the whole article seems to have a US bias, like in the types of divorce section. It cites what states have this type of divorce but no mention is made of what countries. As a non-American this strikes me as centring on America for an issue which is not solely american. ( Pookakitty ( talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
Someone, identified only by their IP address, deleted enormous chunks of this article. I have reverted the changes. This article should probably be cleaned up, but not by deleting half the article on a whim. Such major changes should be discussed first. My apologies to those who have made changes since the last decent copy of this article. -- God's Webmaster 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In complete agreement about the "this article is a total mess." IMHO it has serious neutrality problems as well (I got the distinct feeling the article had been written by a recently divorced father). As such, I've added tags to both
I hate the following sentance from the lead section and want to fix it because it definitely has a point of view that sounds more like opinion, so I am going to post it here and look for proposed changes: In addition, acceptance of the single-parent family has resulted in many women deciding to have children outside marriage as there is little remaining social stigma attached to unwed mothers.
My issues:
Clearly single parenthood is up, and I think we can substantiate that, and our society has adapted a little to single parent families. Can we say more than that?-- Fish-man 15:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Redisca has done a Huge amount of work on this page, and I think we are much improved. So I have removed the Neutrality tag. If someone things it needs to be re-added, then poke it back on and we can discuss, but if anything, I think the male pov is under-represented, and if we are careful going forward, I think we will be OK. We still need more substantiating statistics, and those are available... I may be able to put some of those in some time soon-- Fish-man 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the discussion of single parent families is so biased in (at least) the USA that it may be impossible to get a neutral viewpoint. Discussions of crime or criminals often include the information that the criminal grew up in a single parent family( if, indeed, that is the case). Crime is very commonly attributed to the criminal being raised in a single parent family. This society has a very different attitude toward a single parent family in which one of the parents has died, a single parent family as the result of divorce, and a single parent family in which the parent was never married. A single parent family can also be the result of a single person adopting a child or children. Is a widowed grandparent raising grandchildren a single parent? Are the children of a married couple who are not living together because one of the parents is deployed as a soldier living in a single parent family? We do not seem to have a uniform definition of "single parent family." This is serious problem for anyone who is labeled a single parent. Any behavorial abnormality in the children of the single parent is commonly assumed to be caused by the fact that there are not two parents. Unless we are able to figure out how to discuss (and live with) variations in family structure without bias, I think that the issue should be deleted from the article on divorce. Or, perhaps mentioned only to clarify that it is a controversial issue about which we do not seem to have unbiased statistics.
Antigone2
19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
--- Does anyone have any statistics for marriage and divorce. These generalizations do not look very precise. Alex756
What's an "Anglo-American" jurisdiction? Sounds like a South African company (see Harry Oppenheimer). Tiles 05:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
Don't think English speaking is a good change, Indian might be considered English speaking and I don't think that the divorce trends there are similar to Anglo American countries (US Canada and United Kingdom). The term Anglo-American is used when discussing common law systems (though some like Indian are perhaps mixed systems as India does incorporate Hindu law into its jurisprudence). How 'bout western English speaking? Alex756
I'm not too concerned. I just thought that Anglo American was supposed to mean "English speaking". I note the use of commonwealth which goes well beyond the western English speaking world.
BTW is the stuff about France correct? I find it hard to believe that people with children avoid marriage or that French law was influenced by the Catholic church (Ireland I could believe). Tiles 04:56 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Didn't Henry VIII want an annulment, not a divorce ? Especially as the sentence says he wanted it on the grounds of affinity -- I don't know that it makes any sense to say he wanted a divorce on the grounds of affinity.
The comment on the Aug 31 edit was quite biased. Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how FWBOarticle would know whether that is true. Was the information deleted inaccurate, off topic, or biased? If not, which is my view, perhaps it should stay. Instead of deleting relevant information, I have referred to the site indicated and rewritten the section, as would have been a better way to edit it in the first place. If you ( FWBOarticle) don't like the presentation, go ahead and fix it up in a more neutral manner. If you ( FWBOarticle) disagree with the content, say so, and update it with more accurate content or in a more unbiased way. Simply deleting it implies that you, ( FWBOarticle) are promoting an agenda and simply deleting information you do not like. Lets try to be more objective here, ok?
Ill try to find some statistics on divorce in Japan. Should be around since its a hot topic these days, with the rate going way up in recent years.
Jpnwatch Aug 31, 2004.
There is nothing wrong with presenting fact thought sticking to topic is prefered. Only problem is your source. It help if you can provide citation not from agenda site. You have to find two souce. One is to say some country doesn't recognise Japanese divorce. The other is to show that the reason for this non recognition is due to problem with Japanese divorce procedure. FWBOarticle 08:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and it help if you can provide source for the case of forgery.
I have also removed links. However, I have no objection for listing those links as external. In Wikipedia, that is much prefered way as some external links disappear afterward. FWBOarticle 08:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Certainly some content depends on the subject knowledge of contributors. And in such cases, it may be equally your responsibility to disprove things you don't agree with, based on your own expertise. This "agenda site" has unique information not found elsewhere, and quite honestly, it would help if you would read thru the site before challenging issues. At some point you need to trust the expertise of the people who put that site together. That said, here are several references that come up in a quick google search that may answer some of your concerns:
Divorce By Mutual Consent not accepted by all countries
Forging signatures on divorce forms and anti-divorce form
And here is a reference to someone who proved a forged signature in court. The person mentioned in the article is the founder of another organization and his case is well know. Youcan contact this organization to get in touch with him personally. crcjapan.com
So Im going to put back the original information. If you dont like it, please find some of your own evidence to disprove it before making further edits.
And finally, if you disapprove of external links in the text, you should be consistent. There are quite a few other external links in there also. I speculate that you did not removethem also since they do not appear to be on your "agenda." A constructive way to approach your concern would be to remove ALL external links and rewrite them appropriately in the external links section. Since I am following the existing format in this article, Ill leave that task up to you.
Contributed on September 10:
One cause considered, while not conclusive, arises from studies [1] described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It. The book explains that relationships, which rely on strong levels of intimacy, may fail in part due to the physical effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse. Described in detail by Ronald Goldman's work [2], divorce rates in various nations are compared and strongly linked to male circumcision rates just 25 years prior. O'Hara's book describes that, in the case of circumcised intercourse, levels of satisfaction may fall over the years of marriage. This effect may have been known as early as the 12th century, as described by the philosopher Moses Maimonides. Among other factors, this factor may contribute to some couples divorcing due to loss of sexual fulfillment in one or both spouses.
Circumcision as a cause for divorce? That explains why divorce rates are so high, I suppose. :-) -- Ardonik. talk() * 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Hello:
Is it just me or is this article a mess?
Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to do some research on my own on divorce law and clean this mess up. My specialty isn't family law.
It seems like we have a whole bunch of laypeople working on this article, including several pissed-off divorced fathers, and relatively few law-trained people.
I suspect the reason no family law people have bothered to clean this up is because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Family law is well-known among lawyers as the most stressful type of law. Most legal disputes can be reduced to awards of money, but it's hard to do that with kids or with property that may be of great sentimental value to both spouses.
-- Coolcaesar 08:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the write-ups on other countries, but the US section is terrible. The author obviously knows very little about law and wrote, it seems, from his own limited experiences and convictions. First of all, the ABA is a non-governmental organization, which does not have the power to enact statutes, overhaul courts, or otherwise "introduce" anything. It can and does engage in lobbying, but so do numerous other groups. The jumbled statement about the supposed dealings between the ABA and the NAWL is mystifying.
Second, not all states delegate divorce proceedings to "Family Law section in the courts". New York, for example, has Family Court, but it is the Supreme Court which maintains jurisdiction over divorces. In any event, the article creates a vague impression that family courts serve special interests, but does not explain their significance.
Third, the use of legal terminology and the discussion of legal concepts in this section of the article is hopelessly muddled and inaccurate. There is an apparent confusion, for example, between divorce and separation; between divorce-for-fault and covenant marriage; and between the dissolution of marriage and collateral issues. It is worth noting that some states provide for neither no-fault divorce nor covenant marriage. I am surprised and dismayed that, knowing as little as he does about divorce, the author had the gall to characterize certain proceedings, outcomes, etc. as "typical".
I think the US section needs to be completely re-written by someone who actually possesses legal knowledge and expertise.-- Redisca 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The document specimens on the page are, I believe, ludicrous fakes. No document articulating the rights of parties to litigation would be handwritten with scribbles and crossed-out items such as these. The existence of what may be a clerk stamp is not sufficient to convince me.
Additionally, there are substantial privacy violations if, contrary to my suspicion, the documents are indeed genuine. There are in several jurisdictions substantial limitations on the release of records relating to child custody matters.
I think the documents should be removed in favor of neutral specimen documents which might be available through court websites.
