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?

"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.

Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the typical
vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've
attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was not
typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended on
the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed outside
of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a
biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That
was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be it -
but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to
marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide not
to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can you
imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other
people's marriages? (more below)

No one can make a promise to that extent.

I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is
capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they
want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice
to be married and live up to that promise.

But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many
different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one should
expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate the
growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their children
to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with all
people in their lives.

Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of divorce,
and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the
outcome.

I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because
she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her
husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up to
a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick.

The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her
husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit
over where they live.

The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will
always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come
home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is all
she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in
leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not
do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on just
his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to
work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a
decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon because
he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then there
is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they
were use to.

Do you see where I'm coming from?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



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

"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.

Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the typical
vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've
attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was not
typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended on
the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed outside
of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a
biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That
was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be it -
but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to
marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide not
to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can you
imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other
people's marriages? (more below)

No one can make a promise to that extent.

I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is
capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they
want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice
to be married and live up to that promise.

But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many
different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one should
expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate the
growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their children
to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with all
people in their lives.

Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of divorce,
and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the
outcome.

I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because
she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her
husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up to
a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick.

The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her
husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit
over where they live.

The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will
always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come
home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is all
she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in
leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not
do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on just
his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to
work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a
decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon because
he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then there
is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they
were use to.

Do you see where I'm coming from?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



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

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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?


I seriously put some thought into the vows I'll be speaking when I do marry
my boyfriend. There are only two things I wish to add. 1 - I would like to
thank our Lord for bringing him into my life. There isn't a day that goes
by I'm not thankful. 2 - I would ask everyone in the church to be
supportive our marriage. In other words, if you aren't going to be
supportive, then leave us alone.

A woman my bf went out with a few times before dating me actually tried to
start dating him again after she found out he was serious with someone else
(me). She offered him sex - came right out and offered it. He, of course,
said 'no'. She enjoys chasing after men who are taken - either by marriage
or in a relationship. I have to really wonder about people like her. Even
my bf's ex begged to "come home" twice after it was clear we are going to
get married, and the kids are very supportive of our decision to get
married.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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?


I seriously put some thought into the vows I'll be speaking when I do marry
my boyfriend. There are only two things I wish to add. 1 - I would like to
thank our Lord for bringing him into my life. There isn't a day that goes
by I'm not thankful. 2 - I would ask everyone in the church to be
supportive our marriage. In other words, if you aren't going to be
supportive, then leave us alone.

A woman my bf went out with a few times before dating me actually tried to
start dating him again after she found out he was serious with someone else
(me). She offered him sex - came right out and offered it. He, of course,
said 'no'. She enjoys chasing after men who are taken - either by marriage
or in a relationship. I have to really wonder about people like her. Even
my bf's ex begged to "come home" twice after it was clear we are going to
get married, and the kids are very supportive of our decision to get
married.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........


~AZ~

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........


~AZ~

AZ Astrea:

Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone
encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following
questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently
30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that
period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage?

The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the
institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that
what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married.

However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the
institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was
the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got
started in California under the influence of these groups. The
continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which
are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that
process in turn has produced reactions among men.

Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting
married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get
married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers
in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you
want, so long as it's black."

There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one
where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are
forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly
anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're
getting into until it's time for the divorce.

Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like
abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right
direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states
that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups
don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the
undermining of marriage.

The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal
framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual
comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the
special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the
private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think
before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have
to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract.



AZ Astrea wrote:

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........

~AZ~

AZ Astrea:

Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone
encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following
questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently
30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that
period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage?

The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the
institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that
what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married.

However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the
institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was
the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got
started in California under the influence of these groups. The
continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which
are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that
process in turn has produced reactions among men.

Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting
married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get
married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers
in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you
want, so long as it's black."

There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one
where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are
forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly
anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're
getting into until it's time for the divorce.

Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like
abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right
direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states
that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups
don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the
undermining of marriage.

The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal
framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual
comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the
special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the
private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think
before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have
to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract.



AZ Astrea wrote:

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just "knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married. Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script" of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........

~AZ~

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
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.

That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can.


The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage
should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so.



Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more
settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in
their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then
atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that
have taken place.

Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like
that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to
them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them.

T