I've always been confused, by the promises made between two people who marry in the presence of God, in a church, exchanging vows and uttering the words "till death do us part"..all very romantic and in some cases, very painful.

Why exchange such nuptials and soon after, split and divorce, divide everything up (if married in community) and go their seperate ways, the vows long forgotten, as if never spoken.

Is this a sign of modern, stressful times?

'Is this a sign of modern, stressful times?' In actual fact never ghave we had so many comforts and so much wealth. Divorce is the fruit of hard hearts. The apostle Paul speaks of a time when men will be self-lovers, money-lovers, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,'

Often people don't keep their word these days so why should the vowels be any different. Thank God their is forgiveness for those who call on Jesus.

Probably more a sign of women now having more means to support themselves. Not been seen as the chattel of their husband etc. Women now have the means to exit a relationship if they want to/need to, rather than having to stay in a relationship in order to survive. I assume that the reverse also applies, men no longer feel that they have a lifelong obligation to support their wife, so if the relationship deteriorates to that point, why stay. That's aside from any obligation to support children of course.

I think pornography has a lot to do with it also. It gives men and women a false vision. Men thinking theres a better woman out there. Maybe also for the girls, thinking theres a better man. I wish John Howard had the grit to stand up and say, "porn is killing Australian society!"

I am one of the more cynacal people I know when it comes to seeing people marry nowadays. In my thoughts is 'how long will they last', 'do they really know one another to the extent to go through thick and think and grow old together'. I don't think there is enough maturity, especially with young people marrying. You haven't had time to get to know yourself as yet; it takes all of your twenties to really know who you are as an individual.

Yet I still believe in the institution. Whether the nuptials are exchanged in church or at a beach though is irrevalent to the outcome of the marriage if the couple haven't given time enough to plan their common goals. It involves knowing about finances, any children, goal setting, all Before marriage. There are rude shocks for many and especially those who find their darling partner doesn't want children.

Divorce IS occurring at an alarming rate. I heard the other day of a young couple getting engaged in August and to marry in December. I have not heard anything so absurd in all my days as I am taking about August as in last month! Is a rebound thing; the guy isn't concentrating on his fiance at all! Is a real concern, mentality like that.

For goodness sakes, marriage takes work and it takes a commitment through good times AND bad. I agree with an above post, individuals can self support now so no longer need to stay together. Example, staying for the sake of the children. Nowadays so many children are missing out and how sad that is for so many. Deprived of seeing grandparents, mum or dad; is a crime for hatefilled adults to impose that on the children who'll love each parent to death no matter what. No matter how slanderous the parents relate to one another and by the way, children witness and learn. Be careful what you say and do.

"Divorce is the fruit of hard hearts."

Hearts do nothing but pump blood Runner, didn't you know that?

Anthropologist Helen Fisher did alot of studying about the history
of marriage and what it basically comes down to is this:

Pairbonding (marriage as we call it) evolved in a number of
species, where large amounts of resources are required to
raise the offspring.

In humans, pairbonding for life really only became the norm
with the advent of agriculuture and the plow, when women
became completely dependant on men. Next they became
a possession and are still seen that way in many countries.
In Africa for instance, you buy a wife, pay lobola of
10 cows for her or whatever.

Given that women can now earn their own resources, they
are clearly not dependant on men anymore, as they used to
be, so have other options.

Personally I can't see the point in two people staying
together for life, if they clearly made a mistake and
aren't suited, or want different things from life.

We are all entitled to be happy and just because we
made a mistake at some point, does not mean that we
should be miserable for the rest of our lives.

So out of tradition and because they probably mean
it at the time, many couples do make commitments
for life, but things don't always pan out as
expected, things change

Given that for much of human history, 'marriage' has essentially involved the exchange of women and material goods between groups of men, it's hardly surprising that the model no longer comfortably fits our society.

Whether it's now done in the eyes of the Church or the State, I can't really see that the institution of marriage itself retains much intrinsic relevance. Love, families amd couples can and do flourish in our society in the absence of silly romantic and religious rituals - and in my own experience they seem to do better.

I think that the notions of both "divorce" and "the eyes of God" are obsolete - or at least would be in a more intelligent and rational society :)

Spanky,

Clearly there has been a shift in attitude toward marital vows. I suspect this correlates more with easy divorce laws and promiscuity then women being rescued from horrible marriages. Reinforcing this belief is the statistical lack of success of the divorce and remarriage solution.