Displaying unredacted court documents is clearly a problem. In most US jurisdictions, records of divorce and custody proceedings are confindential and cannot be publicized without the consent of both ex-spouses (and, where the identity of a minor is an issue, even that may not be enough). In the documents shown in the article, the names are clearly visible. Apart from being the author's pathetic attempt at a revenge of some sort (which, of course, violates the site's neutrality rules), it is also very unethical, and very likely illegal, as well.-- Redisca 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the filled-out forms don't really add much to the article, especially to the intro where they appear. Can we agree to delete them? I searched for some online blank forms. There's a government site at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/forms/fc_drda8.asp with forms for requesting a divorce, and with a blank decree. How about swapping those in, thus solving most of the issues raised above (since the forms are blank)? Sderose 14:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone just added a "bias" flag to section 5 (medical and sociological effects). Oddly, they have posted nothing here about why. They also used only a numeric IP address, and didn't give a comment with their edit. Since nearly every claim in that section has a specific citation, and given that the anonymous editor hasn't mentioned any particulars or suggestd any way to reduce whatever bias they perceive, it seems to me we should either figure out what they mean and address it, or else delete the bias flag. As is, it looks like somebody just doesn't *like* the cited facts; by itself that doesn't make the article biased. Sderose 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the opinion that males are underrepresented and often-mistreated when it comes to child custody on a variety of levels, but here I am trying to write a paper to that effect, and I can't use wikipedia as a reference, because the quotes are just _TOO_ good. And so are some of the external links. I can't use this stuff without undermining my own credibility, because this article has undermined it's own credibility. It's doing a good thing, educating and disseminating information on how we can improve this facet of society. But. Well. It still aint neutral. -- 134.114.183.163 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
212.138.113.12 added the following text:
I removed it for a few reasons. 1) It lacks citation. Unnamed studies are worthless, because anyone can invent them. 2) It's bad sociology. I bet that people who have anal and oral sex, and are willing to admit to it, are less likely to be social conservatives. Social conservatives are less likely to see divorce as an acceptable option, even when the marriage is a mess. In short, the correlation in no way suggests causality. (unsigned by Alienus)
Can we cut down on the references. There are so many that they are no longer useful. Wikipedia is not a bibliography or a list of links. If someone wants to save them, move them to Wikisource. If I dont hear complaints. I will start paring them down to general reference works on divorce. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Something that has become more popular in the United States; I have added information about this as I have recently gone through a divorce and thoroughly investigated all my options. It's one of my first contributions to this site, so let me know if there are any serious problems with it. -- Nephalim 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Information on the specifics on the laws of both contested and uncontested divorces in Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic would be helpful for
Divorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction, and also for
Divorce mill
Nephalim
11:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this statement:
I appreciate that refusal to honour court-ordered visitation is generally treated less seriously than non-payment of child support but I wonder if it's realy true it seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change (although of course one violation of a visitation order is unlikely to cause as much damage as one violation of child support can). AFAIK (I'm not an American or a legal expert) it can be considered contempt of court and although the person who's visitation rights are violated probably obtains little help from the police and it might take quite a lot of time and money, I suspect in most cases if they are able and willing to put in the money and time to take the issue to court it will result in at least some compulsion to change. I'm not saying this is fair, simply pointing out that the statement there is seldom any punishment or complusion to change is probably misleading as currently written Nil Einne 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice the line "though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit." has been removed. Any chance of an explanation? Is divorce specifcally mentioned in the Qur'an, or not, or is it just that the piece of information is considered irrelevant? Gretnagod 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this part: "It was also shown the lack of a marriage is not a problem for Jesus, as shown in John 4.18-19 that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband cohabitating with a man who is not her husband."
Here's why. The scriptures cited demonstrate that Jesus knew of her remarriages and cohibatation. They do not indicate that he "don't have any problem of a woman ... cohabitating with a man who is not her husband." He merely showed the woman, who was a stranger to him, that he had personal knowledge of her life, which no ordinary stranger would have. He later claimed to her to be the messiah sought by both the Jews and the Samaritans (verse 26). Thus, his display to her of spiritual power, by demonstrating knowledge of her which no ordinary stranger could have, backs up that claim.
Thus, the statement is blatantly false and is being deleted. -- BPMoldovan 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate on religion or cohabitation here. However, my personal discussion page has some further thoughts on this subject, on the off chance that anyone's interested.-- BPMoldovan 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"...that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband..." He don't, do he? Jesus does have a problem with poor grammar and writing skills in Wikipedia and for that you will burn in literacy Hell. Greenbomb101 ( talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this sentence:
on the grounds that it seems POV, but I do think it may make a valid point (I'm not entirely sure what it's saying) and would like to see it returned if anyone can properly revise it. Emmett5 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's just get over the situation. You can delete, ignore, or do whatever you have to, to change divorces and any situation that falls into place. Everything is still the same. Case closed.
I am editing this section to make it cleaner and less of a "bully pulpit" for one interpretation, but rather stick to what the Scripture says on the subject. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website.-- God's Webmaster 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This section was "messed up" again. I cleaned it up, and also removed the "cleanup" tag as it is no longer needed. The other section should not be reverted back; it has serious POV and neutrality problems. -- God's Webmaster 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All right; after having my cleanup reverted again, I am looking for input. Does anybody have objections to the cleanup I had done? Ohnoitsjamie called the current information "sourced material". I disagree -- there are no references as to the "Any Cause" divorce interpretation. I see no reason to promote one particular, minority viewpoint (I'd never heard of this one before) on divorce as the major Christian viewpoint. As I said before, this article should not be a bully pulpit. I also think this section should be marked as having neutrality problems. If nobody raises any objections, I will put back my edits. Please speak up if you have problems with editing what's there now. -- God's Webmaster 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one has helped out; in fact, it's even worse now. I think it would be best to take it back to what it was about six months ago, prior to the insertion of the section beginning "Recent research shows...". At least that would be better than the mess that is there now. In fact, just about anything shorter would be better than what's there now. God's Webmaster 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Should keep this part. The answer that Jesus gave corresponded with the question from the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) The Pharisees only asked about a man putting away a woman. Jesus only answered about a man putting away a woman. The disciples acknowledged this by referring to "the case of the man". (Matt 19:10) There is no reason to apply this language to women putting away men. There is no reason to misappropriate the language. The language obviously pertains to Jewish males putting away their wives in Matt 19. and Matt. 5. This was the first century Jewish cultural attitude about divorce in a male dominated society. There is no historical dispute about this. Christian 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The Bible is THE final authority for Christian doctrine. What man says is pretty much irrelevant if it does not line up with the Scriptures.
I am not a Jew, so I will defer to someone else in editing the Judaism section.
I am not interested in discussing this topic further here. I do not have the time or inclination to "duke it out" to no purpose.
By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
God's Webmaster 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
God's Webmaster marked a paragraph as "original research". However, he will not state what the original research is. Therefore, I removed his tag. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
IP 209.6.186.139 says it is nonsense that Jesus clashed with Judaism. His clash with the Pharisees is so well-known that it is taken for granted by the scholars of this world--past and present. Obviously, the Pharisees came testing Jesus. They were not looking for information. They were seeking to discredit him. Later, Rabbinic Judaism evolved from the Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem. (see Talmud#Origins_of_the_Talmud ) I wish that 209.6.186.139 would identify themselves and quit editing without justification. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a Close Relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the already large legal template, I am okay with that. ( Kelly 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
It does make a rather large "blob" at the top of the page. -- God's Webmaster 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The article talks about "no-fault" divorce several times without explaining well what this means. A link to No-fault divorce would be useful earlier in the article, as the first such link appears 2/3 of the way through this long article, under "United States." I'd put it in but the organization of this article has confused me enough that I'm not sure where it should go. Any takers? — Coelacan | talk 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this is old ground, but I can't see anything above. Loneranger4justice added this section and Onedayoneday deleted it, with the edit summary "remove loneranger4justice biased views and I know him and he is biased against women" After reading the two sources referred to, I have reinserted the section, and added links to the sources which as far as I can tell back up the section. Certainly, the first para is straight from US government statistics. If the second para is selective in its reading of the paper (presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council), then a fuller selection ought to be given. If the paper is unreliable then critical sources ought to be given. Mr Stephen 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been over a year and a half since I first pointed out this article is a mess. Wow. I guess I was right about people in family law being too busy to help out Wikipedia because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Anyway, I'm too busy fighting off vandals in State Bar of California and Lawyer to help out here. -- Coolcaesar 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the adage "half of marriages end in divorce" is misleading. I would be very interested as to what percentage of first-time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. I have been looking for this data but I cannot find it. Anyone?
I would like to propose addition of one more external link. The link is www.washingtondivorceonline com The afore-mentioned website provides complete information about divorce laws, divorce issues, etc. in Washington State. Please consider.
Divorce is in general a state-specific issue in the United States. The website provides a wealth of information about divorce issues, articles about divorce as well as information about divorce laws. Please also see the website for other useful information such as directory of all local courts in Washington State. All of this information is not readily available anywhere else. This is an appropriate website as an external link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 ( talk • contribs) .
The person who proposed the commercial external link about Washington State divorce information was being slighly disingenuous. In Oregon, the state attorney general has a web site offering a variety of sample forms and good information--all for free. Additionally, every county I practiced in has a web site if not with forms, then links to sites with forms. I would be stunned the same wasn't true in every other state. If you feel the need to include an 'external link,' I would suggest merely telling Americans to contact the web site of their state attorney general. There is no reason to go to a commercial site. Oh, and I would not say this article is a 'mess' at all. I think you've got a good summary of a wildly complicated and diverse topic. Bill Abendroth ( talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The section about Jesus's clash with Judaism is a clearly biased and unsubstantiated section. I cannot believe this is allowed in the Wikipedia. Unless it is cleaned up and substantiated with more sources, I think it must be removed. 209.6.186.139 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It also has nothing to do with the treatment of divorce in Christianity or with the topic of divorce in general. Relationship between Judaism and Christianity (or the supposed relationship between Jesus and the rabbis) cannot be presented only from the Christianity's point of view, and in any event the discussion of this relationship does not belong in an unbiased article about divorce. The tone of that section is very ridiculous, like that of the discussion above. "Jesus is the greatest expert on Judaism that I've heard of." I mean, give me a break! How many experts have you heard of actually? I assume the greatest expert has read Deutoronomy 13:1-6. Aflyax 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Will you agree that the expression "tempting him"
Matthew 19:3 indicates a controversy or a conflict, as I stated? Will you agree the expression "But I say unto you..." in opposition to the expression "It hath been said..." (Oral Tradition) represents a different opinion than the "oral tradition"? (See
Matthew 5:31–32.) The expressions "said" and "heard" represent "oral" communication. No doubt, someone like Jacob Neusner would have another opinion about the expertise of Jesus and his grasp of Judaism. (I have read several books that indicate he would.) That is fine. He has a right to his opinion. I have read such opinions of the Rabbis often enough. I don't happen to agree with their opinions. The Pharisees were obviously curious enough (or vindictive enough) to pose questions to Jesus. Why did they bother to ask if Jesus was such a non-entity? Perhaps Jacob Neusner would put in a plug for Hillel instead. That is fine. I respect his opinions, but they are not mine. What I said about Jesus as an expert on Judaism represents my opinion as a Christian on just a talk page. I am assuming that 209.6.186.139 is a Hasidic Jew because of the edits 209.6.186.139 has made on Wikipedia. I would expect 209.6.186.139 to have another opinion. That is fine. I did not put my opinion about Jesus in the paragraph I wrote. However, conflict has a lot to do with the religious and cultural setting. All of the remarks about divorce were produced by conflict. There is also conflict among Christians. Some Christians suppose Jesus was teaching Christians and others suppose Jesus was merely giving his Jewish perspective to a Jewish problem. Besides, I put plenty of links to other more detailed treatments on these subjects. If it has the tone of conflict that is because the remarks of Jesus were born of a well-known conflict among the Jews. (Since when are Jews averse to conflict?) Since I consider Jesus to be the author of Christianity, I think this conflict belongs in the Christian remarks. (However, I don't consider Jesus to be a naive Jew who didn't know what was coming down the pike and never dreamed of Christianity.) I and others, such as
John_Lightfoot, don't agree with some Christians that Jesus was speaking to a "Christian" problem. (Christianity didn't even exist.) I especially do not like the Judaism part that glosses over the opinions of such people as Shammai--pretending a united front has always existed. That's why I don't agree that the Jews have always recognized no-fault divorce. Some of the Jews did. I don't get that impression reading
Mal 2:11–16. Jews do this because the opinion of Hillel prevailed in the evolution of the Mishnah. I may be a Christian, but I am not naive enough to suppose that all the Jews have always come to the no-fault conclusion. I want to thank you for the remarks--even if they are negative. This is much better than just deleting the material. Do you have anything substantial besides negative remarks? I would like to read it.
