Hello all,

The Family Section debate kicked off officially last week with the Elimination round and the quater final. Out of the 9 Contestants, we have 4 left for the Semi-finals.

The Semi-finals will be done in 2 groups.

Group A
Topic of debate: "Is Marriage a Life time Commitment"

Date: 23rd of November 2013 by 8pm

Group B
Topic of debate: "Cohabitation: A recipe for successful marriage"

Date : 24th of November 2013 by 8pm


- The 2 debaters for each group are expected to be present by 8pm each day to post their argument.

- Rebuttal stage follows afterwards.

- Judges can then ask questions

More details would be sent to the contestants privately.



Guideline for Rebuttals

- Queries could be a puncture on your opponent’s initial presentation or it could be a question, but the question must be centred on his debate topic/position.

- When querying your opponent’s point, you are required to quote the point in question.

- When responding to a query, you are also required to quote the query you are responding to.

- The queried MUST address all rebuttals.


Semi Final

- The 4 semi finalists are paired using the response to the list of topics sent to them.

- Different threads will be opened for each head-to-head by the coordinators.

- At this stage, they can post their arguments themselves at an agreed time. No lateness please.

- First arguments should not exceed 1000 words.

- All participants are allowed to ask up to 5 queries from their opponent and the rebuttal guideline should be followed.

- Please remember that the queried MUST address all rebuttals.

- The debaters can freestyle but they should not exceed 1,200 words in their posts. so as not to bore the audience.

- Feedback is provided to all participants at the end of day 2.

- The top 2 are selected for progression to Final.

- In a rare case where there is a tie, a new topic would be debated to find a winner. (

Each debater will be judged using the following criteria;

Style: writing style, use of grammar, punctuation, spacing, paragraphs.

Delivery: Structure of argument. Does the argument have brief intro and as well as meaningful summary

Content: how relevant is the argument, persuasive skills

Evidence: Statements supported by facts/Stats?

GENERAL RULES GUIDING THE DEBATE

-All Nairaland Forum rules should be strictly adhered to.

-Debaters should not incite their fellow debaters in any manner or use profane languages.

-Members SHOULD address the argument and not the poster.

- All the debating guideline should be adhered to strictly.


DEBATE TIME-TABLE

Elimination Round

15th November, 2013
Time: 7 – 10pm
Results will be announced on the 16th of November.

Rebuttals

17th of November, 2013
Time: 8pm – 12am

Semi-final - Current stage

23rd & 24th of November, 2013
Time: 7-10pm each day

Final

30th November
Time: 7pm

Judges

Jaybee, Debosky, Sagamite, Ileobatojo, Sisikill, Coogar

Our judges’ selection is a mix of both male and female (seasoned) Nairalanders who are known for their intelligent and unbiased contributions to the NL community. Some of them have participated on NL debates in one capacity or the other. And you can be sure that they will be fair and unbiased in their judgement.


Coordinators:
Family Section Moderators – Tgirl4real and RoyalRoy

Thread will be officially opened by 8pm Saturday, 23rd of November 2013.

Hello all,

I hope we all, the judges and debaters are on stand by.

Debate officially starts in few mins.

Contestant 1 is supporting

Contestant 2 is Opposing.

At the end of the Semi-finals, 2 debaters will proceed to the finals.

- 8 - 8.30 - Debaters post their argument

- 8.30 - 9.30 - Rebuttals

- 9.30 - 10.30 - Judges and audience participation.

Debaters should please note that they don't have to post all their rebuttals all at once. They can freestyle like any NL thread.

Audience are not allowed to post until the rebuttal time is over.

Thanks.

My esteemed Judges, illustrious coordinators, fellow contestants, informed audience, all other protocols duly observed. I remain my humble self, Obinoscopy (Contestant 2), and I am indeed honored and privileged to be given, yet again, an opportunity to speak against the motion that: marriage should be a lifetime commitment. Marriage should not be a lifetime commitment or bondage; the couples should be the ones to dictate the length of their marriage. If they want to live together forever, so be it. But if they want to separate, they should! So if you ask me the question: “Is marriage a lifetime commitment?” My answer would be an emphatic NO!

