-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Marriage is Dying -- 4 Reasons
- Thread starter CecilW
- Start date
Wow, one of those odd times when as a theologian and historian I align well with this psychiatrists view in many many ways.
"Marriage" indeed needs to die as that is a Romanist English legal term to describe the "union" or "joining" of a man and woman. The act of men and women joining though will never cease as that is based and created upon the natural order which is indeed stronger than all positive law created contrary to natural law. The puritan and Victorian ideology has for years been trying to alter and prevent through positive law natural relations and it still fails today and will always have a large failure rate.
Just as people need to be free to eat or not eat, people need to be free to join or not join without the government regulation being what authorizes it to be created. In the economic sector people like to call that freedom "free markets." All people, no matter of what faith or view, should be able to allow people to enter into the free market of how to form their union so long as the union formed is consensual by people old enough to reasonably understand what they are giving consent unto, and so long as the union does not harm another person physically, which would preclude incest as that certainly harms a child who is almost certain to be born with physical problems.
"Marriage" indeed needs to die as that is a Romanist English legal term to describe the "union" or "joining" of a man and woman. The act of men and women joining though will never cease as that is based and created upon the natural order which is indeed stronger than all positive law created contrary to natural law. The puritan and Victorian ideology has for years been trying to alter and prevent through positive law natural relations and it still fails today and will always have a large failure rate.
Just as people need to be free to eat or not eat, people need to be free to join or not join without the government regulation being what authorizes it to be created. In the economic sector people like to call that freedom "free markets." All people, no matter of what faith or view, should be able to allow people to enter into the free market of how to form their union so long as the union formed is consensual by people old enough to reasonably understand what they are giving consent unto, and so long as the union does not harm another person physically, which would preclude incest as that certainly harms a child who is almost certain to be born with physical problems.
It's also a great example of the "80/20 Rule", Cecil. Just as has been practiced from the "Garden onwards" by the Adversary, if you want to sell a lie - there's no better way than to MIX it in with a big helping of the truth. The poison then goes down SOOOO easily...
The Truth, of course, is that government has no business messing with something ordained by YHVH -- especially given that it now denies His Authority, and generally even His existence.
But the Lie is that, "We should come up with something that improves the quality of our lives and those of our children."
All we have to do is RETURN (t'shuvah) BACK to what is already Written!
The Truth, of course, is that government has no business messing with something ordained by YHVH -- especially given that it now denies His Authority, and generally even His existence.
But the Lie is that, "We should come up with something that improves the quality of our lives and those of our children."
All we have to do is RETURN (t'shuvah) BACK to what is already Written!
Taller on my knees
Member
Great point Mark. Obviously, what God has written would be the best route, but the rest of the world does not share the same worldview as we do.
In trying to deal with the ruin caused by our brokeness, they want a law to point the way. A guidepost and standard that they can look at and say "This is how I should act. Here is a set of rules that I can follow".
The world knows that the true standard has already been set, but they turn from it because it points out their own brokeness. Men tend to make laws written in such a way as to compliment their own pride.
In trying to deal with the ruin caused by our brokeness, they want a law to point the way. A guidepost and standard that they can look at and say "This is how I should act. Here is a set of rules that I can follow".
The world knows that the true standard has already been set, but they turn from it because it points out their own brokeness. Men tend to make laws written in such a way as to compliment their own pride.
Numerous traditions merged into our founding of the country and this discussion is nothing new. How much of the Bible should be the law for all when not all believe in the Bible or even are of the elect? It was rather straight forward in Israel. If you were born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob you were a Jew, and thus as a Jew living in the nation you were elect and as an ethnically elected person and national citizen you were in covenant with God and thus to be ruled by the National law Code of Israel given by and through Moses.
For many years when those coming forth out of Rome came to the soils of America they fought to keep a quasi-Israelite/Romanistic system in place. Many of the Colonial Laws reflected that.
Poor ole Roger Williams was even excommunicated for teaching the gospel in a way contrary to the Puritans and Pilgrim's state church law code. Many other Baptists were too banned, even thrown in jail for their teaching that was not authorized by the state.