Christian
22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the discussion of the relationship of Jesus with the Oral Torah in this context and your treatment of the events as if there is objective evidence that they have actually occured in the form positioned by Christianity. There are, for example, strong opinions backed up by attempts of objective literary analysis that Jesus was a pharisee (e.g., "Jesus the Pharisee" by Hyam Maccoby). Such a position would be contrary to your description of the argument as if it historically happened. More importantly, however, this whole discussion does not belong to this article. There is a view on divorce in Christianity, and it is expressed in the paragraph above (from "within Christianity" to the quote from Romans); the discussion below is one-sided and, I repeat, out of context of the article. As to your comment about "glossing over" Shammai's opinions, with all due respect, you don't seem to understand how Judaism's legal system functions, and what role the argument between the houses of Hillel and Shammai (and other arguments, e.g., between Jerusalem and Babylon Talmud or between various sages in the discussions of the Talmud) play in it. The opinion of the House of Shammai is never glossed over; it is simply not Halacha. This is not the place to discuss it, however. 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I am familiar with your concept of Halacha. (However, I don't propose to lecture you on it.) But I think you would have been more accurate to recognize that Shammai is not now recognized. (Even I knew that.) At one time, divorces were had based on Shammai and on Hillel. (This was before Rabbinic Judaism.) I am just objecting to the idea that there has always been a consensus. There has not. There has been a majority viewpoint--I will agree. (Your prophet Malachi thought perhaps you were abusing the system?) Even the disciples of Jesus were startled at his opinion on the subject. However, at the time of Jesus, Shammai also had a legal and binding opinion on those who embraced it. This is where the controversy that includes Jesus comes to play. (I could refer you to other parts of Wikipedia to prove this. I certainly can go elsewhere to prove this.) At one time, Shammai's opinion was law for those who would accept it. (By the way, Jesus, my hero, also had a legal opinion. What better way to introduce divorce than to expose the roots of the subject?) Christian 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't argue that you may be familiar with the concept of Halacha, but I am not sure you fully understand how it works. During the rabbinic times, the opinion of the majority was binding, although the alternate opinions were still considered the "words of the living G-d". Today, opinions of Shammai are studied in no less detail by Talmud students in the yeshivas throughout the world, as well as the local opinions of the rabbis that were ultimately rejected. Shammai's opinion is not recognized as binding upon the Jews (at least in the pre-messianic times), but it is certainly recognized as a valid opinion within Judaism. I am not going to further argue about the exact nature of the supposed argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. (Although it seems strange to me that Jesus would side with the school of Shammai, while his teachings are much more like the teachings of the school of Hillel, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say.) My argument is that this particular discussion does not belong in this article, as I explained above).
I have just reread the section. It asks several questions but does not seem to answer them. Did Jesus remove the potential problem of Agunah? I don't know, did he? I propose that you actually answer the questions in a positive way, indicating that this is what Christianity claims, and remove the part starting from the words "Expressions used by Jesus...", since it clearly (in my opinion) does not belong here. I mean, it's great that you guys think that Jesus had a problem with Pharisees (which were actual Pharisees of the time) in the sense that he contradicted not the Written Torah but only the Oral Law (and one can argue for some time about this, as well as about whether the two can be logically separated, and whether this disagreement was similar to that of Seducees, and whether the Pharisees of the New Testament are the historic Pharisees), but what does it have to do with the divorce? :) Cheers. Aflyax 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very tired of the spin and the slant on this subject. You see, some Christians appropriate or should I say misappropriate Jewish teachings and problems. They teach this controversy as if Jesus was putting forth opinions for Christians. Jesus was asked Jewish questions and Jesus gave Jewish answers. Jesus had a problem with some of the Jewish traditions. However, Jesus had tremendous and overwhelming respect for the written word. That's why I used all the expressions. They emphasize "but I say" in opposition to Moses. They forget all the other pro-Moses expressions Jesus used. (I personally think the Jews made a grave mistake in deciding their laws depend on an “oral tradition” that takes years to study. In my opinion, they also made it take precedence over the written word. They built such a “fence” around the Law you can’t even get at it.) I think Jesus had a very serious problem with the tradition. (But I don't expect the Jews to care what I think.) I definitely do not agree that Jesus was a Pharisee. (They said, but they didn't always do--just like many of us Christians.) As a Christian, I want Christians to be free from all of these Jewish details. I don't want them to be free from the principles. I just want them to be free from all the Jewish details. That's why I want them to understand that some of these details do not pertain to Christians. However, I think there are a lot of principles that Christians and Jews have in common. After all, Christians were originally Jews. Christianity grew out of Judaism. However, Paul released Gentiles from many problems such as Kosher Laws, Circumcision and other Jewish Laws. However, many Christians still try to borrow the "other Jewish Laws". However, as I go through Wikipedia, I see how Christians spin and slant the Kosher Laws in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Jesus was talking about a Jewish purity law that had to do with "washing your hands" (useless traditions) and Christians make these passages pertain to the Jewish Kosher Laws. In fact all the translations except the KJV have “purging meats” mean making all meats clean. That is, Jesus did away with the Jewish kosher laws instead of just acknowledging meats travel through the body—kosher or not. (This was news to Peter because he still hadn't got the message by Acts 10. He never had eaten anything common or unclean.) Then Christians, and some Jews, have Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Yet Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath. He simply made arguments about the ways to keep it. (Later he became dead to it.) We should not bind Jewish Laws on Christians. There are many commentators and scholars that recognize Jesus was answering a Jewish Debate on the subject of divorce. Therefore, my research is not original.
Jesus did not release women from Agunah. Christians suppose that when you admit that a woman could not divorce her husband, then you are somehow admitting that she is equal with the man who also could not divorce his wife. Once you admit the woman was equal with her husband you can claim she had equal causes for a Jewish divorce. I think this is absurd. I believe Jesus was merely acknowledging that some Jewish women were divorcing their husbands because they were being assimilated. Therefore he was stating what should have been obvious but was not always practiced. John the Baptist stated what should have been obvious to Herodias. Was John the Baptist preaching "Christian" doctrine when he said it was not "lawful" for her to be married to Herod Antipas? No he was telling her what is obvious, or should have been obvious, to every Jew. (See Mark 10:10–11.)
Now don't get me wrong. Some Jews and some Christian scholars try to depict Jesus as a naive Jew who couldn't have possibly known the big impact he was going to make. But there is scripture after scripture that shows Jesus had foreknowledge of what was coming. Don't take offense, but I think you have missed the boat. (But what do you care what I think?) However, when Jesus is asked what is "lawful", then I figure he gives a "lawful" or legal opinion. I just ask myself what was lawful in those days. Well, Jesus was a Jew and he lived like one under the law.
This is why all these questions belong in the Christian section. I know Jews put a lot of emphasis on the disclaimers such as Matthew 5:17–18. (I see this on Larry King all the time. Don't you Christians get it, the Rabbis will say, Jesus supported the Law. Believe me, I have always gotten it.) However, I believe Jesus became "dead to the law" when he died. But he didn't destroy the Law. (This is a distinction you Jews may not get or accept.) I believe Jesus is the defender of all truth Jewish or not. However, Christians have Jesus fighting Moses. Nevertheless, I see Jesus as proving Moses and the Prophets right down to the last letter. I see validation. In fact, I believe Jesus validated everything Moses said about him. However, when you become dead to a relationship, then you are free to have another relationship--such as become Head of the Church which is your bride and your body. (They twain shall become one flesh.)
If it looks like Jesus was imposing on your Jewish traditions, it was because he was imposing on your Jewish traditions. (This is my tautology for the day.) I figure the Son of God ought to be able to understand the Law of Moses. In fact, I believe Jesus kept the Law of Moses to the last letter. I know Neusner won't agree because I have already read his book. However, I really don't care what Neusner thinks and he really doesn't care what I think. He just wants Christians to leave him well enough alone. I feel the same way. I want to be free from all Jewish details. (However, in my opinion, Neusner is on the losing end.) Why don’t you Jews help me to show Christians that Jesus was not speaking against the Law of Moses, and that teaching against it would have been blasphemy—a grave sin? I may try to think of a way to state it more positively. However, I really don't think the paragraph will stand after I have offended many of the Jews and a large part of Christendom. But I don't care, I will fight for it anyway. After all, this is not the mainstream media--thank G-d. Christian 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not a debate about the piety of an unmarried woman like Mary and if her son was a bastard, not a debate about whether or not female popes can get a divorce, not an endless argument from masoretic texts.... this is not a religion page. Ronabop 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Like I said, "Jesus came into conflict...." Our true feelings are exposed. Perhaps Ronabop can put a positive spin on the religious/historical context? Christian 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronabop. Thanks for the headings. That helped a lot.
I was forced to put in the links because I was accused of "original research". Actually, the links were to online commentaries that are available for human consumption. They are public reproductions of the classical commentators--not personal web pages. I never wanted to use them in the first place. However, some people here seem to edit freely and make accusations about original research. However, I don't see any of their sources. I actually had real sources from commentators who have been respected in the past.
Since I am not into textual criticism, I wouldn't know about the 15th century stuff. I don't think textual criticism belongs here either. I know Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew and then in Greek.
The KJV is merely a rather poetic translation. I really think the expressions reveal the true attitude of Jesus about the "written word". We may not like the "written word" but that is not the real issue. What did Jesus think about it?
The whole divorce controversy, or cultural war, in the Gospels hinges on interpreting the written word (Deut 24:1-4).