When a man and a woman love each other so much and feel they are compatible enough, they may decide to get married. This marital ritual involves the exchange of vows and the establishment of rights and obligations between the couples, between the couples and their unborn children, between the couples and their in-laws and – by extension – between the couples and the society at large. The man promises to love and care for his wife, the woman promises same. They declare their faithfulness “till death do them part.” They say these words because they have to. They recite the words as read out to them by their pastor or imam. Those words are not said from their heart. How can it be said from the heart? How can you promise to love and care for someone for the rest of your life? This is probably someone you knew for just 3 years or at most 5 years. And you feel the five years friendship and companionship you enjoyed with him or her is enough to make you extrapolate such friendship and companionship for the rest of your life? My dear you are making a very dangerous extrapolation. No one knows the future, except God.

Marriage is not a prison house. Marriage is not an institution where there is only one way in and no way out. Marriage is not bondage. The essence of marriage is for companionship and for procreation; if a man or a woman is not getting either of these, then he or she should call it quits. There is no need pretending or acting. Even professional actors cannot keep on acting for the rest of their life; there will come a time when he or she has to resign from acting and face reality. Many men and women have met their untimely death because they have been in bondage for too long in their marriage. Ailments such as high blood pressure, stroke, heart failure, depression, etc. were pointed out as the cause of their demise but the real cause of their death is their marital bondage. It was the marital bondage that precipitated those ailments.¹ Domestic/marital violence has led to depression, bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, internal bleeding and injury to or death of the fetus.^2,3 How do you expect one to remain in such bondage after all these health implications?

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, rather marriage is the coming together of two people who are in love with each other and who are compatible with each other. As long as that love and compatibility remains, the marriage remains. But once the love or the compatibility fades, the marriage should fade as well. That is why the word ‘divorce’ exists. Even the Catholics who claim to be against divorce also endorse ‘annulment’ which is a form of divorce. For clarity sake, I wish to state categorically that I am not a proponent of divorce for every marriage. Divorce certainly has its negative effect. However I am of the opinion that divorce must be called in once it has been discovered that the benefits of the wedlock have been outweighed by its risks.

For those that feel divorce is very expensive and stressful, there is a possible solution to that effect. Lizbeth Rosas Montero, a Mexican legislator, drew up a bill that will permit newlyweds to take a minimum of two years marital contract before deciding to renew their marital ‘contract.’⁴ If this bill is passed, there will be a sharp decline of divorce rates in Mexico. This is because once the contract expires, the couples would go their separate ways; no need to go to court to sign divorce papers. Of course, the contract will also make provision for any child that was a result of the wedlock. The beauty of this type of marriage is that it makes the couples remain faithful to each other. Most men cheat on their wife because they know their wife cannot leave them due to the lifetime marital vow they exchanged. The woman too will lose her respect for her husband and is not bothered since she knows he cannot leave. But if they had agreed on a marital contract, they will remain faithful to each other so that they can renew their contract once the previous one expires. Also the renewal of marital vows has a way of strengthening the love between the couple.^5,6

Marriage has never been a lifetime commitment in the past. I have searched several libraries and the internet for the definitions of marriage, the history of marriage, the etymology of marriage and I am yet to see any connection between marriage and the word ‘lifetime’ through my search. It is our religious leaders who brought up this ‘lifetime’ principle. Even the bible never brought up the term ’lifetime commitment’ in all its verses about marriage. This same bible gave us an instance where divorce is justified (Matthew 5:32). The bible never spoke against couples who want to end their marriage, rather the bible only spoke against the influence of a third party on a marriage. Some churches support divorce. Islam also has separate rules for divorce for men and women under the terms of Islamic law (Sharia). For traditional marriages, divorce is very simple: just return the bride price and the marriage has been annulled. If all these religious bodies support divorce why should we say marriage is a lifetime commitment?

Marriage should be regarded as a legal relationship between a man and a woman, nothing more. The issue of ‘lifetime’ should be left for to time to decide. If the couple leaves happily ever after, we will rejoice. But if they are having issues that are threatening their happiness, their health and their life, then I say they should end that commitment and seek companionship elsewhere. Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, its simply a commitment.

