If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"Tiffany" wrote in message
... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"Tiffany" wrote in message
... We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would never use them. 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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 *** |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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 *** |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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~ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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~ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
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~ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
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~ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage is under fire!! | Jorkoy | Spanking | 0 | July 29th 04 09:31 PM |
Marriage Tax Bonus Expansion = Singles Tax Penalty Expansion | Jumiee | Single Parents | 0 | June 9th 04 10:49 PM |
Survey to gauge ideas on marriage | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | September 20th 03 05:26 PM |