Saturday, October 11, 2014

Alpha Mail: Divorce in Italy

Hermit asks about the pressure to make divorce easier in Italy:
I have been reading your blogs for some months now. I would like to ask for your opinion on a matter that regards game and marriage but also the way leftism is changing society and relationship.

Until a few years ago I was an atheist, leftist, high IQ gamma and now I'm following a long march to fix everything in my life, for now with decent success. Everything started when I recovered my faith, I can actually relate to and confirm everything you said about many leftists atheists being feminized gamma males with lack of empathy and basic social skills.

While I eliminated almost all of my old readings, sometimes, living in a left-wing family, I still bump into their literature. Today I read a journalist on "Internazionale" answering to a reader about marriage. I would like to hear your opinion about this exchange, in particular about the final part and the mindset in a marriage relationship.

A female reader asked "I am divorcing from my husband; why it looks like the law, instead of helping us, makes everything even more difficult?"

The journalist replied: "According to ISTAT (italian institute of statistic) 49% of italian marriages end with divorce. But we continue to consider divorce as an unforseen event and we accept to embark into a slow, expensive and mentally tiring proceeding. We see divorce as an exception without realizing that now is the rule. Like it or not, divorces are very common and the proposals of reform on "fast divorce" are a legitimate way to be more pragmatic and let many italians spare sorrow and money. But as usual the loud screams of the "paladins of family" succeeds in distracting politics from the reality of facts. Years ago I've heard a swiss female sociologist propose temporary marriage terms that had to be renewed after ten years. If the marriage isn't renewed it is considered to be immediately null without any additional slow bureaucratic procedure and expensive lawyers. I'm amused to think how the dynamics of the couple would change in the year of the renew: maybe many would be motivated (or forced) to regain the momentum and bring out the best of themselves to be reconfirmed by the spouse."
The law is intended to make divorce difficult. It's not supposed to be easy, in fact, from a Christian perspective, it should be impossible barring physical adultery on the part of either the husband or the wife.

But in today's post-Catholic Italian society, pragmatism and deference to the short-sighted female perspective triumphs over all, as it does throughout most of the post-Christian West. This is no surprise, it was inevitable once the voting franchise was granted to women, and we are still experiencing the inevitable consequences of those decisions.

What is presently called "marriage" is the law's mockery of the institution. Not only because the State now increasingly permits male and female couples to pretend to be "married", but because what the State puts together, it most certainly can put asunder whenever it wants. So, there is no reason whatsoever to attempt to protect the State's legal parody of marriage or care what mutated form it eventually takes, except in that it will likely be used to further strip resources from men and transfer them to women.


Dark Herald said...

It's interesting to note that the institution of marriage for the masses, is actually pretty new. No more than 150 years old.

Oh people would make personal commitments, ("Jump'in the Sword" etcetera) but there was no legal commitment because neither church nor the law needed to be concerned when property wasn't involved.

Which, until the invention of America, it wasn't. In the old world, 95% of the land was owned by 5% of the population. That wasn't the case in America.

Robert What? said...

In fact, from a Christian perspective, it should be impossible barring physical adultery on the part of either the husband or the wife.

I am no Biblical scholar, but I believe the Bible does not permit divorce simply on the grounds of adultery. It specifies "fornication". Since it mentions adultery in many other places, it clearly means something specific versus adultery. Many have taken it to mean that the woman was not a virgin although she claimed to be. Others claim that it means the woman had a child by another man. Your thoughts?

CostelloM said...

Is physical adultery on the part of the male (not female) even grounds for divorce in the biblical sense? I do not mean a man who leaves his wife and lives with another woman but a man who goes to a brothel and comes home. I'm not defending this practice to be sure but from a practical perspective it does not carry the same weight as a woman cuckolding her husband with the child of another man. During the time of Jesus this was not considered grounds for divorce but of course during that time no woman was allowed to divorce her husband anyway - it was something the man had to initiate. So if a woman has no biblical right to divorce the question of male adultery quickly becomes moot?

Anonymous said...

Vox can answer for himself, but my personal take is that this is a particularly unproductive rabbit hole, and every time this topic is allowed to go down it, most other useful discussion ends.

The simple fact is that that particular bit of Scripture, like many passages, is not perfectly clear. It can be interpreted to mean different things, as Remo's comment (and surely future comments coming) demonstrates. If you belong to a Church that claims the authority to interpret Scripture for you (Catholics, for instance), then follow what it says. If you're a Sola Scriptura sort, research it as best you can and decide for yourself. But no one's going to be able to "prove" to anyone but himself that one interpretation is the correct one.