REFERENCE
1. University of Toronto (2000). Bad marriages Exacerbate High Blood Pressure. Sciencedaily. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001214160933.htm
2. Jones RF, Horan DL. The American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists: a decade of responding to violence against women. Int J Obstet Gynecol 1997;58(1):43-50.
3. Barnett OW. Why battered Women Do Not Leave, Part 2: External Inhibiting Factors—Social Support and Internal Inhibiting Factors. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 2001;2:3-11.
4. BBC News. Mexico City Plans ‘renewable’ marriage. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15114406
5. Westan R. The Real Benefit of Renewing Your Weddings Vows. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from http://www.thirdage.com/marriage/the-real-benefits-of-renewing-your-wedding-vows
6. Wedding Vow Renewal. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from www.weddingclipart.com/guide/wedding-vows/wedding-vow-renewal.html

Contestant #1 For the motion.

"Is Marriage a Life time Commitment"

The short answer here is yes.

But why you may ask?

Firstly, let me start by defining marriage;

“Marriage is a monogamous, lifelong union between one man and one woman”.

But why?

Because at it’s heart, marriage is about procreation and the raising of children. And a male and a female are all that are required to do just that (A).

Marriage takes biological functionality; man + woman = children and perfectly solves a social need; how do we best - and at least (social) cost - raise the next generation?

Certainly, there are other benefits and considerations, not least companionship, but none of the subsidiary benefits need to be, or are necessarily benefited by being institutionalised in their own right.

Whatever one believes, this anthropological reality is inescapable. There is no real social benefit or requirement for state intervention in any other human relationship that cannot be readily dealt with by contract law.

And intervention by the State, where it occurs, should be to shore-up, support and strengthen the institution. Marriage pre-dates the state – and organised religion - and it is not the State’ place to vary it – in any way.

So to capture the essence as well as the definition, marriage may be captured thus;

“Marriage is a monogamous lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is open to children”.

Open?

But why?

Because although in principle husband + wife = children, for various reasons children may not be the result. So whilst It may not always be the case in practice, the principle and the reality holds. Still today, the vast majority of children are born within marriage.

But even where procreation is not the outcome, the model remains the best for rearing any children if the couple decide to foster or adopt. However, the axiom is maintained, even where children are not a consequence and society is strengthened.

The balanced input of both genders is essential for the proper psychological development of a child. The input from either gender will vary through the child’ development, but it is noteworthy, that in the first few years of life, a mothers input is most critical, while a father comes into his own as children become older and develop greater awareness – especially regards gender (B).

It is also worth noting – especially for those that would try to vary the definition or alter the essence – the UN has codified by charter, that children have the right to be raised by their biological parents (C)


So having established what marriage is and exactly what marriage is for, I’ll proceed to show why it should be a lifelong commitment.

Divorce is devastating for children. And it is traumatic for couples – even those without children. It can also create dissension between the “wider” family. Divorce has even been shown to have a negative impact on the economy (D). What’s not to hate?

Child rearing & care do not necessarily end when children are grown up. Children often need advice and assistance even as adults and not just moral guidance or financial support.

Grandparents can be greatly influential and serve a crucial role in nurturing successive generations. Helping to raise and stabilise their own families – and reinforce the husband/wife union - and wider society. The generational benefits of marriage are manifold.

Dissolving the union even if the children have attained adulthood is negative as it relays the wrong message and shakes faith in the institution. Not only in children of the union but also in wider society.

Marriage unites a man and women in commitment to each other and to any children that they may have. Where there are children, the wife typically makes a disproportionate sacrifice during their formative years. Broken marriages on the whole leave women and children economically worse off where the children have not attained adulthood and the wives where they have.

Some of the corollary benefits of marriage come into their own as the marriage matures. Most notably friendship & companionship, which are life-sustaining and enriching as the couple age.

One must understand what marriage is and what it is not. Marriage is not solely the validation or solemnisation of adult desires – no matter how much love is claimed or how strong the desire is. One could also ask “why not have short or fixed-term marriages”? Perhaps even with contractual stipulations? Any such notions would be spurious, defeat the purpose of marriage and not actually leave society with a vehicle that serves us as marriage does. Not to question why any such arrangement could not be instituted apart from marriage? Why change something that has served so many, so well, for so long?

