@Stephen Duffy: 15 years ago more men were applying. Currently it’s more women.

It states that in the article

@Mick Hannigan: Your point is correct. The waiting period of 4 years seems like it was inserted as an appeasement to the Catholic Church. It should be removed as you sugggest. I think if people want to divorce and get on with their separate lives they should be entitled to do so rather than dragging everything out.

Thank you for that clarification. They should have given there pie-chart a title indicating that it was 2001 data… but then again I could have read all of the article..

I agree that pie chart is misleading.

@ Irving Chubbie Read the NT. Jesus’ no was not unqualified! Anyway, he was a freethinker, vis-a-vis the world of his time. If we are also freethinkers, what Jesus said or did not say, is for each one of us to decide. Then we decide if we agree or not. Much of what he ‘said’, in my opinion, is inconsistent with his character and was invented to give control to the preaching, praying, preying classes. Think free and you become free! Think like a slave and you become one!

Everyone bas a right to free speech Mick. It’s called democracy.

*has.

@canuckandgo:

Why bring up homosexual marriage, just because there are people who disagree with your view, doesn’t make them backward. Perhaps the opposite.

They only connection between divorce and homosexual marriage, is that homosexual marriage was only possible because marriage has lost its value, making it easier to extend.

Why not bring it up?

Are you saying that not allowing two people who love each other and want to be united for the rest of their lives is forward thinking?

@canuckandgo:

I am saying it has nothing to do with the divorce issue of the last 25 or so years.

The same sex marriage has nothing to do with divorce issue of 20 years ago of course. If you had read my post and more importantly understood my post (which you clearly don’t) I equate the opinion of almost half the country on same sex marriage as backward seeing as the original poster saw not allowing divorce as backward. Much like the shunning of HIV victims in the 80′s was backward thinking, the treatment unmarried mothers was backward thinking etc. both nothing to do with the divorce vote but examples of backward thinking.

I also take issue with your statement that marriage has lost it’s value, is marriage only of any value if it is between a man and a women? Or because if you’re not happy you can get divorced?

@Joe: When you say “marriage has lost its value”, do you mean that people are quicker to get out of an unhappy/violent/abusive marriage than before and may actually have a chance at a happier life because they are not financially or legally beholden to someone who doesn’t love them the way they should?

@canuckandgo: one of the last countries to bring in divorce and one of the first to bring in same sex marriages – redemption of the backward!

@Lydia Mulvey: well. Given that Joe made some comment the other day about people who voted no in the same sex marriage referendum not wanting their marriage redefined and so were somewhat justified in their vote and not at all bigoted or homophobic, I would guess he is leaning more towards the gays ruining marriage. But I could be wrong. Am I wrong Joe?

@Lydia Mulvey:

You do realise that most divorces don’t fit into the categories you list. Most of them, particularly in the UK and US are the result of a relationship having run out of steam and become mundane. And that is what marriage was about, surviving that mundanity and making it work.

I have to admit that I failed in that, also having gone through a divorce in the UK, I wish I had made a much greater effort. But living in an environment where there was no stigma about divorce, it being ubiquitous almost makes many divorces almost inevitable. A self fulfilling state of impermanence. That is what I mean that marriage has been devalued.

@canuckandgo:

Why is it backward, just because it is counter to your view?

Your point was specifically aimed at those that opposed homosexual marriage as being backward. That is the arrogance and chauvinism of the so called “liberals”.

@Joe:

I don’t agree that mundanity or running out of steam are stand alone reasons for failing marriages. I think they can be part of a bigger problem but the real issue is a lack of communication between couples which can lead to deep unhappiness in a marriage and a feeling that it cannot be resolved.

My above comment included unhappiness as a category for divorce. This can stem from lack of support from the other person, from emotional coldness, lack of sex, lack of warmth, lack of caring and lack of interest. Sometimes these issues are too big to solve, especially if one of the people has no interest in getting to the root of the issue. We get 80 years on this planet. I don’t think people should stay in an untenable situation if they cannot resolve it.

Oh, and as for marriage being devalued? I could not disagree more. I’ve been married and divorced. And I still believe deeply in marriage. Deeply. I think it’s one of society’s bedrocks and it is not just a ‘piece of paper’. If society thought it was just a piece of paper and it was devalued, the fight for the right to be granted to same sex couples would never have happened. It’s BECAUSE it’s so valued that everyone wants to be able to partake in it.

@Lydia Mulvey:

If you cannot see that marriage has been devalued and has become like many things in modern society, disposable, perhaps you are not wanting to see it. So much so that it now extended to homosexuals on the basis that it is about, fairness, equality and love. Marriage was never about these things, it was about the family as the basis of a coherent and successful society, instituted to ensure the successful nurturing of future generations through the nurturing of children.

