Humanities desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 25

Please explain the reasoning behind the divorce statistics in the country with the most, and the least, divorces.

And what all could we learn from the Chileans on how to keep a marriage together?

See Divorce demography.

What is it about the Belgians that causes higher divorce rates than us? How do we manage to avoid their mistakes more often?

And how do Chilean couples do so well together? What all could we learn from them in order to help ourselves survive a marriage? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question that can be analyzed with sociology. The answer lies in the religious differences of the populations of the two countries. Chile is a predominately Catholic country, and the teaching for Catholics is, I believe, taken from the words in the Gospel where it says "Only for adultery reasons" is divorce permissible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has a lot of atheists. Its high divorce rate is artificially lower than normal because many Belgians don't marry. Divorce is the wrong metric to measure single-parent families in Belgium. I can't explain why Portugal's divorce rate is so high.
Sleigh (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your benchmark if for saying "Belgium has a lot of atheists". According to Religion in Belgium 28% of Belgians identify themselves as non-religious or would not state their religion. This is lower than the equivalent percentages for its neighbours France (45%), Germany (44%) or the Netherlands (51%). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody said that the main cause of divorce is marriage. --Error (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Roman Catholic teaching is that divorce i.e. dissolution of a valid marriage is almost never possible. See [1], [2], [3], Christian views on divorce#Roman Catholic Church, Marriage (Catholic Church), [4] and [5]. In the case of infidellity, separation may be acceptable [6] [7] (also earlier source), but not divorce and if either partner have sex with someone else they would be commited infidelity even if married in some ceremony (if the partners were honest it should not be an official RC one). Note that as highlighted by the earlier sources, seperation without good grounds is also generally not allowed although of course if your spouse leaves you and you are fully willing and make resonable attempts to re-establish the relationship, your spouse is most likely not the one commiting the sin. Now, annulments can happen but that's a recognition the marriage as never valid Annulment (Catholic Church). In a limited number of cases, the church allows dissolution of the marriage (i.e. divorce although they avoid the term) and remarriage even if the original one was valid e.g. Pauline privilege and Petrine Privilege although as I said infidelity is still irrelevant. In those cases, the marriage is held to be a Natural marriage but not a sacramental one, see also [8] so it can be dissolved. The marriage may also be dissolved in the case of non consummation which depending on the circumstances is also grounds for annulment, in that case although the marriage may or may not have been valid, the irreversible bond has not yet been established. To be clear, I'm only talking about the religious aspect of the marriage. The Catholic church generally doesn't care that much about the civil aspect (they would normally expect you to follow it if you can), so it will generally be okay for a couple who seperate because of infidelity to divorce civilly, however from the church's POV they are still married under god's eyes. (Similarly, if a marriage is annulled by the church, divorce may be necessary before remarriage as the civil grounds for annulment will usually be different so may not cover the religious reasons. Even if civil annulment may be possible, the church usually doesn't care if you divorce instead.) As highlighted by some of the sources and my comments, the Catholic church frequently uses divorce to refer to the civil aspect only. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is assuming, falsely, that a lower divorce rate is always desirable. In reality, in cultures that frown upon divorce or countries that outright forbid it, couples are often forced to live together when they have nothing but contempt for each other. I grew up in one such culture, and as a kid I had to watch my dad abuse my mom on a regular basis while having an open affair and rejecting any displays of affection. Clearly divorce would have been the better choice, even if it contributes to the divorce rate that the OP seems to value above human happiness.

I've said this before in response to a very similar question, and I'll say it again: the primary cause of a high divorce rate is freedom; the primary cause of a low divorce rate is cultural or religious oppression. Go to the divorce demography article that you linked to, and sort by Divorce:marriage ratio. Notice that in the lowest 10 countries, not a single one is commonly considered part of the developed world. In the lowest 20, the only developed country is Ireland, which was a de facto Catholic theocracy until recent decades. Now go to the other end of the list. In the top 7, every single country is undeniably part of the first world. Almost all of the top 20 countries are also developed, with minor exceptions (i.e. Cuba, Estonia, Russia).

There is nothing surprising about the fact that if people are allowed the freedom to choose their partners, they will divorce partners who turn out to be unsuitable. The OP is doing something akin to looking at "List of countries by government replacement rate" and asking what the United States could learn from a stable country like North Korea. North Korea's government never gets replaced because of state oppression, not because the citizens are so satisfied that they see no reason to elect a different one. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, there are also individuals who have too much personal freedom and too little commitment and obligation toward creating a family. I'm talking about individuals who love each other based on first impressions (love at first sight and happily ever after) without any thought of long-term commitment and realistic expectations. A little bit of social pressure toward obligation and commitment does not sound like a bad idea; after all, parents expect that their children do chores or help around the house. The whole divorce issue can be very complex and multi-faceted, and it's quite difficult to understand who is on the right side or wrong side. Sneazy (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, the price of freedom is that people often make bad decisions. The price of not having freedom is that you can't reverse those bad decisions--once married to a shallow bimbo, always married. The analogy with democracy vs. dictatorship is still apt. --50.47.81.232 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of offering mercy to those who make bad decisions. But first, they must recognize that they have indeed made a bad decision, suffering from the consequences and wishing to change for a happier lifestyle, however that may be. Sneazy (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Visit to Liliuokalani

I found this newspaper article in the Library of Congress. I am wondering who (need names) were part of this Congressional visit to Hawaii in 1915? These are related to these posts: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 2#Liliuokalani on film and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 27#Congressional Visit to Hawaii in early 1900s. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source [9] states: "A horde of Congressmen descended on Hawaii in 1915 — 124 of them—including "Uncle Joe" Cannon, Speaker of the House. " The visit seems to have been linked with the establishment of Hawaii National Park. The Speaker would be Joseph Gurney Cannon. There seems to have been a locally-printed publication about the visit; see here [10]. The trick would now be to find a library that has it ! --Xuxl (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov writing during an interview

Dear Wikipedians, is it true (as claimed on TVTropes, I must admit) that Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story whilst giving an interview? If it is, when did this happen and was the story ever published? Many thanks, 86.150.166.62 (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is infuriating. I clearly recall reading a description of this incident in an Asimov collection years ago; the author tended to write a short introduction to each story in his anthologies, detailing the circumstances in which it was written. In my recollection, he explained that he did this as something of a gimmick, but had a suspicion that he would be asked to do it when he went on the show, and had brought a few ideas with him just in case. When I read your question I was sure it would be easy to answer. Unfortunately I don't seem to own the anthology any more, and efforts to track the story and introduction down have so far failed. I will keep looking, but with any luck someone else will be able to provide a referenced answer. - Ka renjc 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Insert Knob A In Hole B. Date: August 21 1957. Publication details in our article. - Ka renjc 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that's perfect! 86.150.166.62 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - Ka renjc 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved