Poll on Marriage and the Secularization of it

[Woodruff]

... in some African tribes, for example, a man could marry the leg of a chief)

I had a dog like that once. But he didn't really limit himself to a particular "chief".

[Woodruff]

I can't actually vote in the poll, because I believe that the skyrocketing divorce rate is a result of "secularization", that is, society turning away from God, but government doesn't have a lot to do with it.

Edit: inb4 -- and yes, the divorce rate among "Christians" is little or no better because "Christians" in general have also turned away from God and become "me" centered.

I believe you and I are in general agreement. My argument is similar to yours, except I removed "God" from the argument and put "work" into it.

[Woodruff]

I can't actually vote in the poll, because I believe that the skyrocketing divorce rate is a result of "secularization", that is, society turning away from God, but government doesn't have a lot to do with it.

Edit: inb4 -- and yes, the divorce rate among "Christians" is little or no better because "Christians" in general have also turned away from God and become "me" centered.

God is irrelevent to the discussion , people are turning away from the rigid rules of religious institutions. Failed marriages in themselves are unimportant , whats important is the upbringing of the next generation and there is no evidence whatsoever that a certificate or religious blessing improves parenting skills.

Staying together in a stable, loving relationship improves parenting skills.

Surprisingly (to me), I agree with this statement. I say that not as an absolute, certainly...there are plenty of married couples who really shouldn't have children, and those same couples probably shouldn't be married either. But rather if someone is willing to put in the work to have a strong marriage, they are also far more likely to be willing to put in the work to be a good parent.

And I do actually believe there are some benefits to a child to having more than one adult in their life. The big one that comes to mind for me is having a parent at home with the children, rather than always at work. I realize that isn't always the case, as these days two-parent-income households are very common. But I do believe there is a good benefit to a child "knowing there's always someone at home for them".

[Woodruff]

i am afraid you are incorrect. historically, marriages and marriage law all over the world have given very little or no rights to the woman. if you do some research you will find that what i said about marital rape is entirely correct.

although you obviously do not like to think this, even western societies treated women very badly up until the early 20th century. you can see that most western democracies did not allow women to vote until the early/mid 20th century even though men had been able to vote for hundreds of years.

i am not criticising the usa alone so you do not need to be defensive. it has been the same all over the world. what you call 'traditional' marriage is in fact very harsh and unfair to the woman.

So what is your point? That if marriage is not redefined, women will be beaten or lose their rights?

He's pointing out that your propaganda, as usual, is mired in inaccuracy.

My propaganda?????

Yes.

And......what do you call someone saying "women will be beaten and raped if......" You're a fucking joke Woodruff

I call them a multi. You believe I should pay more attention to the multi than I do to you? Well...I must admit, that does make a lot of sense.

[Woodruff]

Sorry gang. I did not know adding an option would reset the poll

I think it was an improvement in wording anyway.

[Symmetry]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

[jimboston]

The secularization of marriage is just following the secularization of society (Western Society anyway) in general.

There are Pros and Cons to this trend... and as with all change there is resistance and problems with people adapting to it.

Ultimately it's a long-term trend... and there's nothing any individual can do to change or stop it.

It's related to the homoginization of society, advances in science, and life expectancy. You can't change these trends.
(Barring some sort of worldwide holocaust... nuclear war, giant asteroid hitting the earth, or zombies.)

[jimboston]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

[Symmetry]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Baron Von PWN]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

some nit pickery. That would be the Russian Orthodox church to you.



ole Kirill is just keeping up a long Russian orthodox tradition of popping up the guy in the Kremlin who pays sufficient lip service to the church. They be kickin it old schoo, tsarist style!

[BigBallinStalin]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

If you don't say what you mean by "securalization," then useful discussion will remain at a standstill.


Sure, government has been involved via the legal system through legislation in delineating the rights of both parties in any marriage/divorce, but common law (without state intervention) has played a role in the legality of marriage as well, so do you wish to criticize specific laws/cases on marriage?

For example, at what time would you say that this problem began? The multis Specific users have mentioned times in the past where marriage laws, which were arguably less secularized, actually resulted in the disenfranchisement of women, so do you wish to state that those times were optimal?

[BigBallinStalin]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

[Nola_Lifer]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

You got proof of this bbs? Not everyone bases their decisions on how money they will make or lose. Problem with this economic view is that you assume everyone makes a decision based on a $.

[kentington]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

You got proof of this bbs? Not everyone bases their decisions on how money they will make or lose. Problem with this economic view is that you assume everyone makes a decision based on a $.

Not everyone bases their decisions on money. However, as BBS stated some do. For his statements to be inaccurate you would have to claim that no one bases their decisions on money, and this claim would have to be true.
As Woodruff said, 100% of failed marriages is because people fail to take their vows seriously. BBS's statement actually reinforces the idea that they don't take their vows seriously. If they are willing to separate over money then they didn't take the vows seriously. Or they are just pretending to be separated for the benefit of money, but continue to live together.

[yang guize]

an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously

but maybe they do not take it as serious because they know that now if they get bored it is very easy to leave the marriage. whereas before they would have to be much more serious because they knew that if they got married they would be committing for life.

