marriage counseling-- by law?

[fli]

All of us has read a few marriage and divorce statistics through out the years. Meaning, I don't need to post one up to show that the US has a high divorce rate.

Most of you heard this, whether you want to or not: "Protect marriage." Well me and my husband were talking about it, and we said the real harm to marriage is divorce. And we were listed a few things that make divorce: stress, differences, infedility, money problems, sex related issues, etc.

And then we came to a conclusion-- some folks just don't know how to handle these situations in a marriage. Either they mishandle their problems, or try to ignore it. The problems get so bad, the couple either become 1.) miserable and sad people with an unmarriage, or 2.) get a divorce.

If the government is so suddenly interested in "protecting marriage"-- why not try to decrease divorce? And how would that happen? Well, why not giving people the life lessons and necessary tools to conduct a successful marriage? I'm speaking mandatory marriage counseling.

Six months of counseling before marriage. Another 6 months of couseling before the couple wants to divorce. And during the sessions the couple would go over certain points such as, 1.) what is appropriate emotional reactions, 2.) What happens and what to do in cases of infedility, 3.) How to handle money problems, differences of opinion, and other things like that, 4.) Sex related problems.

Of course this mandatory counseling would be waved in cases of physical abuse. And there will be other issues to discuss such as drugs and alchahol, family issues, child custody, etc.

Not a bad idea,
but I assume certain business such as Elvis marriage folk, and the insta-married drive in booths, would have a problem.

And folks who think this is to invasive in a private ordeal.
What do you guys think?

[lapis]

I've read (yes, I'm too lazy to google for statistics) that people who get married when they're under 30 are a lot more likely to get a divorce than people who get married when they're older than 30. So why not outlaw marriage for people under 30? Unless you're sure that your proposed counseling can teach 20 year-olds 10 years of life experience.

[specimen56]

Ahh, but this would all mean that there was something wrong with same-sex marriages... And any governemnt who admits anything like that would be committing political suicide...
To be honest, I don't really think its too hot an idea. Counsilling is there is people want it, and its not like its not readily available. I think maybe we should try and educate people that relationships are going to be hard and sometimes you will have to work at them more than we are now, but I'm not too sure whether we should institutionalise(major sp) something like that...

[fli]

Banning under 30?
Not likely to happen, and is much more invasive than mandotory marriage counseling.

And I'm not talking about giving people "experiance".
I'm talking about them having the necessary mind state of conducting a successful marriage.

Such as recognizing how problems start,
and how to fight and resolve an argument.

Stuff like that--

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 04:20 PM, fli wrote: And folks who think this is to invasive in a private ordeal.

Which would be my opinion. The best recourse for the government in dealing with marriage is to stop sanctioning it, and ignore it. Do away with the tax breaks for it, do away with the whole joint filing, do away with marriage licenses, etc.

Two individuals should be able to enter into a relationship on their terms and their degree of involvent and romanticism without requiring government approval or counseling.

This way, people who actually respect what "marriage" stands for can enter in to a lifelong committment, whereas people looking for a somewhat shorter relationship don't feel the pressure to get married for financial reasons, then divorce down the road.

Besides, 6 months of marriage counseling for all engaged couples as well as those seeking divorce would not only be expensive for taxpayers (unless you make the couples pay for it, which would result in more children being born out of wedlock and being raised by single parents), but potentially ineffective as well. After all, not every person who goes through marriage counseling is going to have a successful relationship. If two people just turn out to be wrong for each other, there's very little counseling can do.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 8/10/05 04:20 PM, fli wrote:

I love your topic, for the record.

And we were listed a few things that make divorce: stress, differences, infedility, money problems, sex related issues, etc.

These are all very true issues...but you missed another common cause of divorce: Sometimes, people just aren't right for each other. There's a legitimate (and unfortunate) process of 'falling out of love'. Sometimes it's not sex problems, or trust issues, or monetary problems, or infedility...sometimes people just realize they made a mistake.
I, personally, support the right of divorce. People have just as much of a right to get a divorce as they do to get married.

Six months of counseling before marriage. Another 6 months of couseling before the couple wants to divorce.

You don't think that's a little...oppressive? I mean, it's my right to get a marriage, or get a divorce upon my whim....isn't it?

Not a bad idea,
but I assume certain business such as Elvis marriage folk, and the insta-married drive in booths, would have a problem.