This set up a battle when the framers were developing the COnstituional government of America. Eventually, men like Obadiah Holmes, John Clarke, and James Randall were indicted by a Plymouth Grand Jury for meeting in houses on Sunday in spite of a court order against thos practices. They were thrown into prison. Some were even beat and whipped badly.
But through Isaac Backus and some other Baptists they got the attention of the Great Lion of Liberty, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison and the idea of the First Amendment developed and was placed in the land's national constitution. Though it did not alter the state established religions to begin with eventually it was applied to all states through the Supreme Court of the land. The seeds began though back in the founding days.
Some feel though this trend left us with no way to implement a Godly law code in the lands. Even the great scholar Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary in the 1800's was still trying to reconstruct the Mosaic Insraelite law for the American people. In his massive and solid 3 volume systematic work he set forth the idea that if people did not attend churches on the Sabbath that they needed to be jailed. He sought to make this a federal law for all in these lands.
But, for years another stream has been flowing into our political and civil philosophical minds over the years. it is a stream that divides the law of God into two spheres, a God to man sphere and a man to man sphere.
Men like Isaac Watts (1674-1748) and Richard Hooker (1554-1600), an Anglican, and even Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), argued that God's law was not just found in the Mosaic code but also implanted into all at birth through a common universal conscience. It was this tradition that gained a lot of ground and even promoted strongly by the writer of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson who said: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
The ideology there, that also was reflected in some of the other great writers that were heavily studied by our founders, writings of Thomas Paine, Montesquieu, as well as the Bible itself, the dominate, though slowing growing, thought was that America was not Israel and we were not to have a government led religion like what was and even still is in Europe today (even in its Erastianism form).
Thus the base design for our government ideology that began to shape most of the stronger currents based the idea of a government on what we call a "natural law ethic." It refers back to what our Declaration said in "natures God and Nature's Laws." As a people the founders represented that idea where "the design of civil government is the secure the person's, the properties, the just liberty and peace of mankind from the invasions and injuries of their neighbors" (Dr. Norman Geisler, in The Best in Theology, Vol. 1, p. 259).
Government thus was to be established and sustained not by the direct rule of the Bible, a product of special grace revelation for the elect, but from the realm of common grace that produced the light of conscience in all men (see John 1:9 and Romans 2:14-15).
Watts followed another great civil philosopher that shaped the days of our country in that he read and followed John Locke. In doing so he avoided the extremes of antinomianism (no law and anarchy) and and the extremes of re-constructionism or theonomists who want to enforce the entire Bible law code onto a society where not everyone is even of the elect or a believer (like Dr. Hodge wanted to do with the Sabbath even in the mid to late 1800's).
This ideology set the stage for the First Amendment, which has been touted by many civil scholars, as the greatest clause of any civil document in the world, and it based our civil law upon natural reason and common sense (to use a Thomas Paine term) with liberty for all, even for those who did not believe so long as their actions did not infringe or violate the life, liberty, or property of another.
As Dr. Geisler stated:
"The civil law, however, does have a moral basis in what Watts called variously, 'nature,' 'laws of nature,' 'natural rights,' 'natural conscience,' 'reason,' 'principles of reason,' 'light of reason,' 'divine revelation,' 'candle of the Lord,' and 'ordinance of God.' For Watts the natural moral law includes such things as honesty, justice, truth, gratitude, goodness, honor, and faithfulness to superiors. The laws of nature also include personal duties such as sobriety, temperance, frugality, and industry. In brief they include the kinds of things addressed in the second table of the Mosaic Law (attitudes and actions towards men) but not the first table of the Mosaic Law (those toward God). These are the same kinds of things C.S. Lewis listed as part of the natural law which he found in all major cultures" (p. 260).
Taller on my knees
Member
I wholeheartedly agree that the First Amendment was the greatest clause of any civil document in the world. While it has stood for the past two centuries as a beacon of freedom for all men, it seems as though the current antipathy toward anything even remotely associated with God and religion has been extended to include "natures God and Nature's Laws."
It would seem that any laws written or changed in todays Godless world are almost exclusively self serving to the author of the bill. If it feeds on the vanities or greed of the people, it has a much greater chance of becoming law.
It would seem that any laws written or changed in todays Godless world are almost exclusively self serving to the author of the bill. If it feeds on the vanities or greed of the people, it has a much greater chance of becoming law.