“If society thought it was just a piece of paper and it was devalued, the fight for the right to be granted to same sex couples would never have happened. It’s BECAUSE it’s so valued that everyone wants to be able to partake in it”

If you look at the history of genesis of the homosexual marriage issue, you will find that it was a top down, rather than a bottom up dynamic. The clamour for it came late to the grass roots as an extension of identity politics.

Happiness, sometimes has to be worked at and we should not really expect to be happy all of the time. And sometimes we have to live with the commitments and promises we make.

@Joe: You don’t want homosexuals to get married. Got it.

Well Joe if being opposed to two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other because they are gay isn’t backward thinking it certainly isn’t forward thinking. Say it out loud Joe, a man and another man cannot marry because they are gay. Now ask yourself how ridiculous that sounds, they cannot marry because they are gay. Backward, insular, non-progressive thinking.

Is it not arrogance to only allow a man and a woman to marry each other?

You’ve failed to answer my previous question on why marriage is devalued.

@Joe: Also, I got married without any intention of having children. The notion that marriage is about family is antiquated. Plenty of marriages are successful and long-lasting and nurturing without the addition of children. And plenty of people who are married cannot have children and still have happy successful marriages. Society changes. People change. Perceptions change. Life is mutable. The planet is hurtling through time on a forward momentum. Nothing is static.

@Joe: jesus Joe.. Nothing personal, but you are a miserable old sod. No one should be forced to stay in unhappiness because you think that’s what you should have done and eventually your marriage would have worked, apart from anything else, you have no idea that this is true because you did not do that! And Joe No one should be able to stop two consenting, adult people from marrying just because marriage means something to them that it doesn’t to others. Tell all the couples who can not have children that their marriage isn’t worth the same as those who can and see how you get on. Hindsight is 20/20 Joe but this hindsight only applies to your life and your mistakes, not everyone’s.

@Lydia Mulvey:

You are not reading what I am saying Lydia. What was the historical basis for marriage?

@Dell:

Where did I say people should be forced to do anything. I never suggested that my experience and regrets should be a template for anyone.

I don’t even disagree with divorce. The argument I am making is the effect it has had and will continue to have on marriage.

Divorce changes the concept of marriage.

@Lydia Mulvey:

“I got married without any intention of having children. The notion that marriage is about family is antiquated.”

Haven’t I essentially said pretty much that, that’s why it has become disposable.

As for the arguments about the unwillingness to, or ability of some couples not to have children does not disprove that its intention was to support the family and future generations. To argue such is just historical blindness.

“Society changes. People change.” and yes societies and civilizations collapse. So what? Does that change history?

@Joe: no Joe, you are picking one reason or meaning of marriage in history and you are deciding that this is what it really was always.. Look through history Joe, people married for many reasons and Societies put different values and limits on it.. People married for property (wives being a husbands property after the marriage), for security, to keep a class system intact and yes some because they wanted security for future children. , which didn’t always happen and put those children born outside marriage in dreadful positions. For you to pick one thing there out of those and decide that’s what it meant always in history is very blinkered and just feeds into your discomfort around homosexuals marrying.

@mickmc: I don’t care.People should have been more responsible with how they voted and not be so selfish.
Divorce won’t affect the vast majority of us but there is a whole world out there beyond one’s nose.You have a responsibility to those who are unfortunate to have ended up in a miserable situation and where they can’t move on with their lives because of a stupid law.
Jesus never married, who cares what he thought about divorce?

@Dell:

By citing the reasons you do Dell, acts to prove my point. Historically, marriage did not have its basis in “love”. They are all reasons to reinforce the family by strengthening or making alliances etc to secure the continuation of the family. The richer a family became through arranged marriages, gaining of land and resources along with forming alliances , even amonst the poor, all worked to support the family.

What I have been saying as divorce changes the nature of marriage, as it has been redefined to be centrally about “love” it is weakened and devalued.

@ Canuckango Free speech? Can I use your phone?

You can’t Tomás. I’ll never give away my trusty 3210!!!

@Joe: no Joe, I’m just proving to you that marriage can and is about what a society decides it is about. Over the years it became less about property and slavery and more about love. It evolved and the good thing about it is that you can still use marriage to acquire property, If you decide that the slavery, property route suits you best, have at it. No one will stop you,apart from maybe your chosen partner. if you think marriage didn’t need to evolve given the reasons I stated for marriage, you are at one with a society that would hold women to be me someone’s property and children that are born outside wedlock to be lessor than those born to married couples. is that what you want Joe?

