Tricky Question: Who divorced who?

[disney1990]

There's not enough information to answer the original question. Nobody knows what was going on behind closed doors before the man left. Maybe he was being physically or mentally abused (yes, men can be abused too). Maybe he was in a s*xl*ss marriage because she withheld it. There are so many reasons for a person to leave.

 

[tvguy]

so if your significant other moved out and started a relationship with someone else, it would be your fault if you were the one who officially called it quits? You really think the cheater bears no responsibility for the relationship ending? Wow

I never said anything about whose fault it was. I said the person who wants out of marriage is the person responsible for deciding they want a divorce.
Do I understand someone wanting out of a marriage because their spouse is cheating? Absolutely. Do I understand someone NOT wanting out of a marriage after discovering their spouse is cheating....absolutely not, but it's their choice.
And we can't discuss religion here.....but I'll try and sneak this by the moderators.....some religions feel no act by a spouse is justification for divorce. For them "until death do us part" is a rule that can not be broken under any circumstances.

 

[diznygirl]

In non-Bicker speak...."What difference does it make? How does it benefit anyone to place blame."

Well, I suppose the jury would have more sympathy for me.

 

[NY Disney fan]

There's not enough information to answer the original question. Nobody knows what was going on behind closed doors before the man left. Maybe he was being physically or mentally abused (yes, men can be abused too). Maybe he was in a s*xl*ss marriage because she withheld it. There are so many reasons for a person to leave.

Even if all those reasons are the case, the person being abused SHOULD FILE FOR DIVORCE, not committ adultery.

 

[bicker]

Correct, but adultery just makes the adulterer responsible for committing adultery. That is responsibility enough, and so there is no need (and no value) in converting that into responsibility for anything else.

 

[NY Disney fan]

That is responsibility enough, and so there is no need (and no value) in converting that into responsibility for anything else.

Assigning blame in this example was important for me (due to my faith). But I suppose with the advent of "no fault" divorce, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

 

[bicker]

However, in your example, there would be no problem with both you and your ex- blaming the other. You just needed your minister to accept your accusation, and (if it was an issue for your ex- then) he just needed his minister to accept his accusation. Again, equal blame serves all constructive purposes, even in that scenario. And it keeps the blame in appropriate context, i.e., solely as a tool for helping the minister(s) to do what's needed.

 

[MissFitt]

Assigning blame in this example was important for me (due to my faith). But I suppose with the advent of "no fault" divorce, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

NY still does NOT have no-fault divorce!

 

[mousermerf]

I must be far too liberal minded and raised well outside the church because I see this whole discussion as completely insane.

That it's even being debated sickens me.