Tag Archives: Marriage

Commentary

Are we all married to the wrong people? Does it matter?

2 Comments

Here’s a neat post I found. (H/T Doug Geivett)

Excerpt:

“My basic philosophy is we have to start with the premise when we choose our partner that we aren’t choosing with all the knowledge and information about them,” says Dr. Haltzman. “However, outside of the extreme scenarios of domestic violence, chronic substance abuse, or the inability to remain sexually faithful—which are good arguments for marrying the wrong person on a huge scale, and where it is unhealthy or unsafe to remain married—we need to say, ‘This is the person I chose, and I need to find a way to develop a sense of closeness with this person for who he or she really is and not how I fantasize them to be.’”

That choice to work on the relationship can lead to a more profound, meaningful experience together. Dr. Haltzman offers the following tips to help us reconnect or improve our bond:

  • Respect your mate for his/her positive qualities, even when they have some important negative ones.
  • Be the right person, instead of looking for the right person.
  • Be a loving person, instead of waiting to get love.
  • Be considerate instead of waiting to receive consideration.

To underscore the last couple of points, Dr. Haltzman says many people will put only so much effort into a relationship, then say, “I’ve done enough.” But very few of us will do that with our children. “Instead, we say despite their flaws, we wouldn’t want anyone else; yet, our kids can be much more of a pain in the ass than our spouses.”

Finally, he advises, “Have the attitude that this is the person you are going to spend the rest of your life with, so you must find a way to make it work instead of always looking for the back door.”

Doug writes:

Fourth, we should commit to having a successful marriage, and let go any idealistic notion of being married to just the right person and having a perfect marriage.

Fifth, we should welcome a different conception of the values and rewards of marriage than what is so widely assumed today.

I think this is important, because really marriage is not about having fun every minute of the day. It’s about making a commitment to love someone else self-sacrificially for the rest of your lives! You’re not marrying someone to have fun with them. You’re marrying them to be miserable amidst many trials together. Be wary about picking someone who always wants to go out and have fun. That person is not going to be reliable in a difficult situation.

A good way to test a person prior to courtship is to give them difficult things to do – ask them to support you in your work, or to help you with your other responsibilities (pets, car, taxes) or to do research for you on a problem or to guest post on your blog (or edit a post).  Try to see if they are a giving person, whether they are sympathetic with what you are trying to accomplish for the Lord. Remember that you are not just picking a spouse, but a parent for your kids.

I think that we all need to realize that the point of marriage (and the point of courtship) is not to be made happy by someone else – it’s to make someone who is trying to serve the Lord more effective and more comfortable doing that. You pick someone you think 1) is effective and 2) needs your support. It’s a positive and negative thing. If the person is not effective, then you will feel used when you serve them. If they don’t need you, then they won’t appreciate you.

UPDATE: She’s got more here.

Mentoring

Responding to same-sex marriage proponents who call you names

1 Comment

A good post on tactics from Alan Shlemon at STR. (H/T Jojo)

Excerpt:

Bigot. It’s a nasty term. Usually, it’s reserved for the most intolerant individual. Usually, it refers to closed-minded and angry people. And usually, it’s applied to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM).

That’s right. If you’re a Christian and oppose SSM, then hundreds of news articles, thousands of blog posts, and millions of people think you’re a bigot. If your opposition to SSM is in any way connected with your faith, then your chances of being labeled with this term increase exponentially. Of course, you’re still homophobic, but now they think you’re also a bigot.

What is it with all the name-calling? Have people given up on offering a reasoned, well-thought argument against our position? In many instances, yes. That’s why they resort to name-calling. Plus, it’s quicker and more convenient.

Like them, I’m all about convenience. In fact, I have a quick and convenient suggestion for dealing with these verbal assaults. Next time you’re called a bigot (or any other name), just ask for a definition of the term (at Stand to Reason, we call this the Sticks-and-Stones Tactic). It’s just that easy.

Now, they’re not likely to offer the dictionary definition (a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions), but they’ll think of something. What you’ll find is that asking for a definition can accomplish three things…

Read the rest here.

