bttt
The author is whining.
The reason marriage is waning is the women's movement. The traditional family structure is just not compatible with a society in which every woman works in the market place.
The basic, simple, biological reality is that women need to be having children when they're 18 - 25 and not when they're 30-45, and they need to be able to do that without having to marry men who are ten years older than they are. If our society is going to survive, that has to become possible again. What we're doing now clearly does not work.
Mulims had it figured out long ago. Marry, marry, marry, and have kids lots of them, have even four wives if you can, and this way they can over populate the world, and this is exactly what they are doing. Other countries have been told by their own governments that the world is getting over populated, and so what do we do? We have less children, while undesirables come into our county and try to destroy the American way of life.
We will be the losers if we do not honor marriage. Same sex marriage only insures our destruction, and our sure path to Sodom. We will deserve what ever comes to us, and it surely will.
Why not also blame the fact that a lot of things change with the passing of time?
These questions beg the central question, which is, Why should marriage be saved?
Marriage should be saved because it is the natural institution through which new members of society are born, raised and formed. It is in the best (and natural) interest of children to be raised by their natural parents, parents who have committed themselves to each other for life.
Natural marriage also serves an important secondary purpose, in channeling sexuality in a way most beneficial to individuals and society in general.
So marriage should be saved. And the greatest threat to marriage today is the widespread opinion that marriage should serve individual needs only. Marriage has become for many a means of self-actualization rather than self-sacrifice.
When the male female earning power drastically changes into being lopsided the other way, with women outearning men the way men used to outearn women in the 1950's, a basic flip flop of roles would be expected, and certainly after womens "time" becomes worth so much more than mens time, women will have to give up all the menial unpaid tasks that they used to do - esp around the house.
Higher educated/higher paid women of the future will need men to cook and clean for them.
As soon as feminists stop telling little suzy to put away that vile toy stove, and pick up a toy jack hammer, and the gays stop telling little bobby that it's just dandy to wear pink sweaters and frollic with the boys, marriage will enjoy the same natural pervasiveness it did before feminism and the gay & lesbian agenda.
booked
Marriage has become financial union based on the females emotions only because the man has no say in the program lest he sued for divorce and his life be ruined for ever.
Liza do you take this man for better are worse. I'll tell you what parson, If it's not better for me it will be worse for him.
>>>But whose fault is that? If you treat all men as selfish, insensitive, lazy, lying, feckless, incompetent scumbags, you should not be surprised if that is what they turn out to be.>>>
Whine: It's not my fault I'm a selfish, insensitive, lazy, lying, feckless, incompetent scumbag!! It's the woman's fault because she thinks I am!!
Maybe if men (not all mind you) stopped ACTING like that, women would stop treating them like that. How about that?
This trend is partly a result of the fact that baby boomers are a spoiled, self-obsessed bunch of brats (and I say that as one of them). Parents deprived during the Great Depression and WWII spoiled their kids rotten.
It may take a couple of generations and may already be happening that young people are themselves determined not to have children, then divorce like their parents did, but instead want their marriages to last. That's partly the reason why young adults are waiting longer to get married and have children.
My two cents....
People are a lot less willing to sacrifice their independent lifestyle
GGGRRRRRRRRR. Well no wonder no one wants to get married with this attitude. "SACRIFICE"
I had a conversation with a friend the other day about having children. He viewed having children as "giving up you freedom". This attitude astounds me. No doubt, getting married, and havinhg children change a persons lifestyle. But to view those changes as "sacrifice" and "giving up freedoms" is, IMO, a truly selfish, horrible attitude. And to go around saying things like that were young people hear it is what is turning them off to having a family. Why not speak of the wonderful gains of having a family rather then talking about so called sacrifices.
Becky
This raises a fascinating question, since the U.S. appears still to be on the trailing edge of change. Taking Sweden as the "leader", if you'll pardon the expression, the US is at 38% less, 21% less than France, and 17% less than Britain.
But this is deceptive, because some demographic groups tend to breed more bastards than others and a different breakdown might be more useful.
In other words, the U.S. may be in much better shape than it appears, or worse, depending on your point of view.
You mean the only thing that isn't Bush's fault is a woman's fault? Figures! ;)
"She said" is a very revealing part of that statement, for therein lies the fallacy that there is any unfairness.
My experince has been that, in fact, the women do a disproportionate amount of the work around a household, but a moot point has always been that they also "invent" a much more disproportionate percentage of the " must do list": a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Are necessary" and "I decided it must be done" are two entirely different things.
e.g. "I decided to install chintzy dust-collecting ugly curtains on every opening in the house, including the chimney!"
mark