Historically, societies that have repudiated marriage – especially as a means of normalising sexual behaviour – have done so at their own peril. Whatever the attainment or progress of any society or nation (nation being meant more in the “people group” sense), the family has underpinned that flourishing. Marriage - more than any other thing and better than any other way - establishes families.

So again,

“Marriage is a monogamous lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is open to children and rightly witnessed and celebrated by society”.

Please don’t ask me why.

Enjoy your marriages and families this weekend. I certainly will.

TV


A. Noting that polygamy is not idea. Not delivering the same benefits, having various drawbacks, and usually underlying imperatives other than procreation and nurture.

B. Any re-arrangement of genders violates the definition of marriage as children are impossible in principle and in practice to couples of the same sex. Those who argue that the genders are interchangeable are simply wrong. To claim that two males or two females can deliver the same input as the historical and still almost universally accepted male + female model is not validated by any critical study. http://www.fatherhood.org.au/resources/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%20A4low%20res.pdf
http://www.whygendermatters.com/

C. http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp; http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_summary.pdf

D. http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1112/how-divorce-can-adversely-affect-the-economy.aspx

E. Experience, life, anthropological history

Let the rebuttals begin.

Remember to quote when you want to query your opponent.

[The balanced input of both genders is essential for the proper psychological development of a child. The input from either gender will vary through the child’ development, but it is noteworthy, that in the first few years of life, a mothers input is most critical, while a father comes into his own as children become older and develop greater awareness – especially regards gender (B).

Don't you think you shot yourself on the foot with this truthful statement of yours?

The fact that the inputs of both gender is essential at different stages in the life of the child confirms the fact that it's not a must that the couple must live together before the child can get their parental inputs.

“Marriage is a monogamous lifelong union between one man and one woman, which is open to children”.

Please can you provide me with the source to this definition of yours, I'm more concerned about the use of the word "lifelong". I need to see where it was used.

Divorce is devastating for children. And it is traumatic for couples – even those without children.

Your statement: "Divorce is devastating for children" is too general and thus a falsehood. Or are you saying that a child will benefit more from a family where his father beats up his mother everyday than if they are separated? Don't you think we should spare the child of those domestic violence? There are certainly instances were the inability to seek divorce should be what is to be termed devastating.

Historically, societies that have repudiated marriage – especially as a means of normalising intimate behaviour – have done so at their own peril.

The argument is not about the repudiation of marriage, I personally will never deny the benefits of marriage, the argument is about whether it should be a lifetime commitment. So can you tell me the import of the statement of yours on the debate topic?

Child rearing & care do not necessarily end when children are grown up. Children often need advice and assistance even as adults and not just moral guidance or financial support.

Must the parent of this grownup child be married before they can provide them with the needed advice and assistance? Or is it the marriage certificate that will provide the advice and assistance?

TV01,

Please, we are waiting for you.

Thanks.

When a man and a woman love each other so much and feel they are compatible enough, they may decide to get married. This marital ritual involves the exchange of vows and the establishment of rights and obligations between the couples, between the couples and their unborn children, between the couples and their in-laws and – by extension – between the couples and the society at large. The man promises to love and care for his wife, the woman promises same. They declare their faithfulness “till death do them part.” They say these words because they have to.

Whatever a couples reasons for getting married - and love or proof of love has never been required - a couple should understand and embrace what marriage represents to society. Marriage is not forced upon any couple. So no, it is a fallacy to claim they say them because "they have to"

They recite the words as read out to them by their pastor or imam. Those words are not said from their heart. How can it be said from the heart? How can you promise to love and care for someone for the rest of your life? This is probably someone you know for just 3 years or at most 5 years. And you feel the five years friendship and companionship you enjoyed with him or her is enough to make you extrapolate such friendship and companionship for the rest of your life? My dear you are making a very dangerous extrapolation. No one knows the future, except God.