No, I don't feel it's a bad idea. It's just not for everyone. Take my parents, for instance. They met one day, moved in together a week later, and married a year after that. My father was 26, and my mother had just turned 19. They've been together for 21 years since then. Would you say they needed any kind of counseling? I feel it would have been unfair to subject them to marriage counseling, when it obviously wasn't needed.

And folks who think this is to invasive in a private ordeal.

Do you feel it's not?

[madzakk]

No. We don't need any more "mandantory" anything from th government.

[TheyCallMeDaddy]

<To the smart 1 that said outlaw marriages till they are 30>
ARE YOU RETARDED? HAHAHA That has got to be the dumbest thing I have seen on this kind of a topic.
<To author>

I'm not too sure about making a LAW about counseling. I believe that it should be the couple's decision as to whether or not they should get counseled. Why is not their decision? Law meaning every1? Who pays for the counseling? I am sure that there are counselers, but by making this a law..I know it will not be free counseling, and that means you are forcing them to spend money on this. What if neither wants counseling? Sorry but I just don't see it happening.!

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 06:10 PM, TheyCallMeDaddy wrote: <To the smart 1 that said outlaw marriages till they are 30>
ARE YOU RETARDED? HAHAHA That has got to be the dumbest thing I have seen on this kind of a topic.

It can't be too dumb, seeing as how you couldn't refute it.

[madzakk]

The government control freaks would make a mandantory everything. Let them and you'll get someone like this!

[TheyCallMeDaddy]

OK. Outlaw marriages until someone is 30 years old? Every one who is a U.S. citezin has the right to get married "whenever" they want to. The government is too possesive right now, and I truly believe that very, very, very slowly-the government will have complete control. Some (and a lot) of government laws are not about "protecting the people" , it is simply about "control". And it is going out of proportion. But! Nobody really takes the time to look at the way the government was awhile ago. The more control the government has the less "free" the US is. Secondly, it is unconstitutional to make people wait until being 30. The ONLY way to make that idea work is to make an Amendment. And it WILL NOT happen. (Sorry to be the bearer of bad news)

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 06:20 PM, TheyCallMeDaddy wrote: OK. Outlaw marriages until someone is 30 years old? Every one who is a U.S. citezin has the right to get married "whenever" they want to.

...

Secondly, it is unconstitutional to make people wait until being 30. The ONLY way to make that idea work is to make an Amendment. And it WILL NOT happen. (Sorry to be the bearer of bad news)

I haven't seen anything in the Constitution pertaining to marriages. How can there be a right to something the government has no requirement to provide or recognize? There's nothing in the Constitution forcing the federal government to recognize or sanction marriage.

[TheyCallMeDaddy]

Maybe not in the constitution under marriages. But how about freedom? That is oppression to make ppl wait.!!HAHAHA...BTW..answer some of those ?'s i wrote earlier...they are definitly valid.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 06:34 PM, TheyCallMeDaddy wrote: Maybe not in the constitution under marriages. But how about freedom? That is oppression to make ppl wait.!!HAHAHA...BTW..answer some of those ?'s i wrote earlier...they are definitly valid.

No, because I agree with you. There's too many unanswered questions, like those you have generated, for such a radical change to be implemented. I also agree--which you can see by my first post in this topic--that there's no need for a government to be getting involved in a relationship.

I was just keeping you on your toes. :)

[TheyCallMeDaddy]

HAHAHA! Thanks...l00king forward to other's responses. And yeah...lol...very radical change to say the least!

[MortifiedPenguins]

no just no. it would be better if counseling is available but not enforced. i don't want the government coming in any more on marriage then it has to already

[madzakk]

At 8/10/05 07:06 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: no just no. it would be better if counseling is available but not enforced. i don't want the government coming in any more on marriage then it has to already

Just like they are trying to horn in on everything else.

[FUNKbrs]

Frankly I think divorce should be illegal. If your spouse abuses you, they should go to jail. If they don't, then you need to live with your mistake of marrying someone worthless. Marriage is supposed to be the biggest decision of your life, because it's supposed to bind for your entire life. If it doesn't, then it's not really a marriage, is it?

That's why I'm against gay marriage. Marriage is bad enough for straight people, there's no reason that we have to spread this disease toward our homosexual compatriots. If we could illegalize marriage altogether I'd certainly support it, but since that'll never happen, I'll just have to settle for stopping the spread of the life destroying plague that has become of what was once a truly holy union.