@Joe: if you are saying that making marriage more inclusive or allowing people to divorce is devaluing it, you are also saying that any changes to it over the years, ie that women are no longer mens property, devalues it. that a woman doesn’t have to obey her husband devalues it…

It looks to me that you didn’t value your marriage enough and it failed. That’s what happens. My parents separated when I was four but could not get divorce until I was twenty! Nothing was going to save that marriage!

@Deborah Behan:

“It looks to me that you didn’t value your marriage enough and it failed”

Did I not state that Deborah? In different words.

In times past, marriage was regarded as worth saving, partly because of the social pressures and taboos. Extended families and religious clerics were involved in counsel and many marriages would have survived troublesome times, even infidelity. Marriage counselling is a remnant of this. Often now the only counsel sought is personal desires and a solicitor, and that is because its status has fallen.

@Joe: those marriages were saved at the cost of people’s happiness. I grew up in a house that had one of those saved marriages.. It was sheer hell for everyone in the house and made for a terrible childhood and a terrible life for one of my parents. Marriage hasn’t been devalued by divorce being allowed or ssm being allowed, marriage was devalued by people who were unfaithful, by those who abused partners.. I think those who divorce because they are unhappy and don’t want to live a lie are valuibg marriage by opting out because they know they shouldn’t be in it.

@ Canuckango Meanie!

@Dell:

I didn’t say that homosexual marriage devalued, I did say that because marriage had been devalued and fallen in esteem within society in general made it possible to extend it in that fashion.

Your family’s situation is not necessarily an example to prove that saving a marriage is not worthwhile, only that is was in that case. I have not said either that I am against divorce, obviously I am not, I availed of it, or at least my wife did when I left the family home. What I am saying though is that divorce does and has changed marriage and may increase marriage failure and family breakup.

Ultimately my point is that people who voted to reject divorce and, or, homosexual marriage should not necessarily be regarded as backward but may value and want to preserve marriage for the reasons I have argued.

@Joe: ok Joe.. They also could be backward people who have issues with gay people accessing marriage because they simply have a problem with them or they could be backward religious fundamentalists who do not want the status quo changed or altered. Just because you feel that those are the reasons people rejected divorce or ssm doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t mean that the majority of people who did were not backward and bigoted. As I’ve pointed out, the reasons aren’t valid as that definition of marriage also encompassed possession of another human being, you can’t decide one change is OK and another isn’t.

@Dell:

What gives you the moral right to decide what is valid Dell?

I didn’t advance the argument that the reasons I have outlined are the reasons people voted as they did, I posited that these are valid reasons that may have motivated them. There will be more of course.

But don’t be deluded into thinking that those that regard themselves as liberal and progressive voted they way they did out of concern for “equality”, ” fairness” or altruism.

Some of them may have been motivated by baser instincts, it reminds me of a scene from that great movie ‘In the heat of the night’, when Poitier (Tibbs) says he has had it up to here with this town, lifting his hand to his forehead, Steiger (Gillespie) replies.

“You’re so damn smart! You’re smarter than any white man. You’re just going to stay here and show us all. You got such a big head that you could never live with yourself unless you could put us all to shame….”

It is that kind of sentiment that comes across from many so called “liberals”. And perhaps that is the instinct that drives them.

@Joe: same can be said for those who opposed people accessing marriage or divorce. Who are they to say what rights others should or should not be able to access? liberals are not forcing people to divorce or stay married, right wing people seem to think they know what’s best for everyone else. Hilarious that in trying to deny others rights they preach about people forcing their hand.

@Joe: it’s a long standing joke at this stage that bigots are trying to act like they are being victimised by not being allowed be bigots. Thankfully the majority see through that rubbish.

@Dell:

The name calling that is going on is about “backward” people as the “liberals” put it. Personally I would have voted for divorce if I had been in Ireland at the time, but I wouldn’t regard those who voted against as backward. There are too many Virgil Tibbs’ about.

I see you have moved up to bigots now, not only backward but bigots as well. Any more labels?

@Joe: ha says the man whose answer to anyone disagreeing with his oppressive point of view is that they are ‘liberals’ or ‘snowflakes’ . You are not a victim Joe and neither are the people who voted to try deny others rights.. If they are they are victims of their own narrow point of view and perspective and yes people have a right to call them out on it and call a spade a spade or in this case a bigot a bigot.

@Dell:
” ha says the man whose answer to anyone disagreeing with his oppressive point of view is that they are ‘liberals’ or ‘snowflakes’ .”

