Reflection on Marriage

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
nk.net...

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

I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage.
The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy?

The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that a
huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well as
from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows
from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order their
priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this (for
the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical verse
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is applicable to
most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because some
of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say "traditional
marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.)

The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people who
have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families and
children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and other
countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of
choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place at
the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take no
satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40 years
ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the
ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people -- and I
was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never got
any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer to
be given.)

This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to
illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has
been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and who is
not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child support
in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about ensuring
that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It is
about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish
fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved will
be forced to subsidize these decisions.

What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I
don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no alternative
to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of
intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal
laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples
contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into binding
prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the details
of what would happen if there were a divorce.

If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the
situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to lobby
state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child
support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to existing
marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and not
even in the same jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing the
underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special interest
groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make
steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians, bureaucrats,
and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering to
these groups.

My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that happens,
my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced men
-- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again."

What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster
relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the
divorces.
Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of marriage
that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and all of
a
sudden they need to change men.

I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son
recently
got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out. We
talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end their
marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves. My
neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of marriages
breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated those
types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner
self,
to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons
were
divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the marriages.

My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the "you
can
have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need to
have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in
place
for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half the
family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement
benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and child
care
for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of
spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent, and
of
course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a man
who
was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the incentives
to
end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women
only.

When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you have to
go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the process
is.
The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is
reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50% of
the
time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The same
should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage
contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in a
marriage and to stay in a marriage.



I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody should
be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a lot
of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go
through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are still
naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't
surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and know
that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many of
them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their
personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser.
(Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make small
amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize it is
not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart, others
grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no growth
for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women are
working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with our
fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on either
sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are
more settled and mature to do.

T

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

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

We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not
turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or
did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their
husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"?

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
nk.net...

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

I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage.
The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy?

The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that
a
huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well
as
from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows
from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order
their
priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this
(for
the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical
verse
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is
applicable to
most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because
some
of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say
"traditional
marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.)

The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people
who
have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families
and
children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and
other
countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of
choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place
at
the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take
no
satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40
years
ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the
ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people --
and I
was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never
got
any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer
to
be given.)

This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to
illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has
been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and
who is
not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child
support
in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about
ensuring
that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It
is
about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish
fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved
will
be forced to subsidize these decisions.

What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I
don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no
alternative
to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of
intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal
laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples
contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into
binding
prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the
details
of what would happen if there were a divorce.

If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the
situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to
lobby
state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child
support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to
existing
marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and
not
even in the same jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing
the
underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special
interest
groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make
steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians,
bureaucrats,
and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering
to
these groups.

My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that
happens,
my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced
men
-- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again."

What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster
relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the
divorces.
Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of
marriage
that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and
all of
a
sudden they need to change men.

I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son
recently
got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out.
We
talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end
their
marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves.
My
neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of
marriages
breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated
those
types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner
self,
to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons
were
divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the
marriages.

My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the
"you
can
have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need
to
have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in
place
for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half
the
family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement
benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and
child
care
for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of
spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent,
and
of
course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a
man
who
was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the
incentives
to
end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women
only.

When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you
have to
go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the
process
is.
The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is
reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50%
of
the
time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The
same
should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage
contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in
a
marriage and to stay in a marriage.



I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody
should
be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a
lot
of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go
through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are
still
naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't
surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and
know
that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many
of
them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their
personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser.
(Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make
small
amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize
it is
not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart,
others
grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no
growth
for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women
are
working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with
our
fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on
either
sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are
more settled and mature to do.

T

We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not
turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or
did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their
husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"?

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
nk.net...

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

I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage.
The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy?

The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that
a
huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well
as
from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows
from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order
their
priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this
(for
the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical
verse
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is
applicable to
most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because
some
of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say
"traditional
marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.)

The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people
who
have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families
and
children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and
other
countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of
choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place
at
the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take
no
satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40
years
ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the
ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people --
and I
was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never
got
any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer
to
be given.)

This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to
illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has
been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and
who is
not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child
support
in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about
ensuring
that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It
is
about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish
fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved
will
be forced to subsidize these decisions.

What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I
don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no
alternative
to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of
intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal
laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples
contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into
binding
prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the
details
of what would happen if there were a divorce.

If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the
situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to
lobby
state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child
support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to
existing
marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and
not
even in the same jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing
the
underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special
interest
groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make
steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians,
bureaucrats,
and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering
to
these groups.

