Reflection on Marriage

Oh, but of course. Most people today should not be in charge of
impressionable children or others. However, making excuses to continue a
damnable procedure (divorce) based on someone simply changing their minds is
as bad as the result.
Since we live in a blameless society, that is, everything that happens that
is in the least distasteful is someone else's fault, I don't expect anything
to improve anytime soon.
IMO, there is bad news and worse news. The bad news: we live in a dishonest
and egocentric society where everyone is looking out for themselves and to
hell with everyone else, including a spouse and any children. The result is
the high divorce rate, children born out of wedlock, abortion on demand as a
means of birth control, lawsuits over the most trivial things, a complete
failure for people to accept their own responsibility and criminal
infestation as a normal way of life.
The worse news: it's gonna get much worse.
Phil #3

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
Everyone has an excuse for everything bad that happens to them. Must be
human nature. Kinda of like the NCP who doesn't pay his support but has a
lot of excuses. Sort of like the CP who thinks she needs $1000 a month to
raise her kid, but she has excuses for that need.

I do agree that there are a lot of folks that should forgo legal marriage.
But if you want to decrease the amount of screwed up kids, then you might
want to add some more to the list.

T
Phil #3 wrote in message
ink.net...
People who are unable to commit to a relationship *for life* should
simply
date and forego marriage and children. We don't need more, even further
screwed up generations produced from the current "me, my, I" generation.
Not to say that conditions that may pop up should prevent divorce, just
that
'touchy-feely' excuses for divorce are not reasons, just excuses.
Simple.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones
who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's
voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex
of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts
to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of
life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones
who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's
voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex
of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts
to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of
life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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~

Phil #3 wrote in message
ink.net...
Oh, but of course. Most people today should not be in charge of
impressionable children or others. However, making excuses to continue a
damnable procedure (divorce) based on someone simply changing their minds
is
as bad as the result.
Since we live in a blameless society, that is, everything that happens
that
is in the least distasteful is someone else's fault, I don't expect
anything
to improve anytime soon.
IMO, there is bad news and worse news. The bad news: we live in a
dishonest
and egocentric society where everyone is looking out for themselves and to
hell with everyone else, including a spouse and any children. The result
is
the high divorce rate, children born out of wedlock, abortion on demand as
a
means of birth control, lawsuits over the most trivial things, a complete
failure for people to accept their own responsibility and criminal
infestation as a normal way of life.
The worse news: it's gonna get much worse.
Phil #3



And with such a positive outlook....... lol. Seriously, it would appear that
things are that dismal. But all you can do or I can do or any one person can
do is live their lives in a just and honest way. As we do that, others learn
from example, even if it is just your child or my one child.

T

Phil #3 wrote in message
ink.net...
Oh, but of course. Most people today should not be in charge of
impressionable children or others. However, making excuses to continue a
damnable procedure (divorce) based on someone simply changing their minds
is
as bad as the result.
Since we live in a blameless society, that is, everything that happens
that
is in the least distasteful is someone else's fault, I don't expect
anything
to improve anytime soon.
IMO, there is bad news and worse news. The bad news: we live in a
dishonest
and egocentric society where everyone is looking out for themselves and to
hell with everyone else, including a spouse and any children. The result
is
the high divorce rate, children born out of wedlock, abortion on demand as
a
means of birth control, lawsuits over the most trivial things, a complete
failure for people to accept their own responsibility and criminal
infestation as a normal way of life.
The worse news: it's gonna get much worse.
Phil #3



And with such a positive outlook....... lol. Seriously, it would appear that
things are that dismal. But all you can do or I can do or any one person can
do is live their lives in a just and honest way. As we do that, others learn
from example, even if it is just your child or my one child.

T

In exchange for...

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

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
snipped

The point that seems to be ignored in all of your responses is in over 70%
of marriages that breakup, the marriage vows are terminated and the joint
relationship is ended by unilateral decisions made by the wife over her
husband's objections. I doubt you will find a man in this NG who doesn't
understand there is a huge difference between the emotional decision to
initiate divorce and the financial outcomes from divorce. Women
initiating
divorce is the stimulus. Men paying money is the response.

