If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? T Kenneth S. wrote in message ... When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? T Kenneth S. wrote in message ... When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tiffany:
Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Tiffany wrote: We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? T Kenneth S. wrote in message ... When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Tiffany:
Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen? That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before. You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are "basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to everything else you have said. As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes. The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so. Tiffany wrote: We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? T Kenneth S. wrote in message ... When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"? Tiffany wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote in message nk.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Tracy: I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage. The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy? The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.) The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to be given.) This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will be forced to subsidize these decisions. What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details of what would happen if there were a divorce. If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not even in the same jurisdiction. Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats, and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to these groups. My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens, my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men -- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again." What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the divorces. Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of a sudden they need to change men. I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son recently got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner self, to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons were divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages. My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you can have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in place for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child care for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and of course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man who was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives to end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women only. When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process is. The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of the time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a marriage and to stay in a marriage. I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser. (Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are more settled and mature to do. T |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men away from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing apart is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the relationship made without the other partner's input. So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am committed to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide we are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay with you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets with me? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men away from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing apart is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the relationship made without the other partner's input. So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am committed to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide we are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay with you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets with me? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
Since those typical marriage vows are "bull****", that is why we need
specific contractual prenuptual agreements made that are not "bull****". Like Kenneth said, get the government out of family law and have it be based on contracts. "Tiffany" wrote in message ... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through life? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage is under fire!! | Jorkoy | Spanking | 0 | July 29th 04 09:31 PM |
Marriage Tax Bonus Expansion = Singles Tax Penalty Expansion | Jumiee | Single Parents | 0 | June 9th 04 10:49 PM |
Survey to gauge ideas on marriage | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | September 20th 03 05:26 PM |