It is a far stretch to claim that vows exchanged are not from the heart. Especially at the time of exchange and absent coercion or undue pressure. Yes, some find they entered unprepared or without the requisite understanding and some lose their resolve. Your claim that a couple cannot take lifetime vows is discredited simply due to the fact that it has been lived and accomplished and continues to be.

As to your reference to God, marriage as biblically outlined is for life. Marriage as instituted by God can by His grace, endure. Divorce is a fail whatever you believe.

Marriage is not a prison house. Marriage is not an institution where there is only one way in and no way out. Marriage is not bondage. The essence of marriage is for companionship and for procreation; if a man or a woman is not getting either of these, then he or she should call it quits. There is no need pretending or acting. Even professional actors cannot keep on acting for the rest of their life; there will come a time when he or she has to resign from acting and face reality.

You are making baseless assumptions about "prisons & bondage"without accounting for individual willingness to remain married regardless of desires or outcomes. With full disclosure prior and a willingness to live with whatever occurs after the exchange of vows, the love you claimed can keep couples together. If procreation does not happen naturally there are options that can be explored.

Many men and women have met their untimely death because they have been in bondage for too long in their marriage. Ailments such as high blood pressure, stroke, heart failure, depression, etc. were pointed out as the cause of their demise but the real cause of their death is their marital bondage. It was the marital bondage that precipitated those ailments.1

The fact that all of these happen outside marriage amply proves that these ailments are not caused by marriage, but by individual human frailties and inability to cope with the demands of the marital union. Marriage will not necessarily cure you of destructive behaviours. Best one is mature enough to form mature, caring and committed relationships prior to marriage.

Domestic/marital violence has led to depression, bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, internal bleeding and injury to or death of the fetus.2,3 How do you expect one to remain in such bondage after all these health implications?

Glad you co-termed that "Domestic violence". Studies show that of all the relationship arrangements male/female marriages have the lowest levels of abuse. One does not need to be married to experience abuse. As I noted above, maturity, care & commitment.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, rather marriage is the coming together of two people who are in love with each other and who are compatible with each other. As long as that love and compatibility remains, the marriage remains. But once the love or the compatibility fades, the marriage should fade as well. That is why the word ‘divorce’ exists.

A feeling of being in love does not demand marriage. Two people "in love" can do whatsoever they please. The societal value and importance of marriage demands that if it is in view, that feeling of love become a "commitment to love". A commitment to love demands that the relationship is nurtured and protected by all involved.

Even the Catholics who claim to be against divorce also endorse ‘annulment’ which is a form of divorce. For clarity sake, I wish to state categorically that I am not a proponent of divorce for every marriage. Divorce certainly has its negative effect. However I am of the opinion that divorce must be called in once it has been discovered that the benefits of the wedlock have been outweighed by its risks.

Annulment is for valid reasons, amongst which are non-consummation, which defeats one of the principles of marriage - hence why sodomites cannot marry, as they cannot consummate. It is not for "fading love or compatibility".

The negative effects of divorce ripple through extended families,out into wider society and through generations. Those are the wider negative effects to be considered. And they far outweigh any individuals seeking to satisfy their selfish desires.

For those that feel divorce is very expensive and stressful, there is a possible solution to that effect. Lizbeth Rosas Montero, a Mexican legislator, drew up a bill that will permit newlyweds to take a minimum of two years marital contract before deciding to renew their marital ‘contract.’4 If this bill is passed, there will be a sharp decline of divorce rates in Mexico. This is because once the contract expires, the couples would go their separate ways; no need to go to court to sign divorce papers.

Just as easy to constitute something else, lets for debates sake call them "Civil Partnerships". Marriage serves a vital societal service, to vary it in anyway we should ask what incrementall value are we adding?

If a union ends, whatever you term the dissolution, it's a failed marriage. Semantics don't change anthropological or natural facts, neither does wilful legislation. Legislating for same sex couples to be equal to opposite sex couples has not enables same-sex couples to have their own biological children has it?

