 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
thats the way i feel skanky. i think there should be two marriges. the "young marrige" and the "Wise marrige".
and actually its worked out this way for a lot of divorced people i know
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
i think its an artifact from a generation when women didnt work and were basicly destitute after a divorce
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
As I see it, three big social revolutions of the 1960s have rasied the divorce rate:
1) No-fault divorce, which some have already mentioned. The ability to get a divorce without first proving that the other party did something wrong (like battery or adultery) had the most immediate effect; it allowed couples who had simply made a mistake to acknowledge it and move on.
(It would be foolish, though, to imagine that marriages were more "solid" before no-fault divorce. They were simply different. Many marriages endurred without love, for the sake of social convention; my parents had one of those. Also, infidelity on the part of men was more tolerated; even today, in low-divorce-rate Turkey, I know a number of modern, westernized, upper-middle-class women who know their husbands have mistresses, and don't care. Finally, what often preceded no-fault divorce was the fairly common situation of men abandoning their families [weirdly enough, a fair number of the more prominant fighters at the Alamo had abandoned families back East; I don't know what that means, but have always found it interesting]).
2) The end of the "family wage." Before the 60s, coporations tended to pay men as if they were supporting a family, and pay women as if they were just earning extra money. In the 60s and 70s this ended, in part due to feminism but mostly because it served the corporations economic interests to do so. Now, women can earn as much as men in a comparable job; moreover, most men can't earn enough at a middle-class job to support a middle-class family themselves. Thus, the oldest incentive for women to stay married -- economic security -- was greatly lessened.
3) The birth control pill. Marriage has always been, to some extent, about the regulation of women's sexuality; hence the long-standing emphasis on a bride's virginity. It made sense for women to acquiesce to this system when sex could lead to pregnancy, which could then lead to social ostracization when it happened outside of marriage. But give women the ability to have sex without risking pregnancy, and marriage becomes less necessary as a route to sexual fulfillment -- something I suspect many of us have benefitted from. 
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 03-02-2003 at 17:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
In the UK fewer and fewer people regularly attend church and actively practice religion (Christian anyway) so maybe the lack of traditional spiritual values about marriage has something to do with it.
(No, I'm not a religious fundie, I don't go to church and I'm not married anyway)
What put me off marriage was going to one of those exhibitions about wedding services, the ones with photographers, car hire and all the rest of it. One look at all those mothers in law to be with $$££ signs in their eyes and the thought of some poor father in law to be paying for it all was too much. Especially when the realisation that I might have daughters one day hit home. Marriage can be too much about money.
My partner and I have lived together for 12 years and not getting married probably saved her father from a heart attack or bankruptcy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheStinger
Thats to do with the bollocks about having to marry a virgin. The woman would be seen to be soiled by being raped. So they wouldn't be able to marry her off to anyone.
Thats what happens when women are treated as property.( which the Christian marriage sevice perpetuates to this day) |
1/10
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:25
|
|
I agree with a lot of the suggestions, but I have to strongly disagree with Zylka's earlier post about gay unions making all marriages less meaningful.
For one thing, many homosexuals have lost interest in forcing any religion to recognize and carry out gay marriage ceremonies. Now, many of us advocate that the state and federal governments should allow for secular, gay civil union ceremonies that have the same legal legitimacy.
There are many heterosexuals, as others have alluded to here, that have caused more damage to marriage, than homosexuals.
I think in today's society maybe something like 5% to 10% of all failed marriages end up in divorce, because now, more spouses are coming out when they realize they're actually gay or lesbian, rather than stifle themselves in the closet.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2003 14:14
You are not alone in this.
.
|