Either you know that is untrue or you are willingly misrepresenting my comments. I use “liberals” because that’s what these people describe themselves as, I include quote marks to indicate that I din’t accept that they are liberal if they wish to shut people up and close down debate by name calling and intimidation.

Snowflakes are those that require safe spaces or regulate speech because they are triggered. What would you call them?

@Joe: oh right so it’s OK for you to name call people but when others do it it’s not. Gotcha. Now that has been cleared up we are all good.

@Joe: you are funny Joe. You have this whole victimised thing going on when people call out bigots for…behaving like bigots and then call people who are not impeding on anyone’s rights, who, whether correct or not, get offended over things, snowflakes. Are people too easily offended these days? Yes, but you can not decide to name call them because of that behaviour and then not accept others being name called for their behaviours.

@Dell:

Do you consider yourself a liberal?

What would you call someone who is afraid of words?

@Joe:
I’m not a liberal.
I would have voted for divorce.
I did vote for equal marriage (please use the correct term, saying “homosexual marriage” is basically a red flag that you are not 100% in favour of the LGBT community).
I am not and never will be a snowflake and think the trigger warnings/safe spaces crap is for idiots who can’t argue a point.
Marriage is great – IF YOU WAN’T IT. And anyone who is in love and wishes to marry should be allowed to do so. If it doesn’t work for whatever reason why not walk away ?
If you hate your job, no one forces you to stay – you move on.

We’re only given one go around the park by the big man upstairs – why suffer ? As the song says, don’t worry – be happy!

@CeannairBlue:

Do you have a problem with the word homosexual?

Who called you a snowflake?

What would you call those who seek safe spaces and trigger warnings?

@Joe: you are more than welcome to call people displaying snowflake like behaviours snowflakes should you wish to Joe and I am more than entitled call people who display bigoted behaviours bigots. simple as that Joe.

@Dell:

Of course you you are Dell. But if you don’t accept that you are “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions” which is what a bigot is, your charge of bigot to others is hollow and meaningless.

@Joe: exactly Joe.. Never said I wasn’t intolerant of bigots points of view.. If it makes me a bigot to be intolerant of bigotry shown by others, so be it.. You See this is exactly what I’m talking about..bigots acting like they are victims when called out on their bigotry. As I said, thankfully most people see through it.

@Joe: I’m not afraid of words Joe.. You are the one who seems to be taking offense at people using words to describe the actions of others and yet you describe snowflakes as those who are afraid of words. Are you a snowflake Joe?

@Dell:
So you accept that you are a bigot? Good.

There is no difference between a ‘good’ bigot, as some would see it, and any other kind of bigot. It is all close mindedness.

@Joe: whatever you say Joe… But just to remind you that those trying to deny people equal rights by voting against them having those rights, are not victims when people call them backward or bigots. Call me whatever you like, Im not a snowflake.. It still makes the actions of people trying to put others down through denying them rights repulsive and backwards…no matter what sad excuses they try to use or how much they try to play victim.

@Dell:

You seem to be beyond reason Dell.

https://www.str.org/articles/when-tolerance-is-intolerant

@Joe: really Joe? You whine about name calling yet do it all the time and then you try to justify people denying others the rights they have and give random rubbish excuses to justify it and yet everyone is intolerant except you and those who wouod try to deny others rights…. You are the epitome of that joke about those who would try to infringe on others rights or think that they somehow deserve more rights than others acting like victims when they are called out on it. Pretending it has anything to with marriage being devalued or any other rubbish is just ridiculous.. And even if they did think that, it is not a good enough reason to deny others rights.

That’s rubbish. Speaking as someone who’s parents seperated when i was 4. It literally fixed my home life, and was instrumental in the future happiness of both my parents. Do know what leads to broken homes and broken children? Loveless marraiges, joyless homes, etc.

@David Hickey: That’s your experience David. That’s not the experience of wider society. The highest poverty levels, and children with serious emotional issues are from broken homes. It’s the same no matter what western country you care to look at.

@MrSnuffleupagus you’re conveniently ignoring the socioeconomic background in your statements. The broken home doesn’t cause the poverty or the emotional issues. The socioeconomic circumstances of the child and parents have more if an impact than the break up of a marriage/relationship.

My parents also split when I was four and went on to meet and have children with other partners. I volunteered for the pro-divorce campaign while in college and my parents finally got divorced when I was twenty. Divorce didn’t destroy my life! Breaking up parents is always hard but in retrospect it was the best thing and now they are both happy. Ish!

@Mr Snuffleupagus: Divorce doesn’t lead to broken children. Unhappiness, violence, financial worries, constant arguments are far more damaging. People who would rather score points against their spouse than think about the effect it’s having on their children are far more damaging than actual divorce.

