Singular souls should never marry in the first place, its a bit if a Sham. Imo.
1 Like
Thank you RightNow for the share. My story is a bit off. I believe most people are engrained to try and find that romantic idealistic other half. When there’s deceit, and one sided care, then things go south. I’m going to fight him for it. We have 2 kids in college, I’m going to fight for that half of it. He’s a free ride all his life. The buck stops here.
1 Like
I think there are lucky individuals who find their ideal half. Agreed, while marriage has been a sham for about 23 years, my kids are the best things ever in my life, and I might go the sham again if it meant having them. I totally get what you’re saying though about sham.
I have seen singular folks navigate this life without a back up plan, lets leave it at that.
Everyone needs a get out clause if things go wrong. Divorce is there for a reason… and it’s legal!
1 Like
I dont know what you mean by singular folks - but have now read whole thread and i agree with Boots - so much smugness and holier than thou.
Here in Australia, as mentioned upthread there is only 1 reason for divorce - 12 months separation and irreconcilable differences.
It is nobodys fault or question of who was the problem ( usually not one sided anyway)
I agree with that - people make promises in good faith with the best of intentions, but sometimes it doesnt work out
And, no, this isn’t coming from someone who is divorced herself.
In fact, i have been married 38 years - but i know that just because it worked out for me doesnt mean it works for everyone.
3 Likes
As someone who was married and divorced twice by the age of 30 I don’t think marriage is a good idea nowadays, divorce usually leaves on one or both worse off .
Is there any good reason to get married in the first place now?
1 Like
Depends if you like a challenge or not 
1 Like
I think marriage depreciated with religion. Nobody believes in God anymore so it’s okay to break a promise you made to him…
Since I started doing some family history research a few months ago, it has opened my eyes to the amount of “unofficial” DIY “poor man’s divorce” that went on in the last century and earlier.
Divorce was not available to many people prior to 1858, as it required an Act of Parliament to get one. Even after 1858, the cost of obtaining a divorce would have made divorce unavailable to the majority of the population, so people who wanted to end their marriage just left.
Before 1837, there was no Civil Registers. Births, Marriages and Deaths were all just recorded in the Parish register. Even after the Civil Registers were introduced, records were a bit hit and miss - you still find entries in Parish Records up to the late 1800s which aren’t recorded in the Civil Register.
I think high numbers of bigamous marriages was one of the reasons the law was changed to require all Marriages to be recorded in a Civil Marriage Register.
If a general worker wanted to leave a spouse in the old days, it was more common for them to just to say they were moving away to find work and disappear. If someone arrived from another County and presented themselves as unmarried, there was no country-wide checks done before they could get married in another Parish. If they had been married before in another Parish, it is unlikely that the authorities would get to know about it in those days - unless they were pursued and tracked down by their former spouse.
Divorce may have been a rarity in those days but bigamous marriages were much more prevalent than they are now.
I have just finished a section of my family tree which proved tricky to track down because both spouses committed bigamy!
It was while I was researching this that I found out how much bigamy went on back in the old days when everyone got hatched, matched and dispatched by the vicar in the parish church.
2 Likes
Some folks find it difficult, keeping a “Clean Sheet” 
My marriages were in Register Offices so didn’t involve making or breaking promises to god, so I’m not sure I believe in your theory. If god had been there they would probably have advised me to run while I could.
2 Likes
The marriage service in Church does not involve making any promises to God. I have heard other people make those vows in Church and the promises are made to the person you are marrying, in the presence of God.
As the God of the Church of England is worshipped as being “all-seeing and all-knowing”, if you believe in God, then wherever you make your promises will be in the presence of God, won’t it?
And if you don’t believe in God, what difference does it make to the strength of the promise whether you say your promises in a Church in the presence of a Vicar or in a different venue in front of a Registrar?
The argument that a promise made in a Church carries more weight than a promise made elsewhere sounds a bit of a weak argument to me.
Anyway, I would hope that couples who stay together do so because they want to, not because they are afraid of the wrath of God if they split up!
1 Like
Maybe it’s just an ego problem, problem is I’ve been fooled before
By fair-weathered friends and faint-hearted lovers
And every time it happens it just convinces me more 
When you are in Gods house, house rules apply.
You are making promises in the sight of God, otherwise you wouldn’t be saying it in a church.
“What God joins together, let no man cast asunder” “Till death us do part!”
Why say it if you don’t mean it ? No such thing as ‘Divorce’ and even worse if you marry a second time and make the same promises again…
You can dress it up anyway you like boot, but it’s just an excuse for not keeping a promise.
Are gods allowed to own property in the UK?
1 Like
So if you marry in good faith, intending to keep those promises do you stay , regardless?
Supposing the other person becomes violent and abusive? Would you advise they shouldn’t be divorced till death do us part, which could come sooner than you hoped?
2 Likes
I think you must have misunderstood my post.
I was commenting on your earlier remark
Just pointing out that the promises made in the marriage vows that couples say in church are not promises they are making to God - they are supposed to be saying those promises to each other.
I’m not trying to dress it up - why would I want to?
I’m not here to judge my fellow humans, so it makes no odds to me.
However, you can dress it up any way you want - I’m sure you will spin it whichever way suits your current argument anyway! 
2 Likes
There is a lot about the perspective of the injured party included here, what about the vow breakers who are the main protagonists of the divorce, where to they sit in the equation?
1 Like