Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ernie]

I request that we get back to the OP, and take other discussions to a different thread.

In your your original post you stated:

For the record, I don't think God intended for civil governments to police marriage and divorces. I think that civil government is only responsible to police violence and neglect.

Except that civil governments have ALWAYS regulated marriage and divorce going all the way back to Biblical times. Even if performed in churches, civil governments have always regulated (policed) marriage and divorce. Including in the ancient Rome of Jesus and Paul. And that has certainly been the case in the US since early colonial times.

I, along with folks like Ron Paul, don't think this is good.
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/ ... ge/224332/

I take it a step further than Paul and believe religious institutions should only be involved in marriage if their view of marriage is what we find in the New Testament and church is what we find in the New Testament. If church and marriage do not reflect the models we find in the NT, then "policing" by a church is essentially using the same sort of coercion as civil government.


And... civil government has become much more involved.
https://mises.org/wire/how-state-seized ... l-marriage

In this thread I am promoting the idea that societies need to honor and promote the New Testament concepts regarding marriage. To whatever extent they do not, there will be abuses and neglect and eventually the downfall of the society.

[HondurasKeiser]

I request that we get back to the OP, and take other discussions to a different thread.

In your your original post you stated:

For the record, I don't think God intended for civil governments to police marriage and divorces. I think that civil government is only responsible to police violence and neglect.

Except that civil governments have ALWAYS regulated marriage and divorce going all the way back to Biblical times. Even if performed in churches, civil governments have always regulated (policed) marriage and divorce. Including in the ancient Rome of Jesus and Paul. And that has certainly been the case in the US since early colonial times.

I, along with folks like Ron Paul, don't think this is good.
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/ ... ge/224332/

I take it a step further than Paul and believe religious institutions should only be involved in marriage if their view of marriage is what we find in the New Testament and church is what we find in the New Testament. If church and marriage do not reflect the models we find in the NT, then "policing" by a church is essentially using the same sort of coercion as civil government.


And... civil government has become much more involved.
https://mises.org/wire/how-state-seized ... l-marriage

In this thread I am promoting the idea that societies need to honor and promote the New Testament concepts regarding marriage. To whatever extent they do not, there will be abuses and neglect and eventually the downfall of the society.

This is odd (the bolded part). That's essentially what Zwingli and the other magisterial reformers believed i.e. that the State should only allow practices that are biblical.

[Ernie]

This is odd (the bolded part). That's essentially what Zwingli and the other magisterial reformers believed i.e. that the State should only allow practices that are biblical.

I did not say, nor am I advocating for the State to only allow practices that are biblical. I was just stating a fact.
For Ron Paul to say that marriages be regulated by religion, implies that religion operates differently than the State. It rarely does.

[HondurasKeiser]

This is odd (the bolded part). That's essentially what Zwingli and the other magisterial reformers believed i.e. that the State should only allow practices that are biblical.

I did not say, nor am I advocating for the State to only allow practices that are biblical. I was just stating a fact.
For Ron Paul to say that marriages be regulated by religion, implies that religion operates differently than the State. It rarely does.

I misread...my apologies.

[HondurasKeiser]

This is odd (the bolded part). That's essentially what Zwingli and the other magisterial reformers believed i.e. that the State should only allow practices that are biblical.

I did not say, nor am I advocating for the State to only allow practices that are biblical. I was just stating a fact.
For Ron Paul to say that marriages be regulated by religion, implies that religion operates differently than the State. It rarely does.

A question though...who determines what constitutes the "NT, biblical view of marriage"?

[Ken]

I take it a step further than Paul and believe religious institutions should only be involved in marriage if their view of marriage is what we find in the New Testament and church is what we find in the New Testament. If church and marriage do not reflect the models we find in the NT, then "policing" by a church is essentially using the same sort of coercion as civil government.

What is the New Testament view on the minimum marriage age?
What is the New Testament view on arranged marriages determined by parents?
What is the New Testament view on bride dowries which is essentially the sale of women?
What is the New Testament view on polygamy?
What is the New Testament view of inter-faith or inter-racial marriage?

And who decides? Some 21st Century American version of the Conference of Nicaea in which Anabaptists would be entitled to about 0.1% of the vote?
And since the United States is not a New Testament concept and neither are borders, do we make it an international 21st Century Conference of Nicaea in which North American Anabaptists get a 0.001% of the vote?

The actual way to actually accomplish what you are suggesting would be to scrap most civil regulation of marriage and divorce and let people do it freely with even less regulation than today. In other words, go a step further than no-fault divorce. And then let Churches and faith leaders (Anabaptist, Catholic, Mormon, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) establish their own rules which they enforce on their own members as they see fit using whatever church discipline they want to impose.

In other words, separate spheres or "kingdoms" for church and state that do not overlap. That would actually be the proper Anabaptist approach. To have Anabaptists stay out of the affairs of state, especially those that govern people who are not of that faith.

[RZehr]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

[Ernie]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

You said it better than I.

[Ken]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

Divorce rates in the US are actually at a 50 year low and are half what they were in 1980 and about where they were all the way back in 1950. I think what you are really talking about is the decline in marriage rate which I don't think is something that can really be addressed through regulation.

[ken_sylvania]

The state is involved because long term marriages and families were a net positive any nation. Strictly from a secular standpoint, keeping a husband and wife together to raise children and serve as a guidepost for grandchildren is hugely beneficial. So it made sense to incentivize marriage. And I suppose it makes sense then, that there be an economic loss when the marriage ends.

Problem is, the west has lost the ability, the cultural know how, to have and keep long term marriages. People can pass down what wasn’t passed down to them? How can the next generation know how to have a marriage when all they have seen is divorces, living together, etc?

Divorce rates in the US are actually at a 50 year low and are half what they were in 1980. I think what you are really talking about is the decline in marriage rate which I don't think is something that can really be addressed through regulation.

Well, aint that nice that you know better than RZehr what he's talking about.