I am just trying to show that Jesus was not against the written word. He exhibited respect for it, so why should he try to oppose it? On the other hand, he was not so impressed with what the Jews had "heard" and what the Rabbis had "said" about the "written word" on this subject. That's why he used expressions like "you have heard".
Sorry if the tone seems condescending, but that is really a large part of the whole culture war thing.
Christians keep making claims for the authority of Jesus versus the authority of Moses. Jews make claims for the authority of the Rabbis versus the authority of a Jewish rebel who was born of fornication, and should be put to death for preaching more than one God (as was mentioned above in the Deuteronomy 13:1-6 reference by one of my critics).
Obviously, there was no respect for Jesus in that remark. However, I have respect for Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets.
I have a deep respect for all the "written word", and I have practically zero respect for textual criticism and "oral traditions". Some have respect for none of the above. Some just have respect for Moses and the traditions. It is all about respect. (This also is not original research.) But thanks for the restructure job. It helped a lot. Christian 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why all of this is necessary, including the explanations about Jesus's supposed (according to Pauline views) relationship with Judaism and Oral Torah
and your personal disrespect to the Oral Tradition, especially since it is not clear you understand its role and the reasons for its validity in Judaism.
(See Deutor. 17:8-12. This is the part of the written Mosaic law which was violated. Besides the fact that the majority of laws of Moses cannot be understood without some sort of Oral Tradition.
Incidentally, your own religion, including especiall many areas of Gospels, cannot be understood without and oral tradition that must interpret the written text, and the whole claim to the validity of the Gospels is that they are the oral tradition of the events and teachings of Jesus written down many years after the actual events. Thus, the whole validity of Christianity is based on an acceptance of a specific oral tradition.) In any event, there is a perfectly good article on divorce according to Christianity here [3], and I have no problem with its language, neutrality or lack of biase. I think its major points must be summarized and expressed here in a clear positive language (with a reference to the actual article). Aflyax 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to rephrase how I feel about "oral tradition". I don't disrespect all "oral tradition". (Sorry, my remark does leave that impression. There are many good ideas in the Talmud and in the Mishmash.)
I disrespect it as a corpus that must be accepted even if there are other more accurate and valid interpretations of the "written word". I am familiar with your "Jewish Manual" analogy. I also know that you must consult your local Rabbi when you get confused. I guess that is where I diverge. I don't believe in religious democracy. Truth is more important than the "majority" or the "Rabbinical" opinion. (I feel the same way about Christian pastors and evangelists.) I don't think the Rabbinical opinion is something I must endure.
I also think this is where Jesus diverged. He diverged when the traditions became more important than the commandments.
It is kind of like the policy of Wikipedia. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in creating an encyclopedia and maintaining the "status quo".
That is why Wikipedia has an "original research" disclaimer. I respect that. But if Wikipedia becomes like the "mainstream media" then I am sorry. I am not interested. I don't like gate keepers.
I understand the need for sources. (I don't understand it when I cite sources and they are disregarded.) However, I understand their function. I am not saying Jesus agreed with Shammai or Hillel on the divorce issue. He may have agreed with Shammai. But I strongly believe he supported the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Since I consider him to be the original author of Deuteronomy 24:1-4,
by giving it to Moses through the disposition of angels, I accept his interpretation of the passage. (I don't expect you to agree with me on that because I know we subscribe to different authorities. Actually, I love Jewish material very, very much. I read it very, very often. I often refer to the opinions of Rabbis when I want to try and figure something out in the Bible. However, I don't recognize Rabbis as final authorities.) In Matthew 5, Jesus used the formula "You have heard...but I say." He refuted the Rabbinical method. Rabbi Hillel says .... got refuted. He did not recognize Rabbis as the final authorities. (If he truly is the Son of God, and I believe he is, then he is the final authority. Again, I don't expect you to agree.) However, this is the context of the divorce debate. This is real history. This is real culture. I think people ought to understand this culture up front. I provide plenty of links to the other material. However, I disagree with many of their unsourced statements. Their lack of bias is also very questionable. (There is more than one way to slant and spin without showing overt disagreement. You ought to know. You are a Jew and the Jews have majored in the media.
The Jews are especially good at gate keeping. After all, why else would Jews create a Talmud and challenge you to understand it?) Sorry, Jesus is my man--let's keep it in the Christian section. Christian 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To Alyax.
I tried to take some of the edge off the paragraph by removing some redundancy and some emphasis. I also substituted the word "Pharisee" for "Jewish" wherever I could. This pulls the paragraph back in time and obscures identity. I want to keep the "Expressions"--mostly for Christian reasons. Christian 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(I have not addressed the Pauline part of the paragraph above. I didn't write it in the first place. This is also very contoversial issue and I didn't want to cause more offense.) Christian
I split out to an article about religions, and another article about nations/societies. The implications section could also likely be split out. Ronabop 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Make no mistake, divorce is sin!"
This is blatantly retarded.
But it was fixed :).
The statistics section has a lot of somewhat vague looking figures, some dont actually have any figures just statements. I have not been able to find the statistics on the website insidedivorce.com. Also this website appears to be very commercial in nature, their slogan is "Winning The Life You Want" - hardly neutral and suggests pro-divorce. The section relating to statistics on children in divorce all but suggests divorce is good for children, all the time, everywhere. However I am biased in that I'm a child of a divorced family - does anybody else agree this section smells a bit iffy? Actually on re-reading it the whole statistics section seems very sensationalised. As the stats can't be verified (there isn't a direct link and they don't appear to be available on the website) should this section just be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.212.111 ( talk) 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
We have a list of people with multiple marriages. I am thinking of adding a list of divorced people with English Wikipedia articles to be sortable by men's surnames, women's surnames, dates married, and dates divorced. Any comments before starting such a list? (The list could become very long if started.)-- Jusjih 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a chat room... I have suggested this section is uncyclopedic and needs either deleting or completely rewriting... Davrosfromskaro 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Deleting. Mersperto 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not common, and it might have only happened in that famous case, but shouldn't the article mention that a child can divorce his parents if certain conditions are met. Or at least mention the case where this happened (I can't remember who it was). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 ( talk) 06:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Oh for the love of god. Children do not 'divorce' their parents. That legal procedure is emancipation of a minor, and is beyond the scope of an article on "divorce." Bill Abendroth ( talk) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the terms listed in the at-fault section need more of an explanation. Just linking to the proper articles isn't enough. I wrote the following but I just don't know enough about it to post it in good conscience. Could someone else take a look?
It may be relevant that the wikilink for collusion links to the general collusion article, which mentions nothing about collusion in divorce. As such, I am guessing my tuchas off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.50.221 ( talk) 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While trying to find out a couple of simple facts regarding divorce, I am presented with a load of subjective and obviously point-of-view pushing nonsense as the article constantly diverges on a tangent away from the subject matter (which for this article is 'Divorce' by the way).
More quantifiable facts (the divorce rate - not reasons behind it - of most countries is known fact, but hardly mentioned in this long article in favour of opinionated 'reasons') and less unproven opinions please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.197 ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the football results each week, and have the vague intention of returning to the UK to retire, then you have retained domicile.
This whole section on the EU doesn't make any sense, but I'm gonna delete this silly sentence and hope someone who knows something about this will fix it. VaughnJess 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
parents have rights but to give them up takes an unlimited amount of time time most single parents dont have. as a child with divorced parents i wish i didnt have to switch from home to home holiday to holiday day from day miss out on friends birthdays because i have t go to my parents i love having joint custody but why cant the children choose maybe we dont like one of the parents and maybe we hate living with a sibling where was our say? why dont i get to ever say dad no mom no i want to go to Kylie's or want to go to the movies with Lauren not stay home and listen to the t.v. with you. please re —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.158.157 ( talk) 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good divorce resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/32.htm
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The divorce page of this site provides information and articles on the effects of divorce on children, including practical advice for parents as well as important legal information. It also covers issues such as child support, visitation rights, the role of fathers, child custody laws and other legal information. Teamme 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In the article it mentions Small Dick being a criterion under Summary Divorce. Is this in error? CortlandKlein ( talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
vandal. Solar Flute ( talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Daffy Duck's wife almost got a divorce because Daffy made her egg disappear. Later in open court Daffy made the egg reappear and then it hatched. As best as I can determine, she called off the divorce. Unfortunately I don't know what year that was and what circumstances followed because in later years Daffy appears to be a bachelor again, or a very free husband in a very open marriage. Greenbomb101 ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a prescriber of techniques, it does seem to me that at least some mention of the family therapy article is merited here. Simesa ( talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Isnt the divorce rate in The U.S. above 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.239.85 ( talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
50% of what? All marriages? Get real. 97.102.151.47 ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel like rewriting this right now, but is there any religion - or indeed any ethical or moral code that actually encourages divorce? If any does, why would its adherents get married in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandi ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly the claim that at fault divorces used to be the only way to get a divorce seems unlikely to be true worldwide. Secondly the article does a rather poor job of explaining what an at fault divorce. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the line "From the 1920s, the expectation from married life changed from duty and chastity from the wife and hard work and suppression of vice from the husband has lead to the present higher divorce rates." -- the sentence doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, it seems to be little more than an opinion. I don't know why I'm bothering, though -- some Wiki-nazi is just going to come around and revert this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 ( talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's no article in Wikipedia on "Divorce anger"! My understanding is that it's recognized by psychologists - certainly it's a real effect, as I've experienced it myself. Few Google hits, but see [4] [5] [6] [7] etc. 66.19.241.188 ( talk) 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Fourty nine states have adopted no fault divorce." What's the fiftieth? Solar Flute ( talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the definition of "divorce" in this article is correct. Divorce, or "dissolution of marriage", does not "lead to the termination of a marriage". A dissolution of marriage is exactly what it sounds like - a judge legally dissolves the bonds of matrimony between two persons. In Florida, that is the actual wording used in Final Judgments: "The marriage between ___ and ___ is hereby forever dissolved, and parties are released from the bonds of matrimony and all obligations arising therefrom, a vinculo matrimonii". So a divorce does not "lead" to the termination of a marriage, it is the termination of the marriage. And termination is not as good of a word as dissolution. Hence the term "dissolution of marriage". Would anyone be agreeable to changing this definition? Rhythmnation2004 ( talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
the whole article seems to have a US bias, like in the types of divorce section. It cites what states have this type of divorce but no mention is made of what countries. As a non-American this strikes me as centring on America for an issue which is not solely american. ( Pookakitty ( talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
Someone, identified only by their IP address, deleted enormous chunks of this article. I have reverted the changes. This article should probably be cleaned up, but not by deleting half the article on a whim. Such major changes should be discussed first. My apologies to those who have made changes since the last decent copy of this article. -- God's Webmaster 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In complete agreement about the "this article is a total mess." IMHO it has serious neutrality problems as well (I got the distinct feeling the article had been written by a recently divorced father). As such, I've added tags to both
I hate the following sentance from the lead section and want to fix it because it definitely has a point of view that sounds more like opinion, so I am going to post it here and look for proposed changes: In addition, acceptance of the single-parent family has resulted in many women deciding to have children outside marriage as there is little remaining social stigma attached to unwed mothers.