[Woodruff]

an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously

but maybe they do not take it as serious because they know that now if they get bored it is very easy to leave the marriage.

While I don't disagree with that being something leading up to it, it doesn't really change my point. As well, that situation wasn't caused by government intervention, but rather by societal acceptance of divorce.

[jonesthecurl]

In my serious view, the increased divorce rate (which I presume is what you're getting at) is caused 100% by an increased number of people who don't take the vows of marriage seriously. It has nothing at all to do with government intervention, rather it has to do with people wanting the easy way out and not taking the time to work at something as hard as they need to in order to be successful.

So my view is "no change".

Well, I disagree with the 100% claim although seriousness/attitudes on marriage does play a significant role.

Some of that 100% is due to subsidies offered to single-parent mothers. In other words, for some it may be more profitable to not marry and instead collect the tax credits for being a single mother. Of course, this profit-motive provided by state intervention isn't the only factor, but it is a factor which undermines the monetary and mental profit of remaining married (or seeking marriage).

Somehow I don't think you've ever brought up kids on government handouts.
It's not a well-paid job.

[PLAYER57832]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

I, for one, agree with this.. and also find it very strange that so many conservatives now want to pretend it was liberals who pushed for the seperation of church and state, when it truly was religious individuals, for the reasons you stated.

[PLAYER57832]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

Explain, please.

[Symmetry]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

some nit pickery. That would be the Russian Orthodox church to you.



ole Kirill is just keeping up a long Russian orthodox tradition of popping up the guy in the Kremlin who pays sufficient lip service to the church. They be kickin it old schoo, tsarist style!

Fair point- Russian Orthodox is right. Kirill is really going after the Pussy Riot girls at the mo for their protest against Putin.

[yang guize]

As well, that situation wasn't caused by government intervention, but rather by societal acceptance of divorce.

as i understand the big change USA made in the middle 20th century was introducing a 'no blame' divorce - it was then possible to divorce just because you feel like it, there is no need to prove infidelity, spouse abuse or that the marriage was never real. so marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment but something that can be undone in 5 years if you think it was a mistake. this makes it less grave and easier to rush in to.

but yes obviously society still need to become more accepting for a lot of people to feel like it is o.k. to divorce. i guess both things are a factor ^.^

[jimboston]

Secularisation is a boon to Christianity. Having spoken to a fair few Christian members of this forum, the main point that comes through is that there is no central Christian viewpoint that is opposed to secularism, which of course is about keeping a central viewpoint out of control.

That's why i find it strange that so many Christians oppose secularism. It's the system that allows their particular branch of Christianity to flourish. It's one of the founding principles of the Pilgrims.

Puritans didn't make the crossing because the crown was intolerant to Christian belief, they felt that their brand of Christianity wasn't tolerated, where other types of Christianity were. And in some cases, where some brands of Christianity were tolerated too far (see anti-Catholicism).

Possible short-term boom... ultimately followed by a collapse of religion as we know it.

Maybe, but then again i don't know if religion as you know it is the same as religion as I know it. I do know enough to call BS on the folks who think Christianity is an indivisible set of beliefs.

D1G. for example, presumably doesn't want Greek Orthodox Christianity to be a ruling force of government when he decries the secularist principles that keep Christianity out of government.

Nor, hopefully, would he espouse the Russian Christian church who's head declared that Vladimir Putin was chosen by God to be a leader.

I certainly hope he hasn't gone so catholic (small c) as to embrace the Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church.

By "religion as we know it" I mean (in short)... any organized religion base on the idea that there is some sort of supreme being in whose image we (humans) were made... and the idea that somehow certain people (i.e. religious leaders) have some sort of ability to understand and interpret this supreme being's intentions, wants, and desires.

[Phatscotty]

The secularization of marriage is DIRECTLY responsible for the breakdown in African American families overall.

If you don't say what you mean by "securalization," then useful discussion will remain at a standstill.


Sure, government has been involved via the legal system through legislation in delineating the rights of both parties in any marriage/divorce, but common law (without state intervention) has played a role in the legality of marriage as well, so do you wish to criticize specific laws/cases on marriage?

For example, at what time would you say that this problem began? The multis Specific users have mentioned times in the past where marriage laws, which were arguably less secularized, actually resulted in the disenfranchisement of women, so do you wish to state that those times were optimal?

They have a point. Some women were imprisoned by marriage. Some men were and are still as well .

What I mean by secularization is the removal of marriage as an ecclesiastical issue. The simpler way to say it is, the government built an exoskeleton of so many benefits and privileges around marriage that the meaning of marriage has been eroded into a paper contract. I have to start pointing out, no, this does not mean every single marriage, just more and more marriage turn out to be shams and less and less thought it being put into marriage and family planning that we should not be surprised about the divorce rate at around 48% and children born into wedlock is as high as 70% in some cases.

I like a lot of the over conversation in this thread as well. People are bringing up some awesome points!

[Symmetry]

It's tough, sure, especially when posters talk about "Christianity" when they mean their particular sect of Christian thought at the expense of other branches.

My general point is that there is no "Christianity" for D1G to argue for unless he rules out a whole load of people who consider themselves Christian.

Secularism supports the kind of toleration of these kinds of divisions.