The important point, which gets obscured by that pursuit of exegetical exactitude, is that divorce was only allowed for very specific and grave circumstances. Not for "irreconcilable differences," not for "we grew apart," not for "unhaaaappiness." When 49% of a country's marriages end in divorce, does it matter whether 1% or 5% of those were biblically supportable, or is it more important that nearly all of them weren't?

Anonymous said...

Oops, I forgot to quote anything in my last comment for context. By "this" I meant the specific discussion over exactly what (adultery, fornication, sexual perversion, etc.) allows for divorce according to Scripture, not the overall topic of the post.

deti said...


Thanks for that bit of reason. I’m so tired of the theologizing and the fruitless attempts to persuade others of the correctness of the various positions on whether Biblical language and/or good faith interpretations of it based on history, tradition and theology do or do not permit divorce. The point is that once you get married, divorce isn’t permitted unless someone did something really, really, REALLY bad.

Robert What? said...

@cailcorishev: Vox can answer for himself, but my personal take is that this is a particularly unproductive rabbit hole

Valid point. Sorry for bringing it up. Maybe you can start that theological thread on your blog, so it doesn't divert from the main issue.

CostelloM said...

I was actually genuinely curious. Other than tut tutting that having a 49% divorce rate is wrong and cannot possibly be justified by scripture what other directions should this thread go?

Anonymous said...

porneia is the word used that we translate into fornication. Basically it mean "illicit sexual intercourse"

adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman

I hope that helps

Anonymous said...

In other words you need to be cheat, be it with men, woman, or animals

William Hughes said...

Marriage - where a man and a woman live together to raise children - existed before the church or state. It will exist after the state. It's family. It's taking your kids to a birthday party for your sister's two year old. It's Sunday supper with your grandparents. It's going to your cousin's wedding. It's standing up for your bother at his. It's family.

No amount of pervy weirdness by legislators is going to change it. People will continue, by and large, to behave in ways that will make their parents and grandparents proud.

Those who don't will be paid the wages of sin in this life. Eventually, after much pain, they might learn. The trick is to not get caught in the blast zone.

Robert What? said...

@trunthepaige - so you are saying that "fornication" is a wider category that includes "adultery"? So Biblically, the husband visiting a prostitute would be grounds for the wife seeking a divorce?

Hermit said...

As it is now in our subverted society I see no reason to marry except to have children and raise them in a stable family, it's the main reason marriage exists after all.
If a man just want to be together with a woman without having kids there is no reason to give her the weapon of divorce.

I don't think it's possible to turn a party girl or a slut into a loyal wife, if you want a stable marriage you have to marry a woman who had few sexual partner and can't even think of divorce except for very good reasons.
If she thinks that "growing apart", "looking for new experiences", "being bored" and "losing the magic" are good enough reason to destroy a lifelong vow then she is probably not a good partner to start a family.

Anonymous said...

Remo, it's not my blog; I'm not telling anyone what they're allowed to discuss. I'm just saying that I've seen the same discussion dozens of times, and I can promise you it won't settle anything.

There will be some discussion of porneia, whether it means only adultery or the wider meaning of any illicit sex act. Then we'll have to talk about what would have been considered illicit at the time. Someone will probably tie that to Jesus's statement that a man who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery, and thus claim that a man who has looked at porn or admired his neighbor's wife sunning in the backyard has committed adultery, so his wife may divorce him. Ditto with wives reading romance porn or ogling movie stars. Almost no one could meet that standard, so nearly every divorce is okay. But then someone else will point out that the first passage only talks about husbands divorcing wives, not the reverse, so wives aren't given permission to divorce at all. At some point someone will probably bring up the Catholic position (no divorce is allowed at all), and then we'll have to clear up misconceptions about annulment and talk about how much that's being abused today.

That's a summary; pick your poison.

Robert What? said...

Several months ago I communicated with some hard-core, "primitive" Baptists. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing: just passing it on. Their view was that the only basis for divorce was if the woman claimed to be a virgin but was not, or the woman had an affair that resulted in a child. In either case, it was the man's call.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

I'm a Primitive Baptist, and the conventional teaching is the traditional reasons for acceptable divorce: adultery, abandonment, physical abuse.

Anonymous said...

@Robert What that is what the word means, so basically if you are having sex of any sort with anyone or animal other than your spouse (I hope the animal part does not apply ), its grounds for divorce.

Anonymous said...

Using the sins of the heart and mind are why past the meaning of the word. The sin of your mind are Gods province

Hal said...

According to the biblical hierarchy: A women cannot cast away her husband anymore than a husband can cast away God. The hierarchy is God->Man->Wife->Children and the power only flows in that direction. Thus justifying female initiated divorce on any basis is just nonsense. A women women who divorces her husband is in rebellion and should be cast from the church. The man should then be allowed to remarry as his wife is no longer a Christian. If you don't like that, then pick a less patriarchal religion than Christianity.

Post a Comment