Yeah that is indeed a problem. In civil philosophy we call is legal positivism, i.e. creating a law that really conflicts with the laws of nature or common reason.
In part many of the written law codes today are in need of being revised or even repealed because they reflect a positivism approach instead of a Natural law theory base.
I would like to point out that of the 4 reasons listed, the last one, that marriages are failing at an alarming rate, is not true.
Let me say it straightforwardly: Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It's fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.
If there's no credible evidence that half of American marriages will end up in divorce court, where did that belief originate?
Demographers say there was increased focus on divorce rates during the 1970s when the number of divorces rose, partly as a result of no-fault divorce. Divorces peaked in 1979 and articles started appearing that claimed 50 percent of American marriages were ending in divorce.
A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics says that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you'd find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.
Another source for the 50-percent figure could be those who were trying to predict the future of divorce. Based on known divorce records, they projected that 50 percent of newly married young people would divorce. University of Chicago sociologist and researcher Linda Waite told USA Today that the 50-percent divorce stats were based more on assumptions than facts.
So what is the divorce picture in America? Surprisingly, it's not easy to get precise figures because some states don't report divorces to the National Center for Health Statistics, including one of the largest: California.
Some researchers have relied on surveys rather than government statistics. In his book Inside America in 1984, pollster Louis Harris said that only about 11 or 12 percent of people who had ever been married had ever been divorced. Researcher George Barna's most recent survey of Americans in 2001 estimates that 34 percent of those who have ever been married have ever been divorced.
One of the latest reports about divorce was released this year by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It is based on a 1995 federal study of nearly 11,000 women ages 15-44. It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years. That is not a death sentence, however; it's a forecast. Martha Farnsworth Riche, former head of the Census Bureau, told USA Today, "This is what is going to happen unless we want to change it."
Most important, the statistics and predictions about Americans in general don't tell the whole story about the future. There are other factors that affect a person's chances for a long marriage. The NCHS study of women, for example, shows that age makes a difference. Women marrying before age 20 face a higher risk for divorce. Marriages that have already lasted for a number of years are less likely to end in divorce. If your parents did not divorce, your chances are better than if you came from a broken home. Couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.
The bottom line is that marriage is still what it's always been: a commitment between two people who choose to remain faithful to each other. And they don't need to feel doomed because of scary statistics — least of all ones that are urban myths.
Let me say it straightforwardly: Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It's fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.
If there's no credible evidence that half of American marriages will end up in divorce court, where did that belief originate?
Demographers say there was increased focus on divorce rates during the 1970s when the number of divorces rose, partly as a result of no-fault divorce. Divorces peaked in 1979 and articles started appearing that claimed 50 percent of American marriages were ending in divorce.
A spokesperson for the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics says that the rumor appears to have originated from a misreading of the facts. It was true, he said, if you looked at all the marriages and divorces within a single year, you'd find that there were twice as many marriages as divorces. In 1981, for example, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. At first glance, that would seem like a 50-percent divorce rate.
Virtually none of those divorces were among the people who had married during that year, however, and the statistic failed to take into account the 54 million marriages that already existed, the majority of which would not see divorce.
Another source for the 50-percent figure could be those who were trying to predict the future of divorce. Based on known divorce records, they projected that 50 percent of newly married young people would divorce. University of Chicago sociologist and researcher Linda Waite told USA Today that the 50-percent divorce stats were based more on assumptions than facts.
So what is the divorce picture in America? Surprisingly, it's not easy to get precise figures because some states don't report divorces to the National Center for Health Statistics, including one of the largest: California.
Some researchers have relied on surveys rather than government statistics. In his book Inside America in 1984, pollster Louis Harris said that only about 11 or 12 percent of people who had ever been married had ever been divorced. Researcher George Barna's most recent survey of Americans in 2001 estimates that 34 percent of those who have ever been married have ever been divorced.
One of the latest reports about divorce was released this year by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It is based on a 1995 federal study of nearly 11,000 women ages 15-44. It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years. That is not a death sentence, however; it's a forecast. Martha Farnsworth Riche, former head of the Census Bureau, told USA Today, "This is what is going to happen unless we want to change it."