Of course, the contract will also make provision for any child that was a result of the wedlock. The beauty of this type of marriage is that it makes the couples remain faithful to each other. Most men cheat on their wife because they know their wife cannot leave them due to the lifetime marital vow they exchanged. The woman too will lose her respect for her husband and is not bothered since she knows he cannot leave. But if they had agreed on a marital contract, they will remain faithful to each other so that they can renew their contract once the previous one expires. Also the renewal of marital vows has a way of strengthening the love between the couple.5,6

Wrong in all respects I'm afraid;

1. The optimal provision for any child is to be raised by their biological parents, so any provision will be sub-optimal
2. How some people are unfaithful before during and after marriage. If vows won't make you faithful, why will contracts?
3. Most men do not cheat. And where they do, it's not simply because they feel their wives won't leave them. It's deeper than that.
4. A short tem contract will not compensate for peoples immaturity or irresponsible/destructive behaviour.
5. Lifelong married couples are able to renew their vows as often as they choose

In all, a philanderer and gamers charter. Two years here, then 2 there, before another 2 here. For how long? Imagine loads of old people looking for partner. Bet they'll be looking for longer than two years then. At best fit for only the irresponsible and immature - people who shouldn't be marrying in the first place.

Marriage has never been a lifetime commitment in the past. I have searched several libraries and the internet for the definitions of marriage, the history of marriage, the etymology of marriage and I am yet to see any connection between marriage and the word ‘lifetime’ through my search. It is our religious leaders who brought up this ‘lifetime’ principle. Even the bible never brought up the term ’lifetime commitment’ in all its verses about marriage. This same bible gave us an instance where divorce is justified (Matthew 5:32). The bible never spoke against couples who want to end their marriage, rather the bible only spoke against the influence of a third party on a marriage. Some churches support divorce. Islam also has separate rules for divorce for men and women under the terms of Islamic law (Sharia). For traditional marriages, divorce is very simple: just return the bride price and the marriage has been annulled. If all these religious bodies support divorce why should we say marriage is a lifetime commitment?

Bible? Easily and speedily debunked. Romans 7:2 - For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Divorce being permitted does not mean it's intention is not lifelong.

Marriage should be regarded as a legal relationship between a man and a woman, nothing more. The issue of ‘lifetime’ should be left for to time to decide. If the couple leaves happily ever after, we will rejoice. But if they are having issues that are threatening their happiness, their health and their life, then I say they should end that commitment and seek companionship elsewhere. Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, its simply a commitment.

Marriage is what it is and it has served mankind well through the ages. If people would like alternative arrangements - legal or otherwise - fine. But unless marriage is varied in a way that enhances the current service it provides society it should remains as is.

Marriage -properly entered into - does not endanger, rather it enhances and it enriches. The couple, thier children and wider society. Your motive for diluting marriage is clear throughout your submission, even in closing. The inability to maintain a marital relationship is resolved in "seeking companionship elsewhere".

I hate clichés, but marriage is not by force. If you want alternatives, lite-versions dimunitions or pseudo-boyfie/girlfie type arrangements, by all means, but legislate for and name them as such. But please leave marriage as it is. Serving society through the ages and for generations to come.

TV

Whatever a couples reasons for getting married - and love or proof of love has never been required - a couple should understand and embrace what marriage represents to society. Marriage is not forced upon any couple. So no, it is a fallacy to claim they say them because "they have to"

You don't seem to understand what I meant by "they have to". I was talking about that clause "Till death do us part". They might not have been pressured into marriage but they certainly were made to recite that clause without meaning it. This is because if they had meant it, there will be no divorce.

Obinoscopy: Don't you think you shot yourself on the foot with this truthful statement of yours?

The fact that the inputs of both gender is essential at different stages in the life of the child confirms the fact that it's not a must that the couple must live together before the child can get their parental inputs.

I have a young family. My input varies to that of my wife in some aspects, but is no less critical and could not be delivered remotely with the best will in the world. Emergency dashes at 2am to the hospital? Tactical changes to childcare plans due to unexpected events at home or work?

More specifically children are aware and deeply affected by the dynamic between their parents and typically internalise any division as their fault or meaning they are not good enough.

You would seriously postulate non-proximity as equal to husband and wife together when raising children? Please don't propagate such notions.