[TheyCallMeDaddy]

I second(the part about making divorses illegal). Doubtful, but good thinkn

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 07:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Frankly I think divorce should be illegal. If your spouse abuses you, they should go to jail. If they don't, then you need to live with your mistake of marrying someone worthless. Marriage is supposed to be the biggest decision of your life, because it's supposed to bind for your entire life. If it doesn't, then it's not really a marriage, is it?

That's why I'm against gay marriage. Marriage is bad enough for straight people, there's no reason that we have to spread this disease toward our homosexual compatriots. If we could illegalize marriage altogether I'd certainly support it, but since that'll never happen, I'll just have to settle for stopping the spread of the life destroying plague that has become of what was once a truly holy union.

But FUNK, a lot of people don't consider it a holy union. Many people get married just for the tax benefits, and sharing of expenses, and if it works out for the rest of their life then, fine.

If you eliminate government acknowledgement of marriage, then you eliminate those that get married for financial purposes. That way, those that want to have a life dedication ceremony before God can do so without having others do the same thing, only to eventually defile it through divorce.

[Jimsween]

Hmm.... but why do we even need marriage?

[FUNKbrs]

At 8/10/05 07:42 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: But FUNK, a lot of people don't consider it a holy union. Many people get married just for the tax benefits, and sharing of expenses, and if it works out for the rest of their life then, fine.

But that's not a real marriage, it's just two people joining together to con the government out of benefits. Furthermore, it's blatant fraud, and should be illegal. How could anyone condone that kind of activity? "Can" and "should" are not the same thing, damnit. Should we legalize murder because lots of people want ot kill other people? HELL NO.

If you eliminate government acknowledgement of marriage, then you eliminate those that get married for financial purposes. That way, those that want to have a life dedication ceremony before God can do so without having others do the same thing, only to eventually defile it through divorce.

God? Who ever mentioned God? Something can be holy without God. Just ask the Buddhists and Taoists.

Marriage CAN work, but in order for it to do so it has to be plain that the only way out is death (ie, "til death do us part"). The entire concept of divorce makes that impossible, however. Since we already have a concept for divorce, then, it's too late for us to have true marriage, kind of like how once a person has learned how to get all the joy in their lives from drugs, they can longer get that joy from normal things without being completely reeducated, and that never does a complete job.

It works like this: First comes marriage, THEN comes love. Not the other way around. Figure that out, and you'll be the perfect spouse.

[fli]

What's the point of marrying if it isn't for the financial and legal status?
Being together is one thing, but there are necessary things couples need to do to make their relationships functional for certain things.

Making decisions on the behalf of the other.
Child custody.
Property and inheritance rights...
Etc...

While eliminating marriage seems a likely way to eliminate the problem-- it is infact, creating more.

If marriage was about being together for years in the same relationship, then I would be in a marriage. Lots of people would be considered married.

What needs to be done is to help people recognize what marriage is. For many people, they believe it's a 'happily-ever-after' affair. So they get married cause of the romance and passion (and sex).

Knowing how to argue and resolve an argument. What to do about infedility. Etc. These are some knowlege for making a relationship work.

these are just ideas (and I think they're good)--
If you think 6 months of counseling is invasive,

Then why is the government trying its hardest to ban people from marrying?

[FUNKbrs]

At 8/10/05 08:18 PM, fli wrote: What's the point of marrying if it isn't for the financial and legal status?

To have a stable financial and labor platform from which to raise children? Last time I checked, raising children was the entire purpose of all living things.

Making decisions on the behalf of the other.
Child custody.
Property and inheritance rights...
Etc...

All those things can still be done by lineage. Just because your parents aren't married doesn't change the fact that they ARE your parents. The entire "baby mama" cultural concept is a perfect example. No marriage, but still a legal situation.

If marriage was about being together for years in the same relationship, then I would be in a marriage. Lots of people would be considered married.

And in fact, such a relationship is legally referred to as a "common law" marriage, and in fact carries with it a long list of legal rights and responsibilities in many states.

Knowing how to argue and resolve an argument. What to do about infedility. Etc. These are some knowlege for making a relationship work.

these are just ideas (and I think they're good)--

You're right. They are. That's why there are marriage licenses in the US; as a way to insure individuals are fit to be married. They are for the most part ignored, though, thanks the Vegas style quickie marriages.

THANKS TO HIPPIES AND THEIR STUPID "FREE LOVE" MOVEMENT!

why is the government trying its hardest to ban people from marrying?

Honestly, upholding a cultural preconception, nothing more. It's all a PR game for the people too dumb to understand the real issues at stake in the raising of children. This basic lack of intelligence is why American kids are so damn stupid compared to kids in other countries.