Most important, the statistics and predictions about Americans in general don't tell the whole story about the future. There are other factors that affect a person's chances for a long marriage. The NCHS study of women, for example, shows that age makes a difference. Women marrying before age 20 face a higher risk for divorce. Marriages that have already lasted for a number of years are less likely to end in divorce. If your parents did not divorce, your chances are better than if you came from a broken home. Couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.
The bottom line is that marriage is still what it's always been: a commitment between two people who choose to remain faithful to each other. And they don't need to feel doomed because of scary statistics — least of all ones that are urban myths.
PART TWO~
A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1000 people in the U.S. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60% of all second marriages ended in divorce. These errors have had a profound impact on attitudes about marriage in our society and it is a terrible injustice that there wasn't more of an effort to get accurate data (essentially only obtainable by following a significant number of couples over time and measure the outcomes) or that newer, more accurate and optimistic data isn't being heavily reported in the media.
It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40% for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30% in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than view marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as a having 70% likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.
The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20%, half the rate for non-college-educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.
Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20%!
Of course, this has its flip side, that the women who marry younger and divorce more frequently are predominately Black and Hispanic women from poorer environments. The highest divorce rate, exceeding 50%, is for Black women in high poverty areas. These women clearly face extraordinary challenges and society would do well to find ways to reduce not just teen pregnancies but early marriages among the poor and develop programs that train and educate the poor, which will not only delay marriage but provide the educational and financial foundation that is required to increase the probability of a marriage being successful. Early marriage, early pregnancy, early divorce is a cycle of broken families that contributes significantly to maintaining poverty. The cost to our society is enormous.
Here is some additional data about divorce in first marriages before moving on to the limited data available about second marriages. Divorce rates are cumulative statistics, i.e., they don't occur at a single moment in time but add up over the years of marriage and do so at different rates. After reviewing numerous sources, it appears that about 10% of all marriages end in divorce during the first five years and another 10% by the tenth year. Thus, half of all divorces are within the first ten years. (Keep in mind this is mixing the disparate college-non-college group rates.) The 30% divorce rate is not reached until the 18th year of marriage and the 40% rate is not reached until the 50th year of marriage! Thus, not only is the rate of divorce much lower than previously thought but at least half of all divorces occur within the first ten years and then the rate of divorce slows dramatically. Since the divorce rate for women married by 18 is 48% in the first ten years and that group, once again, is primarily poor, minority women, the rate for educated couples is much less during those first ten years.
A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1000 people in the U.S. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60% of all second marriages ended in divorce. These errors have had a profound impact on attitudes about marriage in our society and it is a terrible injustice that there wasn't more of an effort to get accurate data (essentially only obtainable by following a significant number of couples over time and measure the outcomes) or that newer, more accurate and optimistic data isn't being heavily reported in the media.
It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40% for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30% in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than view marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as a having 70% likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.
The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20%, half the rate for non-college-educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.
Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20%!
Of course, this has its flip side, that the women who marry younger and divorce more frequently are predominately Black and Hispanic women from poorer environments. The highest divorce rate, exceeding 50%, is for Black women in high poverty areas. These women clearly face extraordinary challenges and society would do well to find ways to reduce not just teen pregnancies but early marriages among the poor and develop programs that train and educate the poor, which will not only delay marriage but provide the educational and financial foundation that is required to increase the probability of a marriage being successful. Early marriage, early pregnancy, early divorce is a cycle of broken families that contributes significantly to maintaining poverty. The cost to our society is enormous.
Here is some additional data about divorce in first marriages before moving on to the limited data available about second marriages. Divorce rates are cumulative statistics, i.e., they don't occur at a single moment in time but add up over the years of marriage and do so at different rates. After reviewing numerous sources, it appears that about 10% of all marriages end in divorce during the first five years and another 10% by the tenth year. Thus, half of all divorces are within the first ten years. (Keep in mind this is mixing the disparate college-non-college group rates.) The 30% divorce rate is not reached until the 18th year of marriage and the 40% rate is not reached until the 50th year of marriage! Thus, not only is the rate of divorce much lower than previously thought but at least half of all divorces occur within the first ten years and then the rate of divorce slows dramatically. Since the divorce rate for women married by 18 is 48% in the first ten years and that group, once again, is primarily poor, minority women, the rate for educated couples is much less during those first ten years.