Women are hard wired to be the keepers of the status in a relationship.
They constantly analyze it, make judgments about it, determine changes
that
need to be made, and focus on how men are impacting the relationship. One
of the problems husbands encounter is wives rarely consider their own role
in a relationship and how what they are saying or doing might have an
impact
on the results. The whole concept of "growing in different directions"
feeds right into this pattern of thinking. Women say things like "He has
not grown up" (meaning I have grown but he hasn't) or "He is a different
man
than the one I married" (meaning he has changed for the worse) without any
analysis that maybe they are setting unreasonable, unilateral expectations
for men that are unattainable.



Why would men initiate divorce when they know they will pay out the ass in
alimony, if the wife is so inclined to pursue that. They would much rather
stay married, having someone doing all their laundry and cooking and raising
of the kids. Run out once and a while and get some strange too. Not a bad
deal, eh?

....spending their lives with someone who has become Webster's definition
of the word "bitch"???? Yeah, SOME DEAL.... A man who tries to save
that relationship is not worried about a little money....

Mel Gamble

I hardly think that stat of 70% is relevant. Would women initiate
divorce as easily if it weren't for the money incentive? Probably not but
time progresses and more women are career oriented, money is not going to be
the incentive. They will have their own money. In my dealings with men and
women, that last paragraph is true only in the sentence of how women
analyze, ect. They do. But men also don't realize their role in the
relationship and say some of the same things women say about their spouses,
only in different ways.

T

In exchange for...

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

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
snipped

The point that seems to be ignored in all of your responses is in over 70%
of marriages that breakup, the marriage vows are terminated and the joint
relationship is ended by unilateral decisions made by the wife over her
husband's objections. I doubt you will find a man in this NG who doesn't
understand there is a huge difference between the emotional decision to
initiate divorce and the financial outcomes from divorce. Women
initiating
divorce is the stimulus. Men paying money is the response.

Women are hard wired to be the keepers of the status in a relationship.
They constantly analyze it, make judgments about it, determine changes
that
need to be made, and focus on how men are impacting the relationship. One
of the problems husbands encounter is wives rarely consider their own role
in a relationship and how what they are saying or doing might have an
impact
on the results. The whole concept of "growing in different directions"
feeds right into this pattern of thinking. Women say things like "He has
not grown up" (meaning I have grown but he hasn't) or "He is a different
man
than the one I married" (meaning he has changed for the worse) without any
analysis that maybe they are setting unreasonable, unilateral expectations
for men that are unattainable.



Why would men initiate divorce when they know they will pay out the ass in
alimony, if the wife is so inclined to pursue that. They would much rather
stay married, having someone doing all their laundry and cooking and raising
of the kids. Run out once and a while and get some strange too. Not a bad
deal, eh?

....spending their lives with someone who has become Webster's definition
of the word "bitch"???? Yeah, SOME DEAL.... A man who tries to save
that relationship is not worried about a little money....

Mel Gamble

I hardly think that stat of 70% is relevant. Would women initiate
divorce as easily if it weren't for the money incentive? Probably not but
time progresses and more women are career oriented, money is not going to be
the incentive. They will have their own money. In my dealings with men and
women, that last paragraph is true only in the sentence of how women
analyze, ect. They do. But men also don't realize their role in the
relationship and say some of the same things women say about their spouses,
only in different ways.

T

Phil:

I think we're pretty much in agreement that politicians in the U.S. at
present dance to the feminist tune. Nothing will change until that
ceases to be the case.

At the political level, there have to be organizations that will
promote the interests of men when those interests are in conflict with
those of women. Unfortunately, we are still a long way off the latter
situation.

However, in the meantime, I think there are worthwhile steps that can
be taken by individual men. For example, in private conversations men
can speak up about issues where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict. That will take us some way in the direction of ending the
current situation where, as Warren Farrell says, "in the battle of the
sexes, only one side shows up."