However the reasons for the changes are probably multicausal. All factors cited in here so far probably play some role in the problem. However some of the beliefs expressed are probably part of the problem. For example the view that marriage was always bad but now people (particularly women) aren't trapped, the belief that people should generally focus on self rather than family/spouse/children and seek happiness from taking rather than giving. Obviously some (particularly with the latter beliefs) don't consider divorces or breaking vows to be a problem.

It takes vast resources to properly raise a human child and they are dependent for a long time. My belief is that it is a case of the more (resources) the merrier. Children are entitled to be nurtured in a stable family situation and if there is no committment to this then people shouldn't get married and have kids. In this regard I'm concerned that child nurturing is becoming so devalued. It seems to devalue children themselves.

CJ,

“I think that the notions of both "divorce" and "the eyes of God" are obsolete - or at least would be in a more intelligent and rational society”

I invite you to reconsider that assertion as comforting as you might find it for any relevant mistakes in the past. It seems to fly in the face of over 40 years of available evidence.

mjpb, I grew up in a single parent family (as have many others), but due to death not divorce. I can safely assure you that one parent is quite capable of nuturing the children produced by the marriage and producing fairly balanced caring adults from those children. The main damage caused to children from divorce is not the fact that mum and dad are no longer living in the same building, but from the animosity that usually builds between the divorcing adults. In actual fact its probably the conflict from before the divorce actually went ahead than the result of the seperation itself. Apart from the celebrity set, I doubt many divorces are lightly entered into. Most people recognise the finality of it, and the potential for harm to the children of the relationship. Humankind is not yet as callous as some would have us believe.

I can't get my head around the idea that people enter into pre-nuptual agreements then promise to stick together for as long as they live. God or not.

Well.. CJ is up to par on the MIUAUG program.. "I think terms as in the eyes of God and divorce are obsolete".. whereas .. a slight change would be more appropriate

I suggest such terms are 'absolute'.....rather than obsolete.

From the Westiminster Confession:

1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.

2. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

3. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case

Food 4 thought....

Boazy: "And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies."

Well, if that's not an obsolete basis for an enduring sexual relationship between adults, then I don't know what is. "Damnable heretic" I may be, but the clear inference from such an anachronistic view of 'marriage' is that not only is such an institution completely outmoded in contemporary society, but so also must be the divorce that is apparently inevitable for 50% of deluded individuals who sign up to such a stupid contract.

As for "the eyes of God" - give us a break!

CJ Morgan,
The Westminster confession was written for Anglicans for the unity and blessing of the adherents to the faith. Conflict in beliefs between partners in marriage has been one of the most destructive forces for its breakdown. For an atheist to marry a Christian for instance will result in the confusion and disunity of a child's mind. Who to follow? who to believe? It does not lead to family stability and cohesion. Such marriages I have witnessed lead to rebellious, confused, and unstable children.

Oh Philo, dear dear! Forgotten have you exactly where the Anglican church came from? Henry the Vlll ring a bell?

In my view it's pretty hypocritical to hoist the 'moral sanctitude' of any religion/denomination to such a 'saintly degree' to win any argument.

None are free of human failings as all rely on homosapiens to carry out the alleged prophecies of a higher being, and lets not forget the billions of dead over the earth's history killed in the name of 'religion'!

No mate, I'm no heretic, I hold very strong 'religious' beliefs Christian and otherwise. What I don't hold to is any psuedo political organisation dictating moral standards they fail to adhere to themselves.

Philo,

I see no problem with a Christian marrying an atheist. It is no different than one believing in the Big Bag and other the Solid State theory. Belief or disbelief are hypothetical constructs held at a given time.

As primates, we,humns, are closer to apes [remain mated for life] than chimpanzees [promiscous]. Parrots remain strongly bonded too.

WearyMum,

The Church of England, as attached to the Catholic (Universal)church, goes back to the thirteen century. Henry VIII, was given the title Defender of the Faith by the Pope, owing to his catholic scholship. He died a Catholic. The transition to Angligan seems to have occured during the politics bwteen Mary & Elizabeth at the time the short (6/9 day?) reign of Lady Jane Grey.