My issues:
Clearly single parenthood is up, and I think we can substantiate that, and our society has adapted a little to single parent families. Can we say more than that?-- Fish-man 15:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Redisca has done a Huge amount of work on this page, and I think we are much improved. So I have removed the Neutrality tag. If someone things it needs to be re-added, then poke it back on and we can discuss, but if anything, I think the male pov is under-represented, and if we are careful going forward, I think we will be OK. We still need more substantiating statistics, and those are available... I may be able to put some of those in some time soon-- Fish-man 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the discussion of single parent families is so biased in (at least) the USA that it may be impossible to get a neutral viewpoint. Discussions of crime or criminals often include the information that the criminal grew up in a single parent family( if, indeed, that is the case). Crime is very commonly attributed to the criminal being raised in a single parent family. This society has a very different attitude toward a single parent family in which one of the parents has died, a single parent family as the result of divorce, and a single parent family in which the parent was never married. A single parent family can also be the result of a single person adopting a child or children. Is a widowed grandparent raising grandchildren a single parent? Are the children of a married couple who are not living together because one of the parents is deployed as a soldier living in a single parent family? We do not seem to have a uniform definition of "single parent family." This is serious problem for anyone who is labeled a single parent. Any behavorial abnormality in the children of the single parent is commonly assumed to be caused by the fact that there are not two parents. Unless we are able to figure out how to discuss (and live with) variations in family structure without bias, I think that the issue should be deleted from the article on divorce. Or, perhaps mentioned only to clarify that it is a controversial issue about which we do not seem to have unbiased statistics.
Antigone2
19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
--- Does anyone have any statistics for marriage and divorce. These generalizations do not look very precise. Alex756
What's an "Anglo-American" jurisdiction? Sounds like a South African company (see Harry Oppenheimer). Tiles 05:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
Don't think English speaking is a good change, Indian might be considered English speaking and I don't think that the divorce trends there are similar to Anglo American countries (US Canada and United Kingdom). The term Anglo-American is used when discussing common law systems (though some like Indian are perhaps mixed systems as India does incorporate Hindu law into its jurisprudence). How 'bout western English speaking? Alex756
I'm not too concerned. I just thought that Anglo American was supposed to mean "English speaking". I note the use of commonwealth which goes well beyond the western English speaking world.
BTW is the stuff about France correct? I find it hard to believe that people with children avoid marriage or that French law was influenced by the Catholic church (Ireland I could believe). Tiles 04:56 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Didn't Henry VIII want an annulment, not a divorce ? Especially as the sentence says he wanted it on the grounds of affinity -- I don't know that it makes any sense to say he wanted a divorce on the grounds of affinity.
The comment on the Aug 31 edit was quite biased. Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how FWBOarticle would know whether that is true. Was the information deleted inaccurate, off topic, or biased? If not, which is my view, perhaps it should stay. Instead of deleting relevant information, I have referred to the site indicated and rewritten the section, as would have been a better way to edit it in the first place. If you ( FWBOarticle) don't like the presentation, go ahead and fix it up in a more neutral manner. If you ( FWBOarticle) disagree with the content, say so, and update it with more accurate content or in a more unbiased way. Simply deleting it implies that you, ( FWBOarticle) are promoting an agenda and simply deleting information you do not like. Lets try to be more objective here, ok?
Ill try to find some statistics on divorce in Japan. Should be around since its a hot topic these days, with the rate going way up in recent years.
Jpnwatch Aug 31, 2004.
There is nothing wrong with presenting fact thought sticking to topic is prefered. Only problem is your source. It help if you can provide citation not from agenda site. You have to find two souce. One is to say some country doesn't recognise Japanese divorce. The other is to show that the reason for this non recognition is due to problem with Japanese divorce procedure. FWBOarticle 08:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and it help if you can provide source for the case of forgery.
I have also removed links. However, I have no objection for listing those links as external. In Wikipedia, that is much prefered way as some external links disappear afterward. FWBOarticle 08:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Certainly some content depends on the subject knowledge of contributors. And in such cases, it may be equally your responsibility to disprove things you don't agree with, based on your own expertise. This "agenda site" has unique information not found elsewhere, and quite honestly, it would help if you would read thru the site before challenging issues. At some point you need to trust the expertise of the people who put that site together. That said, here are several references that come up in a quick google search that may answer some of your concerns:
Divorce By Mutual Consent not accepted by all countries
Forging signatures on divorce forms and anti-divorce form
And here is a reference to someone who proved a forged signature in court. The person mentioned in the article is the founder of another organization and his case is well know. Youcan contact this organization to get in touch with him personally. crcjapan.com
So Im going to put back the original information. If you dont like it, please find some of your own evidence to disprove it before making further edits.
And finally, if you disapprove of external links in the text, you should be consistent. There are quite a few other external links in there also. I speculate that you did not removethem also since they do not appear to be on your "agenda." A constructive way to approach your concern would be to remove ALL external links and rewrite them appropriately in the external links section. Since I am following the existing format in this article, Ill leave that task up to you.
Contributed on September 10:
One cause considered, while not conclusive, arises from studies [1] described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It. The book explains that relationships, which rely on strong levels of intimacy, may fail in part due to the physical effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse. Described in detail by Ronald Goldman's work [2], divorce rates in various nations are compared and strongly linked to male circumcision rates just 25 years prior. O'Hara's book describes that, in the case of circumcised intercourse, levels of satisfaction may fall over the years of marriage. This effect may have been known as early as the 12th century, as described by the philosopher Moses Maimonides. Among other factors, this factor may contribute to some couples divorcing due to loss of sexual fulfillment in one or both spouses.
Circumcision as a cause for divorce? That explains why divorce rates are so high, I suppose. :-) -- Ardonik. talk() * 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Hello:
Is it just me or is this article a mess?
Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to do some research on my own on divorce law and clean this mess up. My specialty isn't family law.
It seems like we have a whole bunch of laypeople working on this article, including several pissed-off divorced fathers, and relatively few law-trained people.
I suspect the reason no family law people have bothered to clean this up is because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Family law is well-known among lawyers as the most stressful type of law. Most legal disputes can be reduced to awards of money, but it's hard to do that with kids or with property that may be of great sentimental value to both spouses.
-- Coolcaesar 08:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the write-ups on other countries, but the US section is terrible. The author obviously knows very little about law and wrote, it seems, from his own limited experiences and convictions. First of all, the ABA is a non-governmental organization, which does not have the power to enact statutes, overhaul courts, or otherwise "introduce" anything. It can and does engage in lobbying, but so do numerous other groups. The jumbled statement about the supposed dealings between the ABA and the NAWL is mystifying.
Second, not all states delegate divorce proceedings to "Family Law section in the courts". New York, for example, has Family Court, but it is the Supreme Court which maintains jurisdiction over divorces. In any event, the article creates a vague impression that family courts serve special interests, but does not explain their significance.
Third, the use of legal terminology and the discussion of legal concepts in this section of the article is hopelessly muddled and inaccurate. There is an apparent confusion, for example, between divorce and separation; between divorce-for-fault and covenant marriage; and between the dissolution of marriage and collateral issues. It is worth noting that some states provide for neither no-fault divorce nor covenant marriage. I am surprised and dismayed that, knowing as little as he does about divorce, the author had the gall to characterize certain proceedings, outcomes, etc. as "typical".
I think the US section needs to be completely re-written by someone who actually possesses legal knowledge and expertise.-- Redisca 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The document specimens on the page are, I believe, ludicrous fakes. No document articulating the rights of parties to litigation would be handwritten with scribbles and crossed-out items such as these. The existence of what may be a clerk stamp is not sufficient to convince me.
Additionally, there are substantial privacy violations if, contrary to my suspicion, the documents are indeed genuine. There are in several jurisdictions substantial limitations on the release of records relating to child custody matters.
I think the documents should be removed in favor of neutral specimen documents which might be available through court websites.