What about the separating couple? I’m sure they’re happy to get on with their lives.

Not all of them Deborah. Not the ones who’ve been alienated from their children and forced to pay a salary to the very person that’s cutting them off

Surely custody is part of the divorce?

Eh and another 250k unmarried mothers!!

And another 250k unmarried mothers……a total of 500k people not forced to stay married by the church

Yes Jane that was changed 20 years ago!

In the text it says that last year more women then men applied for divorce, I think the chart is from 20 years ago.

Was just thinking that Jane.

Unfortunately Tom the church uses its silly ceremonies and silly books to teach people it’s the churches way or the highway to hell that the lad/lady with the cloven feet rules over. They use this nonsense to force their opinions on the less educated people who in turn out of fear think these opinions are the right way to live because humans can’t possibly be morally just if they don’t follow a god. The church have a history of doing this, thankfully more and more people are growing up and not believing in this nonsense.

Why the hatred Dell?

Canuckandgo
I agree.
So at the end of the day the people listen or they don’t and vote accordingly.

@Tom Burke: hilarious Tom.. I dont hate you, I don’t like you, but I don’t hate you. Would you like me to go find the comments where you called me hysterical, dim, menopausal and apparently I’m overweight though you have never seen me. You know hatred well it would seem.

No Dell.
You get very out of order when others don’t share your view.
On another thread yesterday you accused somebody on condoning child abuse when they said nothing of the sort. So it’s not just me.

So perhaps if you debate the points without making false accusations you will not be accused of being hysterical.

You see, you must respect people’s right to have a different view.
In this case I think we should have civil divorce. If the church don’t believe in divorce I respect that too. Don’t have a church wedding then.

Everybody should choose what’s right for them. You see, I’m very much pro choice, with one caveat. As long as nobody gets hurt.

That’s why I oppose abortion. Because it involves the destruction of life.

@Tom Burke: Tom let me be the first to warn you.. there’s a lot of changes coming and you won’t like them. Are you denying saying those things to me Tom? Do you think it was OK for you to call me hysterical because I disagreed with you? Or menopausal or overweight or dim.. You seem to think people who disagree with you deserve abuse. Not very Christian Tom. Tut tut. Who did I say condoned child abuse Tom? Can you please show me where I said that?

@Tom Burke: if you are talking about your beloved church and Pope Tom, I stand 100% behind the belief that in not reporting their priests and Bishops to authorities they did indeed condone abuse. If you disagree with that, no problem but I think you will find you are in the minority Tom. You are having a rare day of non aggressive nasty discussion today Tom, I should probably revel in it.

Val Martin
Yesterday you accused him of condoning child abuse. He said nothing of the like.
The thread about zero tolerance of child abuse from the Pope.

Are you denying it?

@Tom Burke: ahhhh Tom..do you understand irony Tom? I’m guessing you don’t from the way you reacted to my comment. Val said he had lost respect for the Pope after the Pope backed the idea of global warming and I said that he was OK with the church condoning child abuse though or some such thing… Clearly the irony of a man only losing respect for an organisation that has been pathologically involved in child abuse for decades if not centuries after their leader agrees with climate change is completely lost on you and val. That’s a pretty hysterical response on your part there Tom, if you don’t mind me saying. I do believe others have also mentioned this to val when he puts his usual comment about climate change on articles. Now, Tom do you think it was right for you to call me dim and the other personal attacks? You keep avoiding answering that?

Sorry Dell

Where have I ever condoned the cover up of abuse?
You see, that’s why I accuse you of being deranged, hysterical or just plain dumb because I have never condoned it. Why do you even suggest?

Because that’s the way your mad logic works. Hearing things that haven’t been said.

@Tom Burke: you see there you go again. Can you read Tom? Where did I say you personally condoned the cover up of abuse? I said I stand behind my belief that the church condoned abuse abd that if you didn’t agree with that, that was your prerogative. I think Tom that you are trying very hard to be offended or to make it m sound like I’m insulting or offending you. Step away from the keyboard Tom.you are making yourself look silly.

@Tom Burke: . Try to get someone to read and explain my comments to you Tom before you post responses, it might spare you some embarrassment. you are in no way justified in calling me any of those things and you have done nothing but displayed those very same traits yourself in doing so along with a good share of smug arrogance.

And therein lies the issue Tom. The nonsense from the pulpit poisons peoples minds into believing all sorts of junk. Lose the religion and you can still live a highly moral life knowing right from wrong. And you can go your whole life not being afraid of some non-existent chap that’ll put you up for free in a roasting hot furnace for the rest of your non-existent afterlife.