sex and marriage

Chapter 21 Divorce (1)
In most times and countries, the institution of divorce has been generally accepted for a number of reasons.Divorce isn't meant to replace monogamous families, it's just meant to be less painful.Some people can no longer bear the continuation of marriage due to some special reasons.The laws in this respect have varied widely from time to time and from country to country.In today's society, even in the United States, the divorce laws are divided between the north and the south: in South Carolina, divorce is not allowed, but in Nevada, it is very easy to divorce.In many non-Christian civilizations.It is very easy for the husband to file for a divorce.In some countries, it is not difficult for a wife to apply for a divorce.The law of Moses allowed the husband to file for divorce.In China, divorce is also permitted by law, provided that the wife returns the dowry in full.The Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament, and divorce is not allowed no matter what.But in fact, if there is indeed a lot of evidence that the marriage is invalid, things can be accommodated, especially when people in the upper class are involved.Perhaps we remember the case of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough.They asked the church to declare their marriage annulled because the Duchess was forced into the marriage.This reason was found to be valid even though they had lived together for many years and had children.

In Christian countries, the leniency of divorce is directly proportional to the degree of Protestantism of the people.It is known that Milton had written in favor of divorce because he was a great Protestant.In the past, when the Church of England considered itself Protestant, it had allowed divorce for adultery, although other grounds were not considered.Today, the vast majority of clergy in the Church of England are against divorce.Scandinavia has very lenient divorce laws.The same is true of most Protestant areas of the United States.Scotland is more in favor of divorce than Britain.In France, anti-clericalists champion freedom of divorce.In the Soviet Union, divorce was granted as long as either of the spouses filed an application, but since there was no social or legal punishment for adultery or illegitimate children in the Soviet Union, marriages there lost the kind of divorce that marriages had in other countries. Sanctity, at least that applies to the ruling class.

One of the strangest things about divorce, however, is that law and custom are often two different things.The most lenient divorce laws do not always result in the most divorces.In pre-revolutionary China, people hardly knew what divorce was, and even though there were seven rules in Confucianism, divorce was still regarded as an extremely disgraceful thing.In Switzerland, divorce can be obtained by mutual consent, which cannot be used as a basis for divorce in the United States.But the figures I know show that in 1922 the number of divorces per 1 people was 24 in Switzerland and 136 in the United States.I think this difference between law and custom is very important.While I advocate that there should be lenient laws on the matter of divorce, as long as the complete family is considered the standard model, custom will be an important factor against divorce, with rare exceptions.The reason I hold this view is that I see marriage not only as a mere sexual union, but as a partnership in the production and rearing of children.As we have seen in previous chapters, what we commonly call marriages can break down due to various factors, starting with economic factors.But if the marriage will break down, the divorce will also be destroyed, because divorce is an institution that exists because of marriage, and divorce is the safety valve of marriage.We should therefore refer to the discussion now under way.Completely confined within the accepted framework of the two-parent family.

In general, Protestant and Catholic views of divorce are based on a theological view of sin rather than on the biological purpose of the family.Since Catholics hold that marriage is indissoluble, as God intended, they would naturally maintain that once two people are married, it is impossible for either party to have a holy sexual relationship with a third person as long as the other is alive, No matter what their marriage will be like.Protestants, though in favor of divorce, do so both because they reject Catholic teaching on the sacraments and because, on the other hand, they believe that indissolvable marriages necessarily lead to adultery.And they were convinced that freer divorce would reduce the difficulty of eradicating adultery.Therefore, we can see that in Protestant countries where marriages are easily dissolved, adultery is considered a big treason, while in countries where divorce is not allowed, adultery is also considered a crime, but there is always a hint of tacit approval, at least for men. in this way.In Tsarist Russia, where divorce was extremely difficult, Gorky was never criticized for his private life, regardless of his perceived political views.In the United States, on the contrary, no one accused him of politics, but he was expelled on moral grounds, and no hotel even offered to accommodate him.