Displaying unredacted court documents is clearly a problem. In most US jurisdictions, records of divorce and custody proceedings are confindential and cannot be publicized without the consent of both ex-spouses (and, where the identity of a minor is an issue, even that may not be enough). In the documents shown in the article, the names are clearly visible. Apart from being the author's pathetic attempt at a revenge of some sort (which, of course, violates the site's neutrality rules), it is also very unethical, and very likely illegal, as well.-- Redisca 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the filled-out forms don't really add much to the article, especially to the intro where they appear. Can we agree to delete them? I searched for some online blank forms. There's a government site at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/forms/fc_drda8.asp with forms for requesting a divorce, and with a blank decree. How about swapping those in, thus solving most of the issues raised above (since the forms are blank)? Sderose 14:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone just added a "bias" flag to section 5 (medical and sociological effects). Oddly, they have posted nothing here about why. They also used only a numeric IP address, and didn't give a comment with their edit. Since nearly every claim in that section has a specific citation, and given that the anonymous editor hasn't mentioned any particulars or suggestd any way to reduce whatever bias they perceive, it seems to me we should either figure out what they mean and address it, or else delete the bias flag. As is, it looks like somebody just doesn't *like* the cited facts; by itself that doesn't make the article biased. Sderose 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the opinion that males are underrepresented and often-mistreated when it comes to child custody on a variety of levels, but here I am trying to write a paper to that effect, and I can't use wikipedia as a reference, because the quotes are just _TOO_ good. And so are some of the external links. I can't use this stuff without undermining my own credibility, because this article has undermined it's own credibility. It's doing a good thing, educating and disseminating information on how we can improve this facet of society. But. Well. It still aint neutral. -- 134.114.183.163 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
212.138.113.12 added the following text:
I removed it for a few reasons. 1) It lacks citation. Unnamed studies are worthless, because anyone can invent them. 2) It's bad sociology. I bet that people who have anal and oral sex, and are willing to admit to it, are less likely to be social conservatives. Social conservatives are less likely to see divorce as an acceptable option, even when the marriage is a mess. In short, the correlation in no way suggests causality. (unsigned by Alienus)
Can we cut down on the references. There are so many that they are no longer useful. Wikipedia is not a bibliography or a list of links. If someone wants to save them, move them to Wikisource. If I dont hear complaints. I will start paring them down to general reference works on divorce. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Something that has become more popular in the United States; I have added information about this as I have recently gone through a divorce and thoroughly investigated all my options. It's one of my first contributions to this site, so let me know if there are any serious problems with it. -- Nephalim 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Information on the specifics on the laws of both contested and uncontested divorces in Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic would be helpful for
Divorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction, and also for
Divorce mill
Nephalim
11:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this statement:
I appreciate that refusal to honour court-ordered visitation is generally treated less seriously than non-payment of child support but I wonder if it's realy true it seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change (although of course one violation of a visitation order is unlikely to cause as much damage as one violation of child support can). AFAIK (I'm not an American or a legal expert) it can be considered contempt of court and although the person who's visitation rights are violated probably obtains little help from the police and it might take quite a lot of time and money, I suspect in most cases if they are able and willing to put in the money and time to take the issue to court it will result in at least some compulsion to change. I'm not saying this is fair, simply pointing out that the statement there is seldom any punishment or complusion to change is probably misleading as currently written Nil Einne 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice the line "though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit." has been removed. Any chance of an explanation? Is divorce specifcally mentioned in the Qur'an, or not, or is it just that the piece of information is considered irrelevant? Gretnagod 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am removing this part: "It was also shown the lack of a marriage is not a problem for Jesus, as shown in John 4.18-19 that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband cohabitating with a man who is not her husband."
Here's why. The scriptures cited demonstrate that Jesus knew of her remarriages and cohibatation. They do not indicate that he "don't have any problem of a woman ... cohabitating with a man who is not her husband." He merely showed the woman, who was a stranger to him, that he had personal knowledge of her life, which no ordinary stranger would have. He later claimed to her to be the messiah sought by both the Jews and the Samaritans (verse 26). Thus, his display to her of spiritual power, by demonstrating knowledge of her which no ordinary stranger could have, backs up that claim.
Thus, the statement is blatantly false and is being deleted. -- BPMoldovan 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate on religion or cohabitation here. However, my personal discussion page has some further thoughts on this subject, on the off chance that anyone's interested.-- BPMoldovan 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"...that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband..." He don't, do he? Jesus does have a problem with poor grammar and writing skills in Wikipedia and for that you will burn in literacy Hell. Greenbomb101 ( talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this sentence:
on the grounds that it seems POV, but I do think it may make a valid point (I'm not entirely sure what it's saying) and would like to see it returned if anyone can properly revise it. Emmett5 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's just get over the situation. You can delete, ignore, or do whatever you have to, to change divorces and any situation that falls into place. Everything is still the same. Case closed.
I am editing this section to make it cleaner and less of a "bully pulpit" for one interpretation, but rather stick to what the Scripture says on the subject. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website.-- God's Webmaster 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This section was "messed up" again. I cleaned it up, and also removed the "cleanup" tag as it is no longer needed. The other section should not be reverted back; it has serious POV and neutrality problems. -- God's Webmaster 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
All right; after having my cleanup reverted again, I am looking for input. Does anybody have objections to the cleanup I had done? Ohnoitsjamie called the current information "sourced material". I disagree -- there are no references as to the "Any Cause" divorce interpretation. I see no reason to promote one particular, minority viewpoint (I'd never heard of this one before) on divorce as the major Christian viewpoint. As I said before, this article should not be a bully pulpit. I also think this section should be marked as having neutrality problems. If nobody raises any objections, I will put back my edits. Please speak up if you have problems with editing what's there now. -- God's Webmaster 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one has helped out; in fact, it's even worse now. I think it would be best to take it back to what it was about six months ago, prior to the insertion of the section beginning "Recent research shows...". At least that would be better than the mess that is there now. In fact, just about anything shorter would be better than what's there now. God's Webmaster 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Should keep this part. The answer that Jesus gave corresponded with the question from the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) The Pharisees only asked about a man putting away a woman. Jesus only answered about a man putting away a woman. The disciples acknowledged this by referring to "the case of the man". (Matt 19:10) There is no reason to apply this language to women putting away men. There is no reason to misappropriate the language. The language obviously pertains to Jewish males putting away their wives in Matt 19. and Matt. 5. This was the first century Jewish cultural attitude about divorce in a male dominated society. There is no historical dispute about this. Christian 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The Bible is THE final authority for Christian doctrine. What man says is pretty much irrelevant if it does not line up with the Scriptures.
I am not a Jew, so I will defer to someone else in editing the Judaism section.
I am not interested in discussing this topic further here. I do not have the time or inclination to "duke it out" to no purpose.
By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
God's Webmaster 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
God's Webmaster marked a paragraph as "original research". However, he will not state what the original research is. Therefore, I removed his tag. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
IP 209.6.186.139 says it is nonsense that Jesus clashed with Judaism. His clash with the Pharisees is so well-known that it is taken for granted by the scholars of this world--past and present. Obviously, the Pharisees came testing Jesus. They were not looking for information. They were seeking to discredit him. Later, Rabbinic Judaism evolved from the Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem. (see Talmud#Origins_of_the_Talmud ) I wish that 209.6.186.139 would identify themselves and quit editing without justification. Christian 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a Close Relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the already large legal template, I am okay with that. ( Kelly 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
It does make a rather large "blob" at the top of the page. -- God's Webmaster 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The article talks about "no-fault" divorce several times without explaining well what this means. A link to No-fault divorce would be useful earlier in the article, as the first such link appears 2/3 of the way through this long article, under "United States." I'd put it in but the organization of this article has confused me enough that I'm not sure where it should go. Any takers? — Coelacan | talk 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this is old ground, but I can't see anything above. Loneranger4justice added this section and Onedayoneday deleted it, with the edit summary "remove loneranger4justice biased views and I know him and he is biased against women" After reading the two sources referred to, I have reinserted the section, and added links to the sources which as far as I can tell back up the section. Certainly, the first para is straight from US government statistics. If the second para is selective in its reading of the paper (presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council), then a fuller selection ought to be given. If the paper is unreliable then critical sources ought to be given. Mr Stephen 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been over a year and a half since I first pointed out this article is a mess. Wow. I guess I was right about people in family law being too busy to help out Wikipedia because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Anyway, I'm too busy fighting off vandals in State Bar of California and Lawyer to help out here. -- Coolcaesar 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the adage "half of marriages end in divorce" is misleading. I would be very interested as to what percentage of first-time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. I have been looking for this data but I cannot find it. Anyone?
I would like to propose addition of one more external link. The link is www.washingtondivorceonline com The afore-mentioned website provides complete information about divorce laws, divorce issues, etc. in Washington State. Please consider.
Divorce is in general a state-specific issue in the United States. The website provides a wealth of information about divorce issues, articles about divorce as well as information about divorce laws. Please also see the website for other useful information such as directory of all local courts in Washington State. All of this information is not readily available anywhere else. This is an appropriate website as an external link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 ( talk • contribs) .
The person who proposed the commercial external link about Washington State divorce information was being slighly disingenuous. In Oregon, the state attorney general has a web site offering a variety of sample forms and good information--all for free. Additionally, every county I practiced in has a web site if not with forms, then links to sites with forms. I would be stunned the same wasn't true in every other state. If you feel the need to include an 'external link,' I would suggest merely telling Americans to contact the web site of their state attorney general. There is no reason to go to a commercial site. Oh, and I would not say this article is a 'mess' at all. I think you've got a good summary of a wildly complicated and diverse topic. Bill Abendroth ( talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The section about Jesus's clash with Judaism is a clearly biased and unsubstantiated section. I cannot believe this is allowed in the Wikipedia. Unless it is cleaned up and substantiated with more sources, I think it must be removed. 209.6.186.139 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It also has nothing to do with the treatment of divorce in Christianity or with the topic of divorce in general. Relationship between Judaism and Christianity (or the supposed relationship between Jesus and the rabbis) cannot be presented only from the Christianity's point of view, and in any event the discussion of this relationship does not belong in an unbiased article about divorce. The tone of that section is very ridiculous, like that of the discussion above. "Jesus is the greatest expert on Judaism that I've heard of." I mean, give me a break! How many experts have you heard of actually? I assume the greatest expert has read Deutoronomy 13:1-6. Aflyax 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Will you agree that the expression "tempting him"
Matthew 19:3 indicates a controversy or a conflict, as I stated? Will you agree the expression "But I say unto you..." in opposition to the expression "It hath been said..." (Oral Tradition) represents a different opinion than the "oral tradition"? (See
Matthew 5:31–32.) The expressions "said" and "heard" represent "oral" communication. No doubt, someone like Jacob Neusner would have another opinion about the expertise of Jesus and his grasp of Judaism. (I have read several books that indicate he would.) That is fine. He has a right to his opinion. I have read such opinions of the Rabbis often enough. I don't happen to agree with their opinions. The Pharisees were obviously curious enough (or vindictive enough) to pose questions to Jesus. Why did they bother to ask if Jesus was such a non-entity? Perhaps Jacob Neusner would put in a plug for Hillel instead. That is fine. I respect his opinions, but they are not mine. What I said about Jesus as an expert on Judaism represents my opinion as a Christian on just a talk page. I am assuming that 209.6.186.139 is a Hasidic Jew because of the edits 209.6.186.139 has made on Wikipedia. I would expect 209.6.186.139 to have another opinion. That is fine. I did not put my opinion about Jesus in the paragraph I wrote. However, conflict has a lot to do with the religious and cultural setting. All of the remarks about divorce were produced by conflict. There is also conflict among Christians. Some Christians suppose Jesus was teaching Christians and others suppose Jesus was merely giving his Jewish perspective to a Jewish problem. Besides, I put plenty of links to other more detailed treatments on these subjects. If it has the tone of conflict that is because the remarks of Jesus were born of a well-known conflict among the Jews. (Since when are Jews averse to conflict?) Since I consider Jesus to be the author of Christianity, I think this conflict belongs in the Christian remarks. (However, I don't consider Jesus to be a naive Jew who didn't know what was coming down the pike and never dreamed of Christianity.) I and others, such as
John_Lightfoot, don't agree with some Christians that Jesus was speaking to a "Christian" problem. (Christianity didn't even exist.) I especially do not like the Judaism part that glosses over the opinions of such people as Shammai--pretending a united front has always existed. That's why I don't agree that the Jews have always recognized no-fault divorce. Some of the Jews did. I don't get that impression reading
Mal 2:11–16. Jews do this because the opinion of Hillel prevailed in the evolution of the Mishnah. I may be a Christian, but I am not naive enough to suppose that all the Jews have always come to the no-fault conclusion. I want to thank you for the remarks--even if they are negative. This is much better than just deleting the material. Do you have anything substantial besides negative remarks? I would like to read it.
