Snipped from the derailed topic on 10 year life goals. Let's proceed with thoughts, comments, generalizations about marriage and divorce.

Well first off, if you want to be most literal, divorce in some denominations is worse than steeling from the offering. If you are unhappy, you stay with that person period end of discussion regardless. Now to be fair, my neighbors didn't get divorced when their marriage hit the rocks, and they're back together again. I think divorce is a patch fix when it really should be the last resort. There are reasons upheld by the church (and mind you other religions - I believe Islam was the first religion to allow women to divorce. Fun fact: Islam was also the first religion to allow women to own businesses!) where divorce is alright: cheating, abuse, assault. They're might be others, but those are the big ones. People get divorced anymore for petty reasons - which is what the church wants to avoid. I don't know why you think Christians introduced divorce 'later' of all things.

Forcing to love - I never said that. The point I was making was that I could go into any decision thinking A and end up doing B. But the thing is, I could go in thinking A and do A. There is no logical validation for your argument here.

First of all, what PoV are you taking this from, the religious way or the secular way?

- if you are looking at this from a religious (and to be more specific, the Abrahamic religious) PoV then I could go on about this and clear up some misunderstandings a few people might have but I doubt you'd care.

- now if we are looking at this from a secular PoV, which is what I was doing in the first place, then who are you to say that divorce isn't suppose to exist? What law, rule, or constitution says that divorce isn't suppose to exist?

Even if divorce isn't 'not supposed to exist', there are still too many people who see it as an escape, rather than being willing to talk it out with their partner, and come to some sort of agreement. To me, as a youth, it's a little different point of view. I wouldn't want my parents to get divorced, even if they were going through hard times. I need my parents to help me out with what they can, and not turn and leave each other when things get rough. That's what the marriage vows are for aren't they? Each person agrees to stay with the other through the good times and the bad, not just when life is easy and everything is dandy. To me, if a couple feels they need to get a divorce for a non-extreme reason, then they probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

What the hell is a PoV? Don't start with your acronymes with the poor Frenchy.
Also, marriage's claim itself says divorce shouldn't exist. What aren't you understanding in the words ''until death separates you'' ?

When in doubt, check Urban Dictionary: PoV.

Not that he meant it in that site definition's context.

Don't cuss like that. It makes you look less intelligent. Also, you appear to be playing both ends of the field - saying that marriage is useless because divorces are built into the system, and then saying that divorce is scoffed at by those who believe in the institution of marriage. Which side are you on?

I'm not sure I understand your point there. Could you could reformulate your sentence, please?
I believe I've been clear: marriage is kind of hypocrite (to me) in itself because it's a promise supposed to last for all your life, yet divorces exist (and are abused of).
And if divorces wouldn't exist, then there would be many cases of unhappy couples forced to live together.

And what if your husband starts being violent? Should you leave him and break the promise? Or should you just suck it up because you must stay faithful to your engagement?

Then the husband broke it first making the marriage null and void (ethically).

I think Payne's original viewpoint that divorce shouldn't exist is, in a way, a very naive point of view. Also, saying christians "introduced" it for popularity is extremely insulting personally to me, as a christian. Thinking that we would invent a way to break something that's considered on many levels a holy ceremony on purpose just to gain popularity is ludicrous. It was invented by A christian, who later formed the church of england. I believe it was Henry the eighth. That does not mean that it was created solely for popularity.

Let's be honest here, some people rush into marriage, either too young, or without knowing the person for long enough, and don't really love the person like they thought they did. My sister's friend just broke off an engagement. Had she gone all the way through, she probably wouldn't have been happy living with him, since she rushed into the whole thing.

I am not against divorce, but I am against people entering marriages without thinking things through. Marriage isn't for everybody.

You didn't read my post then - there are reasons upheld by religious institutions, and one of those is assault.

Marriage is an outdated concept, judging by the 50% divorce rate anyway.

My opinion on marriage: It's a good societal institution because it allows for a secure environment for the raising of young. And not getting married in a world where most people are is stupid; what will you do when you're past your prime? Alone for twenty years, aging, no children... You're gonna be emo, payne.

If I remember well, this guy you're talking of actually decided to create this new branch because he wanted to divorce and the prayer had refused this right to him or something like that.
Also, do not deny that Christians are trying to look more appealing and get a bit more popularity: they themselves say it... and there are many interviews on the web that confirms this (and I'm talking of preachers and such here). ;o

Rofl, are you saying couples -have- to get married if they want chance to survive the time?

I'm saying you're going to be a looooooonely old man.

You overgeneralize Christians - and since there are a few Christians on the board, instead of saying "how do you interpret this part of your doctrine?" you say, "this is what your doctrine teaches." And since you are not a holy man, you come across as being ignorant. Its your anecdotal evidence against mine. We aren't going to get anywhere. But I will say this: many people who want "a bit more popularity" have the best intentions - they found the light in God and they want to share it with everyone. If you found something you felt could revolutionize the world and make people generally happier - I'm sure you'd want to share it. And before you come up with one of your passive aggressive statements, that doesn't mean that everyone who tries to make something popular is doing it for the right reasons, and there are things out there that seem revolutionary that end up being quite harmful. If you feel that you are so easily swayed that these interviews/webcasts offend you, maybe you should shut off the computer.

This. I can agree with this.

Yes, he did, which by the teachings of the bible in and of itself, is against the christian faith. That said, it was his intentions, not the actual act of divorce that I believe set him in the wrong. Not allowing divorce is almost as bad to me as divorce in the first place. More problems will arise from there being no divorce.

Kame pretty much said everything. You are absolutely 100% overgeneralizing christianity. Yeah, we want people to know about the faith, but at the same time, most people in the U.S. do know. Also, you obviously don't understand that the attention we may be looking for shouldn't be obtained by going against our religion, that would just be stupid.

You're overgeneralizing christianity and saying that the actions of one man were for attention and reflected the entirety of christianity's viewpoint. This is why you look extremely naive right now.
This as well. Many times, the latter leads to the former, as well.
This is actually one of the most intriguing things while reading Darwin's origin of species. I did a paper about how modern medicine could be getting in the way of the whole "survival of the fittest" concept. Marriage also does this in the same way. By nature, the strongest men should plant their seed in as many women as possible, and will. Marriage and general human emotion, as well as diseases, prevent that. I always just thought it was funny, and how, it kind of is an outdated and counter-evolutionary concept in a scientific way.

Just curious - what do you guys think about young marriages? Two of my friends got married at 18/20, and I have a couple around the same age 20/21 who are getting married in May.

The brain isn't fully developed until you're around 26. Emotions aren't set very well, and your brain still grows in different ways to mature and such. While they might say that they are ready when they're that young, I would be doubtful. On the other hand, if it works, it works and I would have no problem with it.

Who cares if it's counter evolutionary? Evolution is anti-Christian, pro-humanist, and only a theory with little scientific evidence, if any.