Neither of us can rationally support the Protestant and Catholic views on this matter.First, let's look at the Catholic perspective.If a man and a woman get married and the husband or wife suffers from a mental illness, then such a family cannot have any more children, and those children who have already been born cannot have contact with the mentally ill.Therefore, for the benefit of the child, even when the mentally ill parent is still sane, the complete separation of the parents is still very necessary.However, if we stipulate that in this case, the sane party cannot have sexual relations permitted by law, it is undoubtedly an absurd and cruel act that runs counter to the wishes of society.The sane party is caught in a dilemma.Should he or she continue to maintain the marriage desired by the law and social morality, or should he or she have a secret sexual relationship without children, or should he or she have a so-called open cohabitation life regardless of whether he or she has children?We all have good reasons for objecting to the above approaches.

Let us first look at the first way, which is to continue to maintain the marriage desired by law and social morality.Avoiding sex altogether, especially for a person who has already had sex in a marriage, can be very painful.This often leads to premature aging in both sexes, and may even lead to nervous disorders.And in any case, the struggle involved in this situation will produce a character full of boredom, jealousy and irascibility.The chief danger in a man is a sudden loss of self-control which will make him brutal.Because if he really believes that all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful, he may, because of his desire to seek extramarital sexual intercourse, have the idea of ​​not doing it, and even ignoring all moral constraints.

The second method, that of clandestine sexual relations without children, is the most widely practiced in practice of which we are now speaking.We also have good reasons for objecting to this.All shady things are wrong, and a sexual relationship without children and living together will not last.In addition, if both men and women are in the prime of life, according to the interests of society, we cannot say "you can't have any more children".In fact, if the law says, "You can have no more children unless you choose a mentally ill person as their father or mother," then that would be even more inconsistent with the interests of society.

The third way, namely "open cohabitation life", is the least harmful way to individuals and society.However, due to some economic reasons, this approach is not feasible in most cases.A doctor or lawyer who attempts to live an open cohabitation life loses his patients or clients.A man who works in the education sector loses his job instantly.Even when economic conditions make this kind of open cohabitation possible, most people are still conditioned by social influences.Men want to be associated with the club, women want to be respected and like to be visited by other women.Losing these pleasures is obviously a very painful thing.Therefore, public cohabitation is very difficult to achieve, unless he is a rich man with a casual living occupation, artist, writer, and other occupations.

Thus, in countries where divorce for insanity is not permitted, such as England, those who have a mentally ill wife or husband are placed in an intolerable situation.In fact, we have no reason to support this situation except the superstition of theology.This applies not only to the mentally ill, but also to the vulgar, the habitual criminal, and the habitual alcoholic.Taken together, all of these can be detrimental to a marriage.They make conjugal life a dead letter, make childbearing an undeserved event, and give children and sinful parents undue contact.Therefore, in this case, the reason for opposing divorce can only be: marriage is a trap, it will send those who have been deceived to purgatory again, and make them suffer painful torments.

Of course, real abandonment should be grounds for divorce, because in this case, the law only ratifies the fact that the marriage has broken down.However, from a legal point of view, this approach raises a very difficult problem.Because, if abandonment can be used as grounds for divorce, it will set off a chain reaction that will make abandonment more common.The same is true of the other causes which are capable of taking effect of their own accord.Many married men and women are so eager to divorce that they will take the initiative to create all the divorce conditions permitted by law.In the past in the UK, if a person wanted a divorce, his spouse had to be abusive and adulterous.Therefore, it often happens that the husband and wife agree in advance that the husband beat the wife in front of the servants as a basis for abuse.For two people who desperately want to divorce, whether legal pressure should be passed to make them endure the pain of life as a couple.Let's not talk about it.However, we must frankly admit that no matter what the grounds for divorce are prescribed, many people will go out of their way to create them.However, let's leave legal issues aside for now and continue to discuss why subsistence marriages should not be.

(End of this chapter)