Christian
22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the discussion of the relationship of Jesus with the Oral Torah in this context and your treatment of the events as if there is objective evidence that they have actually occured in the form positioned by Christianity. There are, for example, strong opinions backed up by attempts of objective literary analysis that Jesus was a pharisee (e.g., "Jesus the Pharisee" by Hyam Maccoby). Such a position would be contrary to your description of the argument as if it historically happened. More importantly, however, this whole discussion does not belong to this article. There is a view on divorce in Christianity, and it is expressed in the paragraph above (from "within Christianity" to the quote from Romans); the discussion below is one-sided and, I repeat, out of context of the article. As to your comment about "glossing over" Shammai's opinions, with all due respect, you don't seem to understand how Judaism's legal system functions, and what role the argument between the houses of Hillel and Shammai (and other arguments, e.g., between Jerusalem and Babylon Talmud or between various sages in the discussions of the Talmud) play in it. The opinion of the House of Shammai is never glossed over; it is simply not Halacha. This is not the place to discuss it, however. 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. I am familiar with your concept of Halacha. (However, I don't propose to lecture you on it.) But I think you would have been more accurate to recognize that Shammai is not now recognized. (Even I knew that.) At one time, divorces were had based on Shammai and on Hillel. (This was before Rabbinic Judaism.) I am just objecting to the idea that there has always been a consensus. There has not. There has been a majority viewpoint--I will agree. (Your prophet Malachi thought perhaps you were abusing the system?) Even the disciples of Jesus were startled at his opinion on the subject. However, at the time of Jesus, Shammai also had a legal and binding opinion on those who embraced it. This is where the controversy that includes Jesus comes to play. (I could refer you to other parts of Wikipedia to prove this. I certainly can go elsewhere to prove this.) At one time, Shammai's opinion was law for those who would accept it. (By the way, Jesus, my hero, also had a legal opinion. What better way to introduce divorce than to expose the roots of the subject?) Christian 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't argue that you may be familiar with the concept of Halacha, but I am not sure you fully understand how it works. During the rabbinic times, the opinion of the majority was binding, although the alternate opinions were still considered the "words of the living G-d". Today, opinions of Shammai are studied in no less detail by Talmud students in the yeshivas throughout the world, as well as the local opinions of the rabbis that were ultimately rejected. Shammai's opinion is not recognized as binding upon the Jews (at least in the pre-messianic times), but it is certainly recognized as a valid opinion within Judaism. I am not going to further argue about the exact nature of the supposed argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. (Although it seems strange to me that Jesus would side with the school of Shammai, while his teachings are much more like the teachings of the school of Hillel, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say.) My argument is that this particular discussion does not belong in this article, as I explained above).
I have just reread the section. It asks several questions but does not seem to answer them. Did Jesus remove the potential problem of Agunah? I don't know, did he? I propose that you actually answer the questions in a positive way, indicating that this is what Christianity claims, and remove the part starting from the words "Expressions used by Jesus...", since it clearly (in my opinion) does not belong here. I mean, it's great that you guys think that Jesus had a problem with Pharisees (which were actual Pharisees of the time) in the sense that he contradicted not the Written Torah but only the Oral Law (and one can argue for some time about this, as well as about whether the two can be logically separated, and whether this disagreement was similar to that of Seducees, and whether the Pharisees of the New Testament are the historic Pharisees), but what does it have to do with the divorce? :) Cheers. Aflyax 00:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very tired of the spin and the slant on this subject. You see, some Christians appropriate or should I say misappropriate Jewish teachings and problems. They teach this controversy as if Jesus was putting forth opinions for Christians. Jesus was asked Jewish questions and Jesus gave Jewish answers. Jesus had a problem with some of the Jewish traditions. However, Jesus had tremendous and overwhelming respect for the written word. That's why I used all the expressions. They emphasize "but I say" in opposition to Moses. They forget all the other pro-Moses expressions Jesus used. (I personally think the Jews made a grave mistake in deciding their laws depend on an “oral tradition” that takes years to study. In my opinion, they also made it take precedence over the written word. They built such a “fence” around the Law you can’t even get at it.) I think Jesus had a very serious problem with the tradition. (But I don't expect the Jews to care what I think.) I definitely do not agree that Jesus was a Pharisee. (They said, but they didn't always do--just like many of us Christians.) As a Christian, I want Christians to be free from all of these Jewish details. I don't want them to be free from the principles. I just want them to be free from all the Jewish details. That's why I want them to understand that some of these details do not pertain to Christians. However, I think there are a lot of principles that Christians and Jews have in common. After all, Christians were originally Jews. Christianity grew out of Judaism. However, Paul released Gentiles from many problems such as Kosher Laws, Circumcision and other Jewish Laws. However, many Christians still try to borrow the "other Jewish Laws". However, as I go through Wikipedia, I see how Christians spin and slant the Kosher Laws in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Jesus was talking about a Jewish purity law that had to do with "washing your hands" (useless traditions) and Christians make these passages pertain to the Jewish Kosher Laws. In fact all the translations except the KJV have “purging meats” mean making all meats clean. That is, Jesus did away with the Jewish kosher laws instead of just acknowledging meats travel through the body—kosher or not. (This was news to Peter because he still hadn't got the message by Acts 10. He never had eaten anything common or unclean.) Then Christians, and some Jews, have Jesus breaking the Sabbath. Yet Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath. He simply made arguments about the ways to keep it. (Later he became dead to it.) We should not bind Jewish Laws on Christians. There are many commentators and scholars that recognize Jesus was answering a Jewish Debate on the subject of divorce. Therefore, my research is not original.
Jesus did not release women from Agunah. Christians suppose that when you admit that a woman could not divorce her husband, then you are somehow admitting that she is equal with the man who also could not divorce his wife. Once you admit the woman was equal with her husband you can claim she had equal causes for a Jewish divorce. I think this is absurd. I believe Jesus was merely acknowledging that some Jewish women were divorcing their husbands because they were being assimilated. Therefore he was stating what should have been obvious but was not always practiced. John the Baptist stated what should have been obvious to Herodias. Was John the Baptist preaching "Christian" doctrine when he said it was not "lawful" for her to be married to Herod Antipas? No he was telling her what is obvious, or should have been obvious, to every Jew. (See Mark 10:10–11.)
Now don't get me wrong. Some Jews and some Christian scholars try to depict Jesus as a naive Jew who couldn't have possibly known the big impact he was going to make. But there is scripture after scripture that shows Jesus had foreknowledge of what was coming. Don't take offense, but I think you have missed the boat. (But what do you care what I think?) However, when Jesus is asked what is "lawful", then I figure he gives a "lawful" or legal opinion. I just ask myself what was lawful in those days. Well, Jesus was a Jew and he lived like one under the law.
This is why all these questions belong in the Christian section. I know Jews put a lot of emphasis on the disclaimers such as Matthew 5:17–18. (I see this on Larry King all the time. Don't you Christians get it, the Rabbis will say, Jesus supported the Law. Believe me, I have always gotten it.) However, I believe Jesus became "dead to the law" when he died. But he didn't destroy the Law. (This is a distinction you Jews may not get or accept.) I believe Jesus is the defender of all truth Jewish or not. However, Christians have Jesus fighting Moses. Nevertheless, I see Jesus as proving Moses and the Prophets right down to the last letter. I see validation. In fact, I believe Jesus validated everything Moses said about him. However, when you become dead to a relationship, then you are free to have another relationship--such as become Head of the Church which is your bride and your body. (They twain shall become one flesh.)
If it looks like Jesus was imposing on your Jewish traditions, it was because he was imposing on your Jewish traditions. (This is my tautology for the day.) I figure the Son of God ought to be able to understand the Law of Moses. In fact, I believe Jesus kept the Law of Moses to the last letter. I know Neusner won't agree because I have already read his book. However, I really don't care what Neusner thinks and he really doesn't care what I think. He just wants Christians to leave him well enough alone. I feel the same way. I want to be free from all Jewish details. (However, in my opinion, Neusner is on the losing end.) Why don’t you Jews help me to show Christians that Jesus was not speaking against the Law of Moses, and that teaching against it would have been blasphemy—a grave sin? I may try to think of a way to state it more positively. However, I really don't think the paragraph will stand after I have offended many of the Jews and a large part of Christendom. But I don't care, I will fight for it anyway. After all, this is not the mainstream media--thank G-d. Christian 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Not a debate about the piety of an unmarried woman like Mary and if her son was a bastard, not a debate about whether or not female popes can get a divorce, not an endless argument from masoretic texts.... this is not a religion page. Ronabop 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Like I said, "Jesus came into conflict...." Our true feelings are exposed. Perhaps Ronabop can put a positive spin on the religious/historical context? Christian 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronabop. Thanks for the headings. That helped a lot.
I was forced to put in the links because I was accused of "original research". Actually, the links were to online commentaries that are available for human consumption. They are public reproductions of the classical commentators--not personal web pages. I never wanted to use them in the first place. However, some people here seem to edit freely and make accusations about original research. However, I don't see any of their sources. I actually had real sources from commentators who have been respected in the past.
Since I am not into textual criticism, I wouldn't know about the 15th century stuff. I don't think textual criticism belongs here either. I know Matthew was orginally written in Hebrew and then in Greek.
The KJV is merely a rather poetic translation. I really think the expressions reveal the true attitude of Jesus about the "written word". We may not like the "written word" but that is not the real issue. What did Jesus think about it?
The whole divorce controversy, or cultural war, in the Gospels hinges on interpreting the written word (Deut 24:1-4).