Men should start to challenge the anti-male comments that women
frequently make, instead of sheepishly agreeing with them (sometimes in
hopes of softening up a woman to whom they are attracted). For several
years, I've been trying to make a practice of doing this. On the one
hand, there's an obvious risk that men who do this will be considered
dogmatic bores. But I've found that it can be done with a light touch.
In a significant number of cases women who routinely make anti-male
comments will back off, and may even reconsider what they are saying.





Phil #3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones
who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's
voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex
of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts
to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of
life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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~

Phil:

I think we're pretty much in agreement that politicians in the U.S. at
present dance to the feminist tune. Nothing will change until that
ceases to be the case.

At the political level, there have to be organizations that will
promote the interests of men when those interests are in conflict with
those of women. Unfortunately, we are still a long way off the latter
situation.

However, in the meantime, I think there are worthwhile steps that can
be taken by individual men. For example, in private conversations men
can speak up about issues where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict. That will take us some way in the direction of ending the
current situation where, as Warren Farrell says, "in the battle of the
sexes, only one side shows up."

Men should start to challenge the anti-male comments that women
frequently make, instead of sheepishly agreeing with them (sometimes in
hopes of softening up a woman to whom they are attracted). For several
years, I've been trying to make a practice of doing this. On the one
hand, there's an obvious risk that men who do this will be considered
dogmatic bores. But I've found that it can be done with a light touch.
In a significant number of cases women who routinely make anti-male
comments will back off, and may even reconsider what they are saying.





Phil #3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones
who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's
voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex
of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts
to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of
life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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~

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

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
snipped

The point that seems to be ignored in all of your responses is in over
70%
of marriages that breakup, the marriage vows are terminated and the
joint
relationship is ended by unilateral decisions made by the wife over her
husband's objections. I doubt you will find a man in this NG who
doesn't
understand there is a huge difference between the emotional decision to
initiate divorce and the financial outcomes from divorce. Women
initiating
divorce is the stimulus. Men paying money is the response.

Women are hard wired to be the keepers of the status in a relationship.
They constantly analyze it, make judgments about it, determine changes
that
need to be made, and focus on how men are impacting the relationship.
One
of the problems husbands encounter is wives rarely consider their own
role
in a relationship and how what they are saying or doing might have an
impact
on the results. The whole concept of "growing in different directions"
feeds right into this pattern of thinking. Women say things like "He
has
not grown up" (meaning I have grown but he hasn't) or "He is a different
man
than the one I married" (meaning he has changed for the worse) without
any
analysis that maybe they are setting unreasonable, unilateral
expectations
for men that are unattainable.



Why would men initiate divorce when they know they will pay out the ass in
alimony, if the wife is so inclined to pursue that. They would much rather
stay married, having someone doing all their laundry and cooking and
raising
of the kids. Run out once and a while and get some strange too. Not a bad
deal, eh?

Aw yes! The old "women are treated like slaves" and "men can't be faithful"
feminist BS. Claiming men don't respect women is one of the feminist tricks
to skew the debate by using guilt, shame, and blame. Have you ever heard of
a woman being criticized for not respecting men? Of course not, because
only men are "sexist" and women would never make "sexist" remarks.

I hardly think that stat of 70% is relevant. Would women initiate
divorce as easily if it weren't for the money incentive? Probably not but
time progresses and more women are career oriented, money is not going to
be
the incentive. They will have their own money. In my dealings with men and
women, that last paragraph is true only in the sentence of how women
analyze, ect. They do. But men also don't realize their role in the
relationship and say some of the same things women say about their
spouses,
only in different ways.

There you go again - telling men they don't recognize their role in the
relationship and trying to claim the fact women initiate divorces over 70%
of the time is not relevant. Your sounding more feminist all the time with
statements that indicate you expect men to continue providing special and
preferential treatment for women while denying those privileges exist.