I’m sorry, but there is no resemblance. Divorce, and I can’t repeat this enough it seems, is a PRIVATE matter. Global warming is a GLOBAL problem. No matter how many statistics you show, the mechanics to terminate a marriage contract between two people is a fundamental right.

This rather reminds me of the debate about global warming which took place a few years back when, in spite of several scientific reports warning about man – induced danger to the environment , Rush Limbaugh dismissed concern about climate upheaval as being alarmist – and logical arguments he brought too – except that it is all too obvious now that he was hopelessly wrong in his logical conclusions which failed to give due weight to the evidence.

“You may say that separation has the same effect as divorce but I don`t really think so and statistics show this quite clearly.”

Even if this was true, which I strongly doubt, what difference does that make?

I could show statistically that there is less discontent in North Korea than in many western nations, does that mean necrocracies (as the head of state is actually dead) is a good thing?

If I show statistics that the harsher Sharia methods of cutting off limbs of perpetrators actually lessens crime, should we introduce the same laws?

There is a recent study by Gregory Paul showing a strong positive correlation between religiosity in prosperous nations and a series of social ills such as homocide, teenage pregnancies, high levels of abortion and sexually transmitted diseases. Does this mean we should outlaw religion?

Divorce is a private issue and trying to meddle with statistics to prove a point in a private matter is doomed to fail. As I said before, show your statistics to the spouse of a compulsive cheater, or the wife of an abusive husband and father. By arguing against divorce in those cases you choose to side against the victim, creating an institutionalised situation for continued abuse and adultery.

It doesn’t strike me as sound and analytical reasoning to continue to disregard mounting evidence in social science journals which demonstrates the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects that divorce is having on children which will last well into adulthood and affect future generations.

[Daphne – Those are not the effects of divorce but the effects of marital breakdown and we have exactly the same situation here.]

One such effect being that families with children that were not poor before the divorce see their income drop as much as 50 percent and that almost 50 percent of the parents with children that are going through a divorce move into poverty after the divorce.

[Daphne – Again, we have the same situation here.]

You may say that separation has the same effect as divorce but I don`t really think so and statistics show this quite clearly. Divorce has an inherent tendency to increase the likelihood of and hasten the breakdown in marriage.

[Daphne – You are quite wrong.]

Moreover whilst other countries are moving in the direction of trying to reduce the incidence of divorce and ending “no-fault” divorce ` here we are in Malta clamouring for its introduction.

[Daphne – ‘Other countries’ are not trying to reduce divorce. They are trying to decrease the incidence of marital breakdown and to encourage stable unions between those who have children (an important distinction, as nobody gives a flying wotsit what people without children do). Marriages break down with or without divorce, and without divorce it is – this may come as a surprise to you – a lot easier.]

Well, what`s the point of institutionalising this behaviour ? What if many people are robbing their neighbours` goods? Should the law legalise theft then? Besides, once the law sanctions this behaviour, it would become far more acceptable and widespread.

[Daphne – An illogical argument: adultery, fornication and the creation of children outside wedlock are not crimes, unlike theft.]

And as for abusive and violent husbands – why unleash them onto other unsuspecting women and children?

[Daphne – You may have failed to notice that such people, like all others, do not require the law to release them from a marriage so that they may unleash themselves onto another woman, unsuspecting or otherwise.]

Better to clamp them behind bars or under a tight rein [one would almost wish it were not meant figuratively!] rather than allow them to spread misery and havoc in other marriages.

[Daphne – Another illogical argument: because some men are bastards, no person should be permitted divorce, in case the bastards remarry. If you’re going to trample on people’s rights, why not fine-tune your strategy and just ban the bastards from remarrying?]

He would have probably become a preacher and saved the world.

Sorry, I meant ‘Hilar’.

Yes, that is an extremely common problem, which is why we have to ensure that the victims that at least try to turn away from such violence have the functions and support in place to do so.

You are right, Pat…but then many of those victims of domestic violence would say: ‘But he is a good husband / father and I love him.’ Heard that so many times. Better fear your husband then sin against God.

Lift the blanket a bit, Hilmar, and you will find that your regression of society and polygamy (sort of) has already arrived in many houses…or bedrooms.