages where the spouses bicker as a way of getting along. I mean loveless marriages. If a couple is going to maintain that charade, they're going to need a lot lot of tools to hide that from their children. If they can't hide their contempt for each other, I think it would be healthier to split up then to subject children to constant tension.

I think too many people fall in love with the idea of marriage and not the person they want to marry.

http://newsbusters.o...

Here's the money quote:

But Ludwig, perhaps inadvertently, dropped the “for the children”
pretense when she stated: “Stay married if you can figure out a way to
make it feel fulfilling for you and your partner.”

Oops...another blurting out of the truth.

The parents' feeling fulfilled  is paramount.  If they don't, the kids will be better off if you separate.

Talk about rationalization!

She never once considers staying together and really working at making the relationship better for the sake of the kids. Or accepting being less than "fulfilled" to preserve the family for the kids.

Silly me.  I always thought parenting was about sacrifice.  I guess unless that  involves putting one's own happiness, or "fulfillment" in second place. 

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

What strikes me about the gay marriage debate, and the divorce discussion here, are the assumptions that people have about marriage. David Boies was on the Charlie Rose show a couple weeks ago, discussing gay marriage. Now I respect Boies a lot, but I didn't like it when he said that it's surely a civil right to marry whomever you choose, and therefore denying gay marriage is plainly unequal. Well, yeah, it would be, if the act of marriage didn't mitigate against it.

The argument against gay marriage is based on the idea of what marriage is. Marriage is much more than a "public statement" about how two people feel about each other. (You want to tell the world? Take out an ad. If that's all marriage is, a billboard is as good as a ceremony.) Beyond the expression of love for one another, a marriage is the creation of a family. That means that it's purpose is to produce children.

Social historians tell us that marriage began as a response to evolution. Human childbirth, at some point in our evolution, meant that the mother couldn't deliver a baby and then go immediately back to "work" (such as primitive humans did). The baby was too undeveloped to take care of itself, and needed constant care from the mother. But that also left the mother unable to fend for herself. Early on, marriage developed as a way to compensate: the biological father took the mother and child and they became one social unit. From the beginning, children were the basis of marriage. And for obvious reasons, the durability of the marriage was unquestioned. It was the male's responsibility to stay with the female.

How about the idea that marriage is a statement of how the spouses feel about each other? That didn't begin until relatively recently. In evolution, originally, the marriage began with the baby. Then "society" imposed the rule of marriage before childbirth to prevent males from avoiding their responsibilities. Think of it as the result of fathers with shotguns (or slingshots and clubs). 

Note that this has nothing to do with the bible or any religious revelation. Marriage came long before any organized religions.

From the beginning, marriage and family were connected. That's why we oppose allowing gay marriage: obviously, if the two spouses can't have children, marriage has lost its justification.

Now, critics of this are perfectly justified in saying that we live in a new age. It's different now. Marriage has now come to mean two things (love and parenting). Of these, love is no longer an enduring commitment, and children? They don't even belong in the equation anymore. Women have children with or without husbands. People get married and postpone children until "the right time" comes along later. Should the definition of marriage change?

_________ 

According to polls, most of us want the traditional idea of marriage to stay the way it has been since the dawn of the species. Marriage is connected with family, and it's a life-long commitment. But the question is simple: if you want some other kind of living arrangement, with or without children ... go ahead. No one's stopping you. We traditionalists don't like it, but if that's how you want to live, no law will stop you.

So the question is: why is it so important for them to call their alternative living arrangements a "marriage?" We even created the idea of civil unions to accommodate them, but they rejected that indignantly. They want their non-marriages to be treated with the same respect as marriages.

Well, society is clear. No!

Most of society wants to retain that traditional understanding of marriage. We don't want it tampered with. If you want some other kind of arrangement, no one's stopping you. The law doesn't stop you from living together. But that doesn't mean you deserve the rights and privileges that come along with traditional marriage. Gay advocates (and divorce geniuses, like the expert here) demand that society "approves" their innovations.

We don't approve. We want marriage as it is. And we resent the media games and indignant accusations of bigotry, all because alternative lifestylers want to force us to approve of them. We don't. We want marriage to stay the way it is, and we don't want to be forced into approving what you want.

I really like the one about unrealistic expectations.  Someone I know is an over acheaver and expects me to be.  I told her to lower her expectations of me and that she would be happier.   It seems some people, wives in particular, have CONDITIONAL love based on results.  While that may be practical from a PROVISION point of view, the Bible teaches you should show love DESPITE unappealing actions of the other.  This will have more impact and influence than crabbieness.

"For the kids" is an important consideration.  Sorry, but I agree with Ludwig.  How can it be any better for children if their parents remain together but hate each other?

"For the Kids", my a**. Divorce is never "for the kids". That's a "liberal" myth, an easy excuse, a rationalization for selfishness. This is the kind of b.s. that has ruined a once-great nation. It has come to no good and never will.

P.S. Of the twelve people in my and my wife's family, eight are divorced at least once. The ones not diveorced are the most properous, most stable, and the happiest. Divorce, for any reason, is hardly ever the answer. 

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Hey, young lady. "Studies" have shown that staying married is much cheaper than divorce in the long run. If you care about your finances, stick with your marriage.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

jessieH     I have heard of Ludwig. The word PSYCHO fits her pretty well.

The time, they are a changin'!!

 This is one of those issues that makes me much more a moderate than a conservative. Sometimes, divorce is BEST for the children involved. It's even Biblical, that divorce should be allowed. If you are divorcing for purely personal, 'happiness' reasons, you've got issues that need be taken to task. 

If one spouse or the other is a known abuser, it's best for the children, and the abused, to get a divorce. Staying together, even 'for the sake of the children' merely exacerbates the problem, creating a cycle of violence that gets harder and harder to break. When the children learn, from day one, that 'love means you hurt your woman', things must change!

If one spouse or the other is a known philanderer (I get bonus points for using that word, right?), it's best for the couple to split. Again, when the children learn such anti-social behavior from day one, things must change!

If one spouse or the other is merely "unhappy" or feels the need to "find themself", there's an issue with the relationship that needs counseling. Honest, two-person, counseling.

I have this discussion with my sister and her wife (yes, a Massachusetts wedding!) who are both psychologists. They deal with, on occasion, couples that have troubled children. Often their pastors tell them they have to stay married, ignoring the fact that the children are acting exactly like one of their parents. Whether it's anger management, violent tendencies, inability to communicate their 'feelings', or whatever the problems might be. It usually turns into a couples counseling session, as opposed to a childrens' counseling session. The problem with Pastoral Counseling is that so many of them are dead-set on the "STAY MARRIED AT ALL COST" mindset, when sometimes, it's best for the children to go your separate ways.

Leaving Dad might teach Son that beating his girlfriend is a good way to drive her off!

From what I've observed, if you want to save your marriage, the very last thing you do is go to a therapist. They basically have a script, which inevitably leads to a recommendation that you divorce, especially if you and your spouse are a middle age professional couple. Why? Because you probably have financial capital. A separation and divorce can create big business for therapists. You become a client, then stay a client after the split. They feed off your grief and despair. In all likelihood, your ertswhile partner stays a client, too. Presto: a single couple fee has turned into two individual session fees. Or your ex-spouse gets "referred" to the Gay partner of the therapist.

Thrapists are like Barack Obama. They like crisis and dysfunction -- it keeps them in the spotlight and in business. It is indeed a day of sweet serenity when the therapist realizes you've run out of cash. Then they invariably give the same speech telling that you have grown immensly (while your bank account has withered) and that you are now ready to go it alone.