Reflection on Marriage

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


"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
So you think everyone who gets married should stay married no matter what?
I
don't agree with vows that are apparently unattainable. Apparent by the
high
divorce rate. Why not make a commitment to stay committed as long as both
parties want to?

My approach is that of a generation who has watched their parents be
miserable, all in the sake of staying married. One that has watched
Grandparents die unhappy with the life they had lived with a spouse they
didn't love but stayed together for the sake of the vows.

I would never suggest someone stay miserable in order to keep to the vow.

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

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

Phil:

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

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



Phil #3 wrote:

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
AZ Astrea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



AZ Astrea wrote:

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

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

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

~AZ~

Phil:

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

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



Phil #3 wrote:

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
AZ Astrea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



AZ Astrea wrote:

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

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

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

~AZ~

Tiffany:

I'm beginning to think that I could walk through your deepest thoughts
without getting my ankles wet.

What you describe below is not commitment. It's the absence of
commitment. And, so far as I am aware, there are very few states in the
U.S. that say that both spouses must agree to a divorce. It is very
unusual for both spouses to want the divorce. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, it is the wife who wants the divorce and the husband
who doesn't. However, in the U.S., although BOTH parties must agree to
getting married, ONLY ONE of the parties must decide to reneg on the
commitment for a divorce to take place.

Your ideas about what makes people happy are as shallow as everything
else you say. "The greater part of our happiness depends on our
dispositions and not on our circumstances," Martha Washington said. Her
comment is as applicable to marriages as it is to everything else.

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the failure rate of second
marriages is HIGHER than that of first marriages. So, as a general
rule, people bring their discontents from the first marriage into the
second and subsequent marriages.


Tiffany wrote:

So you think everyone who gets married should stay married no matter what? I
don't agree with vows that are apparently unattainable. Apparent by the high
divorce rate. Why not make a commitment to stay committed as long as both
parties want to?

My approach is that of a generation who has watched their parents be
miserable, all in the sake of staying married. One that has watched
Grandparents die unhappy with the life they had lived with a spouse they
didn't love but stayed together for the sake of the vows.

I would never suggest someone stay miserable in order to keep to the vow.

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

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

Tiffany:

I'm beginning to think that I could walk through your deepest thoughts
without getting my ankles wet.

What you describe below is not commitment. It's the absence of
commitment. And, so far as I am aware, there are very few states in the
U.S. that say that both spouses must agree to a divorce. It is very
unusual for both spouses to want the divorce. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, it is the wife who wants the divorce and the husband
who doesn't. However, in the U.S., although BOTH parties must agree to
getting married, ONLY ONE of the parties must decide to reneg on the
commitment for a divorce to take place.

Your ideas about what makes people happy are as shallow as everything
else you say. "The greater part of our happiness depends on our
dispositions and not on our circumstances," Martha Washington said. Her
comment is as applicable to marriages as it is to everything else.

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the failure rate of second
marriages is HIGHER than that of first marriages. So, as a general
rule, people bring their discontents from the first marriage into the
second and subsequent marriages.


Tiffany wrote:

So you think everyone who gets married should stay married no matter what? I
don't agree with vows that are apparently unattainable. Apparent by the high
divorce rate. Why not make a commitment to stay committed as long as both
parties want to?

My approach is that of a generation who has watched their parents be
miserable, all in the sake of staying married. One that has watched
Grandparents die unhappy with the life they had lived with a spouse they
didn't love but stayed together for the sake of the vows.

I would never suggest someone stay miserable in order to keep to the vow.

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

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

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

I'm beginning to think that I could walk through your deepest thoughts
without getting my ankles wet.

What you describe below is not commitment. It's the absence of
commitment. And, so far as I am aware, there are very few states in the
U.S. that say that both spouses must agree to a divorce. It is very
unusual for both spouses to want the divorce. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, it is the wife who wants the divorce and the husband
who doesn't. However, in the U.S., although BOTH parties must agree to
getting married, ONLY ONE of the parties must decide to reneg on the
commitment for a divorce to take place.

Of course the man doesn't want a divorce, it would cost him to much.


Your ideas about what makes people happy are as shallow as everything
else you say. "The greater part of our happiness depends on our
dispositions and not on our circumstances," Martha Washington said. Her
comment is as applicable to marriages as it is to everything else.

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the failure rate of second
marriages is HIGHER than that of first marriages. So, as a general
rule, people bring their discontents from the first marriage into the
second and subsequent marriages.



Because they continue to make mistakes.




All I will add, since you decided to add insults to the debate, is that if 2
people are truly in love, they don't need a vow to keep them together. They
will stay together regardless. They may find they do love each other but
then fall in love with others later in life. You can love more then one
person before you die.

T

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

I'm beginning to think that I could walk through your deepest thoughts
without getting my ankles wet.

What you describe below is not commitment. It's the absence of
commitment. And, so far as I am aware, there are very few states in the
U.S. that say that both spouses must agree to a divorce. It is very
unusual for both spouses to want the divorce. In the overwhelming
majority of cases, it is the wife who wants the divorce and the husband
who doesn't. However, in the U.S., although BOTH parties must agree to
getting married, ONLY ONE of the parties must decide to reneg on the
commitment for a divorce to take place.

Of course the man doesn't want a divorce, it would cost him to much.


Your ideas about what makes people happy are as shallow as everything
else you say. "The greater part of our happiness depends on our
dispositions and not on our circumstances," Martha Washington said. Her
comment is as applicable to marriages as it is to everything else.

Furthermore, you seem to be unaware that the failure rate of second
marriages is HIGHER than that of first marriages. So, as a general
rule, people bring their discontents from the first marriage into the
second and subsequent marriages.



Because they continue to make mistakes.




All I will add, since you decided to add insults to the debate, is that if 2
people are truly in love, they don't need a vow to keep them together. They
will stay together regardless. They may find they do love each other but
then fall in love with others later in life. You can love more then one
person before you die.

T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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