TV

Obinoscopy: The argument is not about the repudiation of marriage, I personally will never deny the benefits of marriage, the argument is about whether it should be a lifetime commitment. So can you tell me the import of the statement of yours on the debate topic?

Certainly. If you vary marriage without due cause and/or adding value, their will be ramifications. Here you are proposing short-term contract arrangements. The effect on children alone will be horrendous. To vary it in part - especially in a way that diminishes it as a whole - is in essence to repudiate it and the purpose it serves.

TV

As to your reference to God, marriage as biblically outlined is for life. Marriage as instituted by God can by His grace, endure. Divorce is a fail whatever you believe.

Provide the chapter and verse in the bible where the bolded was implied

Obinoscopy: Your statement: "Divorce is devastating for children" is too general and thus a falsehood. Or are you saying that a child will benefit more from a family where his father beats up his mother everyday than if they are separated? Don't you think we should spare the child of those domestic violence? There are certainly instances were the inability to seek divorce should be what is to be termed devastating.

Divorce for whatever reason harms children, and can never be described as a falsehood. Abuse in the relationship is simply additional harm to that child.

Mature, caring and committed adults do not abuse their spouses. Hint, hint.

TV

You are making baseless assumptions about "prisons & bondage"without accounting for individual willingness to remain married regardless of desires or outcomes.

What would make one want to remain in a bad marriage? It's only bondage that can.

Obinoscopy: Must the parent of this grownup child be married before they can provide them with the needed advice and assistance? Or is it the marriage certificate that will provide the advice and assistance?

True.
But consider the dynamic. Children are often bitter when their parents get divorced. It often cause estrangement. Even where it does not, it's hard to seek certain types of advice from someone who cannot model marriage, who in your eyes have lived a lie or betrayed someone you love dearly.

TV

Tgirl4real: TV01,

Please, we are waiting for you.

Thanks.

I think the time difference threw things somewhat. I'm an hour behind.

TV

Obinoscopy: You don't seem to understand what I meant by "they have to". I was talking about that clause "Till death do us part". They might not have been pressured into marriage but they certainly were made to recite that clause without meaning it. This is because if they had meant it, there will be no divorce.

In as much as divorce happens for a number of reasons, it does not mean that couples did not mean their vows at the time of exchanging them. Marriage vows are well known and not a surprise on the day.

The reasons for divorce are legion, but for the most part boil down to individuals not understanding or having the right expectations of marriage, or being unduly selfish and engaging in wilfull/destructive behaviour after.

TV

Bible? Easily and speedily debunked. Romans 7:2 - For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

The bible gave instances where a woman is free of her husband besides death. This confirms the fact that even the bible is aware that not every marriage is lifelong.

Divorce being permitted does not mean it's intention is not lifelong.

Again this a false statement. If divorce is permitted, it means every marriage is not lifelong since there's a termination clause. You cannot say you can live forever when you have a terminated clause: death.

Obinoscopy: What would make one want to remain in a bad marriage? It's only bondage that can.

Your use of the term "bad" is pejorative. Not having ones desires satisfied does not mean "bad". I have friends with daughters and no sons and vice-versa. Others with no children even though they would dearly love them. Some men consider that bad, others choose to remain committed to their wives and any children regardless

Voluntary commitment is not bondage. Marriage in truth is about serving the other. If you can't do that or cannot aspire to it, then forego it. Your relationship does not have to be witnessed and validated as marriage by society if you are not willing or able to confirm and commit it's value to that same society. There are various other options available. I'm sure there is one that suits whatever arrangement a couple have.

TV

Obinoscopy: The bible gave instances where a woman is free of her husband besides death. This confirms the fact that even the bible is aware that not every marriage is lifelong.

Where? Please show us.

TV

Obinoscopy: Again this a false statement. If divorce is permitted, it means every marriage is not lifelong since there's a termination clause.

Biblically divorce does not mean re-marriage. One is bound until death. Please read Romans 7 as quoted above.

Obinoscopy: You cannot say you can live forever when you have a terminated clause: death.

You need to re-read this carefully.
Biblically, death is reason for re-marriage


TV

Kindly indicate when you are satisfied with your opponent's and you have nothing more to add.

Thanks.