My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that
happens,
my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced
men
-- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again."

What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster
relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the
divorces.
Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of
marriage
that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and
all of
a
sudden they need to change men.

I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son
recently
got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out.
We
talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end
their
marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves.
My
neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of
marriages
breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated
those
types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner
self,
to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons
were
divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the
marriages.

My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the
"you
can
have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need
to
have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in
place
for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half
the
family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement
benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and
child
care
for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of
spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent,
and
of
course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a
man
who
was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the
incentives
to
end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women
only.

When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you
have to
go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the
process
is.
The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is
reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50%
of
the
time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The
same
should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage
contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in
a
marriage and to stay in a marriage.



I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody
should
be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a
lot
of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go
through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are
still
naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't
surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and
know
that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many
of
them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their
personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser.
(Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make
small
amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize
it is
not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart,
others
grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no
growth
for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women
are
working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with
our
fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on
either
sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are
more settled and mature to do.

T

Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

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


Tiffany wrote:

We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not
turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or
did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their
husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"?

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
nk.net...

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

I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage.
The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy?

The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that
a
huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well
as
from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows
from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order
their
priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this
(for
the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical
verse
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is
applicable to
most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because
some
of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say
"traditional
marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.)

The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people
who
have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families
and
children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and
other
countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of
choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place
at
the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take
no
satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40
years
ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the
ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people --
and I
was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never
got
any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer
to
be given.)

This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to
illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has
been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and
who is
not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child
support
in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about
ensuring
that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It
is
about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish
fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved
will
be forced to subsidize these decisions.

What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I
don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no
alternative
to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of
intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal
laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples
contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into
binding
prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the
details
of what would happen if there were a divorce.

If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the
situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to
lobby
state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child
support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to
existing
marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and
not
even in the same jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing
the
underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special
interest
groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make
steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians,
bureaucrats,
and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering
to
these groups.

My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that
happens,
my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced
men
-- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again."

What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster
relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the
divorces.
Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of
marriage
that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and
all of
a
sudden they need to change men.

I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son
recently
got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out.
We
talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end
their
marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves.
My
neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of
marriages
breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated
those
types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner
self,
to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons
were
divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the
marriages.

My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the
"you
can
have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need
to
have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in
place
for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half
the
family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement
benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and
child
care
for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of
spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent,
and
of
course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a
man
who
was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the
incentives
to
end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women
only.

When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you
have to
go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the
process
is.
The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is
reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50%
of
the
time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The
same
should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage
contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in
a
marriage and to stay in a marriage.



I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody
should
be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a
lot
of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go
through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are
still
naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't
surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and
know
that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many
of
them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their
personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser.
(Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make
small
amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize
it is
not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart,
others
grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no
growth
for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women
are
working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with
our
fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on
either
sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are
more settled and mature to do.

T

Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

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


Tiffany wrote:

We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress through
life?

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
When the women you talk about below got married, Tiffany, did they make
their commitments to their husbands conditional upon their husbands not
turning out to be "losers," and the other factors you talk about? Or
did these women follow the conventional practice of committing to their
husbands "in sickness or in health, until death us do part"?

Tiffany wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
nk.net...

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

I share your underlying philosophy about the importance of marriage.
The question is: what do we do to promote this philosophy?

The fact that 50 percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and that
a
huge number of social problems result from these breakdowns (as well
as
from nonmarital births), is emphatically NOT accidental. It follows
from the existence of a wide range of people in the U.S. who order
their
priorities in a way that destroys marriage. The people who do this
(for
the most part) don't realize what they are doing. The Biblical
verse
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is
applicable to
most such people. (But it's not applicable to all of them, because
some
of them WANT to destroy marriage -- or, as they would say
"traditional
marriage" -- and know very well what they are doing.)

The people who have destroyed marriage in the U.S. are the people
who
have favored the rights of individuals over the rights of families
and
children. In particular, the feminist movement in the U.S. and
other
countries has focused all its attention on enlarging the range of
choices available to women, even when this enlargement takes place
at
the expense of men and children, and of society generally. (I take
no
satisfaction in saying this, but back in the late 1960s, about 40
years
ago, when the feminist movement was getting started, I KNEW what the
ultimately outcome would be. Even back then, there were people --
and I
was one of them -- who said: "But what about children?" They never
got
any answer, and now, decades later, we know that there WAS no answer
to
be given.)