I have actually seen this done by pro-lifers quite a lot, because they have to face a lot of insults all the time. There really is no case for the pro-abortion position, it’s just about people wanting to avoid the consequences of their own decisions. So you hear a lot of insults instead of arguments.

Commentary

Stephen Baskerville’s new academic paper on the family

Leave a comment

An excellent paper explaining how the breakdown on the family isn’t caused by fathers abandoning their posts. It’s caused by specific government policies. And the conseequence of this crisis is that government size and power increases to deal with the problems.

Here is the PDF.

Excerpt:

Unilateral divorce involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.

If marriage is not a wholly private affair, as today’s marriage advocates insist, involuntary divorce by its nature requires constant government supervision of family life. Far more than marriage, divorce mobilizes and expands government power. Marriage creates a private household, which may or may not require signing some legal documents. Divorce dissolves a private household, usually with one spouse having done nothing legally wrong. It inevitably involves state functionaries—including police and jails—to enforce the divorce and the post-marriage order. Otherwise, the involuntarily divorced spouse will continue to enjoy the protections and prerogatives of private life: the right to live in the common home, to possess the common property, or—most vexing of all—to parent the common children. These claims must be expunged by force, using the penal system if necessary.

Given that 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways.10 Under “nofault” rules divorce often becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by people who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, and social workers.

The most serious consequences involve children. The first action in a divorce is typically to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and did not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify its action. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) to demonstrate that they should be returned falls on him.

A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for associating with his own children without government authorization. He can also be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any such acts. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even without proof that he actually owes it. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist whom he has not hired. In each case there is no formal charge, no jury, no trial. The parent is simply incarcerated.

And another one:

The growing confrontation between the family and the state reveals that the relationship between personal morality and freedom is more than a cliché. It illustrates the direct connection between the breakdown of traditional morality and tolerance of governmental intrusion and control.

Sacrifice for others begins in the family. The family is where both parents and children learn to love sacrificially, to put others’ needs before their own desires, and to sacrifice for the wellbeing and protection of the whole. If such responsibility does not begin in one’s own home among loved ones, it is not likely to begin at all. People unwilling to sacrifice for their own flesh and blood are not likely do so for the strangers who constitute their fellow citizens and country.

Linda McClain writes that families are “seedbeds of civic virtue” and “have a place in the project of forming persons into capable, responsible, self-governing citizens.”12 For the American founding fathers, argues David Forte, “The bridge from reining in ‘private passions’ to producing a ‘positive passion for the public good’ was the family’s inculcation of public virtue.”13

But we can say more. In the family, children learn to obey and respect authorities other than the state—God, parents, extended family, and others who are not government officials: pastors and priests, teachers, neighbors, coaches, and other figures of civil society. By accepting these authorities, the bonds to which often are reinforced with love, children learn that government is not the sole authority and claim on their allegiance and that it is an institution that can and must be limited.

And another:

When fathers protect and provide for their families, they will resist the state’s efforts to usurp those roles. Under their leadership, families are a force for limiting state power.

The single mother, by contrast, is ordinarily not predisposed to resist the state’s encroachment into her family. On the contrary, she usually demands it. She is our society’s principal claimant on a vast array of state “services” without which she cannot manage her children: services to keep the father away and extract money from him, services to feed and house and clothe the children, to baby-sit them, to educate them, and to control their misbehavior and criminality. As the state usurps the roles of protector and provider and disciplinarian, it becomes husband and father, and it has no incentive to limit its own power. Henceforth the state protects and provides. And the state demands obedience.

And one last one:

Under the divorce regime the authority of fathers and parents generally is fragile, because court orders can readily be obtained to undermine or countermand it. Family wealth—traditionally used by fathers to obtain obedience from children and put limits on government—is increasingly useless for both purposes, because it can be simply confiscated by the court and handed to whomever the court chooses: the wife or children or lawyers or government. Children need not learn responsibility with money, because the government hands it to them unconditionally after confiscating it from their fathers. Differences within the family are settled, not by negotiation or compromise or intervention by relatives or church, but by government orders.

It’s 17 pages of pure goodness. Marriage is better when you understand how subversive it is. Once you get away from the idea that it’s not about you having fun, it’s really quite an enterprise – a way of serving God by being unselfish and loving others.