[fli]

At 8/10/05 08:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 8/10/05 08:18 PM, fli wrote: What's the point of marrying if it isn't for the financial and legal status?

To have a stable financial and labor platform from which to raise children? Last time I checked, raising children was the entire purpose of all living things.

That's what I was saying. Financial and legal status-- Sorry, I was emcompassing so many aspects and wrote too little.

All those things can still be done by lineage. Just because your parents aren't married doesn't change the fact that they ARE your parents. The entire "baby mama" cultural concept is a perfect example. No marriage, but still a legal situation.

But the thing is with the "baby mama" thing,
When the new boyfriend or girlfriend is there-- he or she isn't obligated to do didley squat. As far I'm aware, being a step-parent/ step-child relationship ensures that people have the respnsibilities, consequences, and perks.

And with homosexual relationships,
marriage ensures that one partner's biological child is the other partner's legal child.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/10/05 08:13 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: But that's not a real marriage, it's just two people joining together to con the government out of benefits. Furthermore, it's blatant fraud, and should be illegal. How could anyone condone that kind of activity? "Can" and "should" are not the same thing, damnit. Should we legalize murder because lots of people want ot kill other people? HELL NO.

How, then, do you distinguish between people who legitimately have marriages, and those that do it solely for a financial purpose?

God? Who ever mentioned God? Something can be holy without God. Just ask the Buddhists and Taoists.

Or whatever. In the cultural/religious/traditional way the couple held marriage.

Marriage CAN work, but in order for it to do so it has to be plain that the only way out is death (ie, "til death do us part"). The entire concept of divorce makes that impossible, however. Since we already have a concept for divorce, then, it's too late for us to have true marriage, kind of like how once a person has learned how to get all the joy in their lives from drugs, they can longer get that joy from normal things without being completely reeducated, and that never does a complete job.

But we are human, and we are prone to making mistakes. Isn't it possible for people to change? Everybody I know is noticeably different than what they were 1 year ago. Given the fact that people change, and circumstances change people, over time, eventually some couples, despite however much time they spent together before they get married, turn out incompatible? If they try to resolve differences, and nothing works, doesn't it make more sense to allow them to seperate where they'll be somewhat happier, than to force them to remain in a relationship that may turn abusive?

It works like this: First comes marriage, THEN comes love. Not the other way around. Figure that out, and you'll be the perfect spouse.

Are you sure? I always thought you were supposed to be in love before you marry. I hope you don't get married, and then just hope you actually love her.

[StatiK]

Seeing as marriage is an institution that is so meaningful for so many people, and that different people have entirely different meanings for it, I don't think the government should be involved at all. Even though it is something that's so firmly ingrained into American culture, by standardizing and regulating marriage, the government is imposing a set of beliefs on people. If two people decide to assign no meaning to marriage, then that should be allowed. I think a separate civil union giving legal rights to any two partners should be the full extent of the government's involvement.

[ReiperX]

I don't think mandatory counseling is the answer honestly. Waiting 6 months to get married is also not the best thing in the world, and waiting on another person's opinion on whether or not you are ready to be married certainly isn't the best thing in the world. If my wife and I went to any marriage counselor and just read our story they would start out with a negative outlook on our marriage. Met on the internet, saw each other face to face together for the first time about 6 months before actually getting married, spent a total of a week together before the actual wedding date. But our marriage is great.

There is so much more to marriage than just what a counseler can tell you, and much of it actually does have to be experienced to really learn it.

[DrBrainTrust]

Most sociologists say that, in order to have an "ideal" marriage situation, the couple should be in a relationship for at least two years before tying the knot, and should both be above the age of 18. while I find this to be bullshit, I do believe that people should have a very strong relationship before entering into a marriage. If a manditory counselling period is too invasive to one's rights, there is a middle ground. How about government incentives for couples that can verify through documentation of some sort that they have undergone some sort of marriage counselling or relationship therapy when they apply for their marriage liscense, maybe an increasd tax break or something. that way, people will be more likely to get educated about issues in long term relationships.

[seventy-one]

I think that the government should be offering free counseling services, but I don't see why they would care about the divorce rate. Why care? There not going to interfere with marriage (gay marriage excluded) because they know they shouldn't. What good will come out of Joe and Jill not getting a divorce because of them? Although I do think the government should offer optional counseling services, I don't see why thy would care. The only reason they care about gay marriage is because they have an extremely religious president.