This news group is about child support. So it is appropriate to
illustrate this point by reference to child support. Anyone who has
been involved in child support issues for any length of time, and
who is
not blinded by the feminist mindset, soon recognizes that child
support
in the U.S. is not about children and their needs. It is about
ensuring
that the widest possible range of choices is available to women. It
is
about ensuring that women are able to make the decision to establish
fatherless families, secure in the knowledge that the men involved
will
be forced to subsidize these decisions.

What could be done to rebuild marriage and two-parent families? I
don't look on myself as a radical, but in this area I see no
alternative
to a radical solution. Government must get out of the business of
intervening in families entirely. There must be no state or federal
laws about divorce, alimony, or "child support." Instead, couples
contemplating marriage must be told that they must enter into
binding
prenuptial contracts that specify all the details, including the
details
of what would happen if there were a divorce.

If marriage were privatized in this way, we would have an end to the
situation where, in the U.S., special interest groups are able to
lobby
state legislatures for changes in the laws on divorce and "child
support," and then have those changes applied retroactively to
existing
marriages, including those that have taken place years earlier, and
not
even in the same jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. we are still a long way off recognizing
the
underlying realities of the situation. Meantime, the special
interest
groups who are destroying marriage and the family continue to make
steady headway. They are helped by all the politicians,
bureaucrats,
and members of the judiciary who see short-term gains in pandering
to
these groups.

My bumper sticker would be: "Privatize marriage!" Until that
happens,
my alternative bumper sticker -- and I suspect that of many divorced
men
-- is: "They'll never get me up in one of those things again."

What is particularly ironic is women, who are hard wired to foster
relationships, are also responsible for initiating over 70% of the
divorces.
Some switch seems to go off in their heads after several years of
marriage
that changes what they think about the man they are married to, and
all of
a
sudden they need to change men.

I went to a funeral on Friday with my next door neighbor. Her son
recently
got divorced after his wife chose to have an affair and wanted out.
We
talked about the Braver study where he found that women seek to end
their
marriages for touchy-feely reasons like needing to find themselves.
My
neighbor said just in the last year she heard about a rash of
marriages
breaking up, and the women who were all in their late 30's, stated
those
types of touchy-feely reasons, like getting in touch with their inner
self,
to end the marriages. And in one family at the funeral all three sons
were
divorced from 30 something women who had affairs and ended the
marriages.

My personal opinion about why marriages fail is women buy into the
"you
can
have it all" feminist line of thinking and they decide that they need
to
have it all right now. The financial and emotional incentives are in
place
for women to be rewarded for their transgressions with at least half
the
family assets, long term security with half their spouse's retirement
benefits, a predictable flow of CS payments, medical coverage and
child
care
for the children, continued use of the family home, the possibility of
spousal support, emotional stability by being named custodial parent,
and
of
course being perceived as a strong woman for being willing to kick a
man
who
was making them miserable out of their life. IOW - all of the
incentives
to
end marriage and the emotional support systems are available to women
only.

When men come to realize the reality of how marriages end (and you
have to
go through it to finally get it) they discover how one-sided the
process
is.
The only way I believe marriages will be made to last is if fault is
reinstated in marriage break-ups and fathers are awarded custody 50%
of
the
time overall, and 100% of the time when mothers have affairs. (The
same
should apply if men cheat too.) And that is where privatized marriage
contracts would become very powerful motivators to remain faithful in
a
marriage and to stay in a marriage.



I don't believe custody should be awarded based on cheating. Custody
should
be 50/50 unless one of the parties is unfit. I also think that where a
lot
of the problems come to play is folks getting married so young. We go
through so many changes as we grow in life and at 20 years old, we are
still
naive children. That women initiate divorce in there early 30's doesn't
surprise me one bit. I know a few women who did initiate divorce and
know
that I think about it, they are in their early 30's. It seems that many
of
them have grown to want more from life, they have progressed in their
personal career while the husband is still what most would call a loser.
(Not working, not working to get better jobs, ect) The husbands make
small
amounts of money and spend it at the bars or gambling. So they realize
it is
not working for them and move on. As people grow, some grow apart,
others
grow together. The last generation and previous to that, there was no
growth
for the women as she was typically a stay at home mother/wife. Now women
are
working and have careers. We don't all want to have a man supply us with
our
fortunes, some of us get that ourselves. Still not to put blame on
either
sex, marriage is just something that a couple should wait until they are
more settled and mature to do.

T

"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?

"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?

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?