I am just trying to show that Jesus was not against the written word. He exhibited respect for it, so why should he try to oppose it? On the other hand, he was not so impressed with what the Jews had "heard" and what the Rabbis had "said" about the "written word" on this subject. That's why he used expressions like "you have heard".
Sorry if the tone seems condescending, but that is really a large part of the whole culture war thing.
Christians keep making claims for the authority of Jesus versus the authority of Moses. Jews make claims for the authority of the Rabbis versus the authority of a Jewish rebel who was born of fornication, and should be put to death for preaching more than one God (as was mentioned above in the Deuteronomy 13:1-6 reference by one of my critics).
Obviously, there was no respect for Jesus in that remark. However, I have respect for Jesus, Moses and all the Prophets.
I have a deep respect for all the "written word", and I have practically zero respect for textual criticism and "oral traditions". Some have respect for none of the above. Some just have respect for Moses and the traditions. It is all about respect. (This also is not original research.) But thanks for the restructure job. It helped a lot. Christian 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why all of this is necessary, including the explanations about Jesus's supposed (according to Pauline views) relationship with Judaism and Oral Torah
and your personal disrespect to the Oral Tradition, especially since it is not clear you understand its role and the reasons for its validity in Judaism.
(See Deutor. 17:8-12. This is the part of the written Mosaic law which was violated. Besides the fact that the majority of laws of Moses cannot be understood without some sort of Oral Tradition.
Incidentally, your own religion, including especiall many areas of Gospels, cannot be understood without and oral tradition that must interpret the written text, and the whole claim to the validity of the Gospels is that they are the oral tradition of the events and teachings of Jesus written down many years after the actual events. Thus, the whole validity of Christianity is based on an acceptance of a specific oral tradition.) In any event, there is a perfectly good article on divorce according to Christianity here [3], and I have no problem with its language, neutrality or lack of biase. I think its major points must be summarized and expressed here in a clear positive language (with a reference to the actual article). Aflyax 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to rephrase how I feel about "oral tradition". I don't disrespect all "oral tradition". (Sorry, my remark does leave that impression. There are many good ideas in the Talmud and in the Mishmash.)
I disrespect it as a corpus that must be accepted even if there are other more accurate and valid interpretations of the "written word". I am familiar with your "Jewish Manual" analogy. I also know that you must consult your local Rabbi when you get confused. I guess that is where I diverge. I don't believe in religious democracy. Truth is more important than the "majority" or the "Rabbinical" opinion. (I feel the same way about Christian pastors and evangelists.) I don't think the Rabbinical opinion is something I must endure.
I also think this is where Jesus diverged. He diverged when the traditions became more important than the commandments.
It is kind of like the policy of Wikipedia. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in creating an encyclopedia and maintaining the "status quo".
That is why Wikipedia has an "original research" disclaimer. I respect that. But if Wikipedia becomes like the "mainstream media" then I am sorry. I am not interested. I don't like gate keepers.
I understand the need for sources. (I don't understand it when I cite sources and they are disregarded.) However, I understand their function. I am not saying Jesus agreed with Shammai or Hillel on the divorce issue. He may have agreed with Shammai. But I strongly believe he supported the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Since I consider him to be the original author of Deuteronomy 24:1-4,
by giving it to Moses through the disposition of angels, I accept his interpretation of the passage. (I don't expect you to agree with me on that because I know we subscribe to different authorities. Actually, I love Jewish material very, very much. I read it very, very often. I often refer to the opinions of Rabbis when I want to try and figure something out in the Bible. However, I don't recognize Rabbis as final authorities.) In Matthew 5, Jesus used the formula "You have heard...but I say." He refuted the Rabbinical method. Rabbi Hillel says .... got refuted. He did not recognize Rabbis as the final authorities. (If he truly is the Son of God, and I believe he is, then he is the final authority. Again, I don't expect you to agree.) However, this is the context of the divorce debate. This is real history. This is real culture. I think people ought to understand this culture up front. I provide plenty of links to the other material. However, I disagree with many of their unsourced statements. Their lack of bias is also very questionable. (There is more than one way to slant and spin without showing overt disagreement. You ought to know. You are a Jew and the Jews have majored in the media.
The Jews are especially good at gate keeping. After all, why else would Jews create a Talmud and challenge you to understand it?) Sorry, Jesus is my man--let's keep it in the Christian section. Christian 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
To Alyax.
I tried to take some of the edge off the paragraph by removing some redundancy and some emphasis. I also substituted the word "Pharisee" for "Jewish" wherever I could. This pulls the paragraph back in time and obscures identity. I want to keep the "Expressions"--mostly for Christian reasons. Christian 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
(I have not addressed the Pauline part of the paragraph above. I didn't write it in the first place. This is also very contoversial issue and I didn't want to cause more offense.) Christian
I split out to an article about religions, and another article about nations/societies. The implications section could also likely be split out. Ronabop 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"Make no mistake, divorce is sin!"
This is blatantly retarded.
But it was fixed :).
The statistics section has a lot of somewhat vague looking figures, some dont actually have any figures just statements. I have not been able to find the statistics on the website insidedivorce.com. Also this website appears to be very commercial in nature, their slogan is "Winning The Life You Want" - hardly neutral and suggests pro-divorce. The section relating to statistics on children in divorce all but suggests divorce is good for children, all the time, everywhere. However I am biased in that I'm a child of a divorced family - does anybody else agree this section smells a bit iffy? Actually on re-reading it the whole statistics section seems very sensationalised. As the stats can't be verified (there isn't a direct link and they don't appear to be available on the website) should this section just be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.212.111 ( talk) 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
We have a list of people with multiple marriages. I am thinking of adding a list of divorced people with English Wikipedia articles to be sortable by men's surnames, women's surnames, dates married, and dates divorced. Any comments before starting such a list? (The list could become very long if started.)-- Jusjih 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a chat room... I have suggested this section is uncyclopedic and needs either deleting or completely rewriting... Davrosfromskaro 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Deleting. Mersperto 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not common, and it might have only happened in that famous case, but shouldn't the article mention that a child can divorce his parents if certain conditions are met. Or at least mention the case where this happened (I can't remember who it was). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 ( talk) 06:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Oh for the love of god. Children do not 'divorce' their parents. That legal procedure is emancipation of a minor, and is beyond the scope of an article on "divorce." Bill Abendroth ( talk) 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that the terms listed in the at-fault section need more of an explanation. Just linking to the proper articles isn't enough. I wrote the following but I just don't know enough about it to post it in good conscience. Could someone else take a look?
It may be relevant that the wikilink for collusion links to the general collusion article, which mentions nothing about collusion in divorce. As such, I am guessing my tuchas off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.50.221 ( talk) 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While trying to find out a couple of simple facts regarding divorce, I am presented with a load of subjective and obviously point-of-view pushing nonsense as the article constantly diverges on a tangent away from the subject matter (which for this article is 'Divorce' by the way).
More quantifiable facts (the divorce rate - not reasons behind it - of most countries is known fact, but hardly mentioned in this long article in favour of opinionated 'reasons') and less unproven opinions please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.197 ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the football results each week, and have the vague intention of returning to the UK to retire, then you have retained domicile.
This whole section on the EU doesn't make any sense, but I'm gonna delete this silly sentence and hope someone who knows something about this will fix it. VaughnJess 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
parents have rights but to give them up takes an unlimited amount of time time most single parents dont have. as a child with divorced parents i wish i didnt have to switch from home to home holiday to holiday day from day miss out on friends birthdays because i have t go to my parents i love having joint custody but why cant the children choose maybe we dont like one of the parents and maybe we hate living with a sibling where was our say? why dont i get to ever say dad no mom no i want to go to Kylie's or want to go to the movies with Lauren not stay home and listen to the t.v. with you. please re —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.158.157 ( talk) 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good divorce resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/32.htm
The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.
The divorce page of this site provides information and articles on the effects of divorce on children, including practical advice for parents as well as important legal information. It also covers issues such as child support, visitation rights, the role of fathers, child custody laws and other legal information. Teamme 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In the article it mentions Small Dick being a criterion under Summary Divorce. Is this in error? CortlandKlein ( talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
vandal. Solar Flute ( talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Daffy Duck's wife almost got a divorce because Daffy made her egg disappear. Later in open court Daffy made the egg reappear and then it hatched. As best as I can determine, she called off the divorce. Unfortunately I don't know what year that was and what circumstances followed because in later years Daffy appears to be a bachelor again, or a very free husband in a very open marriage. Greenbomb101 ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a prescriber of techniques, it does seem to me that at least some mention of the family therapy article is merited here. Simesa ( talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Isnt the divorce rate in The U.S. above 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.239.85 ( talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
50% of what? All marriages? Get real. 97.102.151.47 ( talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel like rewriting this right now, but is there any religion - or indeed any ethical or moral code that actually encourages divorce? If any does, why would its adherents get married in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandi ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly the claim that at fault divorces used to be the only way to get a divorce seems unlikely to be true worldwide. Secondly the article does a rather poor job of explaining what an at fault divorce. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the line "From the 1920s, the expectation from married life changed from duty and chastity from the wife and hard work and suppression of vice from the husband has lead to the present higher divorce rates." -- the sentence doesn't make any sense, and even if it did, it seems to be little more than an opinion. I don't know why I'm bothering, though -- some Wiki-nazi is just going to come around and revert this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.68.67 ( talk) 16:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's no article in Wikipedia on "Divorce anger"! My understanding is that it's recognized by psychologists - certainly it's a real effect, as I've experienced it myself. Few Google hits, but see [4] [5] [6] [7] etc. 66.19.241.188 ( talk) 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Fourty nine states have adopted no fault divorce." What's the fiftieth? Solar Flute ( talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the definition of "divorce" in this article is correct. Divorce, or "dissolution of marriage", does not "lead to the termination of a marriage". A dissolution of marriage is exactly what it sounds like - a judge legally dissolves the bonds of matrimony between two persons. In Florida, that is the actual wording used in Final Judgments: "The marriage between ___ and ___ is hereby forever dissolved, and parties are released from the bonds of matrimony and all obligations arising therefrom, a vinculo matrimonii". So a divorce does not "lead" to the termination of a marriage, it is the termination of the marriage. And termination is not as good of a word as dissolution. Hence the term "dissolution of marriage". Would anyone be agreeable to changing this definition? Rhythmnation2004 ( talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)