Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So when we speak even today of traditional marriage, it is a tradition of not long standing.
Yes, but it is a tradition nevertheless and by your own admission one exisiting for well over a century. It is also a good environment to raise children (setting aside the dysfunctional marriage where one or both parents are abusive and/or alcoholic/drug dependent) and to accomplish a lot of other goals together as a couple/family. I speak from experience as a person celebrating my 30th anniversary of late. And I know of many others benefiting from a good marriage. No, marriage isn't perfect, people aren't perfect. If it is not for you, so be it, to each their own. Some people still use it (and their spouses) to acquire money, home(s), children and then jettison their spouse like a hot potato. That, in my opinion, is a perversion of true marriage. But it is their choice nevertheless.
I speak from experience as a person celebrating my 30th anniversary of late. And I know of many others benefiting from a good marriage.
First congratulations, second with the experience of 25 years, one great kid and two dogs, being "married" wasn't required simply making the same commitment would have done just fine. In point of fact our marriage was a "civil union" to begin with, whatever that means. I also hasten to point out that for more 180 years the traditional American marriage would have made my marriage a felony (the goy black guy and a nice white jewish girl). So when my niece told me that she and her girl friend were going to get married, I couldn't think of a better way for two people to express their love and commitment than through the exchange of marriage vows. That is what marriage is about in the 21st century. Birthrates are declining across the board, we don't need children to help on the farm or in the shop. Some of us don't need children at all. Marriage is no more important to the "human race" than the need to increase the global population, and there is no reason that a "marriage" is required to raise healthy well adjusted children if folks do want to raise them. Traditions change, that's why they are called tradition.
Speak of which... anyone watch Fiddler on the Roof?
First congratulations, second with the experience of 25 years, one great kid and two dogs, being "married" wasn't required simply making the same commitment would have done just fine. In point of fact our marriage was a "civil union" to begin with, whatever that means. I also hasten to point out that for more 180 years the traditional American marriage would have made my marriage a felony (the goy black guy and a nice white jewish girl). So when my niece told me that she and her girl friend were going to get married, I couldn't think of a better way for two people to express their love and commitment than through the exchange of marriage vows. That is what marriage is about in the 21st century. Birthrates are declining across the board, we don't need children to help on the farm or in the shop. Some of us don't need children at all. Marriage is no more important to the "human race" than the need to increase the global population, and there is no reason that a "marriage" is required to raise healthy well adjusted children if folks do want to raise them. Traditions change, that's why they are called tradition.
Speak of which... anyone watch Fiddler on the Roof?
If I were a rich man, Yabba dabba dabba dabba dabba dabba da ba doo....
(I could have my pick of any young maiden) ....
Yes, I want to be the 1% of 1213, a la, Charlton Heston in Warlord or Antonius Block the knight in Ingmar Bergman's Seventh Seal.
All joking aside, you are correct. What is referred to as "traditional marriage" in conventional USA perception, is indeed very limited in the scope of world history.
Perhaps concepts of sexuality would be for the better in todays peer pressured world if it was like the ancient culture Herodotus referenced in his travels, where the women of a certain eligible age all assembled in the Public Forum, and sat until selected by a man for 'recreational use', but not marriage and then all the women were absolved of any 'stigma' based on their sexual activity / social standing. Or perhaps a reverse version of it where the women choose the men.
Historically, as someone already mentioned, marriage has been an economic transaction.
I think R Buckminster Fuller had an interesting view on family / sexual preferences and the corollary of population growth. This is an excerpt from Bucky Works:
Bucky explained that the decline of the family as the basic social unit, and the concurrent increase in homosexuality, and (especially) bisexuality, were natural evolutionary developments in a species that no longer needs a high rate of reproduction. For the same reasons, he expected that recreational sex will continue to increase. He said that these changes are not good or bad, and it is futile to waste time opposing them. Animals instinctively and genetically adjust their procreative activities in ways appropriate to prevailing conditions.
I think it provides an interesting theory for today's environment and corroborates much of what we continue to see throughout the world.
On the flip side, I do think there are good reasons for preferring two individuals with a long term commitment in raising off spring. One for one pairing - for whatever length of time - is far more beneficial to children (in the vast majority of cases for health, education and well being), I think the research across the board speaks to this preferred environment. That's not to say any other situation doesn't work.
But it gets to a long term cultural child rearing environmental question that many don't want to delve into and the dichotomy between the 'individual' as ward of guardian/parents, versus, 'individual' as ward of state. And ranking the supremacy of rights across a spectrum of individual, parent, and the state, but, that's likely best a separate thread.
Marriage in and of itself is an awfully poor decision. It comes down to this: Pick a person you like right now, at this stage in life, there now youre stuck with them forever.
Whats going to be interesting is to see where the institution of alimony is heading. Now that we have duel earning households, where many times a woman out earns a man, there is hardly reason for a man to have to continue shelling out his paycheck post marriage. Women dont like to address this fact because currently they are the ones benefiting.
Bucky explained that the decline of the family as the basic social unit, and the concurrent increase in homosexuality, and (especially) bisexuality, were natural evolutionary developments in a species that no longer needs a high rate of reproduction. For the same reasons, he expected that recreational sex will continue to increase. He said that these changes are not good or bad, and it is futile to waste time opposing them. Animals instinctively and genetically adjust their procreative activities in ways appropriate to prevailing conditions.
There is a blast from the past. I some how remember this from somewhere but have not heard or read his commentaries in decades. Thanks for bring it up.
Quote:
On the flip side, I do think there are good reasons for preferring two individuals with a long term commitment in raising off spring. One for one pairing -
Another product of social evolution, while it has become a cliche, "it takes a village to raise a child" but study after study of societies that suggest what child rearing was like for mankind for 99% of your history suggest that communal child rearing produces far better adjusted and productive adults than even contemporary two parent models.
Marriage in and of itself is an awfully poor decision. It comes down to this: Pick a person you like right now, at this stage in life, there now youre stuck with them forever.
Whats going to be interesting is to see where the institution of alimony is heading. Now that we have duel earning households, where many times a woman out earns a man, there is hardly reason for a man to have to continue shelling out his paycheck post marriage. Women dont like to address this fact because currently they are the ones benefiting.
First point is quite interesting, the second point doesn't recognize contemporary laws that establish or deny spousal support.
First point is quite interesting, the second point doesn't recognize contemporary laws that establish or deny spousal support.
Right but in a lot of areas it still comes down to getting the right judge. My father in law is a pizza delivery boy (hard times) and the judge still ordered him to pay alimony of about 150 bucks a month. My mother in law is perfectly capable of working, yet only does under the table house cleaning jobs. She refuses to take a better job because she "wants him to suffer." Its crap like that that still goes on every day in "the system."
There is a blast from the past. I some how remember this from somewhere but have not heard or read his commentaries in decades. Thanks for bring it up.
Another product of social evolution, while it has become a cliche, "it takes a village to raise a child" but study after study of societies that suggest what child rearing was like for mankind for 99% of your history suggest that communal child rearing produces far better adjusted and productive adults than even contemporary two parent models.
Well, the other 99% of history I would characterize as being mostly very homogeneous in cultural values (and most likely ethnically / racially), which under those conditions, I agree it makes sense to say, "it takes a village to raise a child". In these past situations, I think there would be a much stronger communal unanimity on how and what the appropriate way is - to raise a child.
The problem in todays society (as I see it the US in particular) is the past 40 years of encouraged social divisiveness through Political Correctness / Cultural Diversity et. al. has created a mess of the "The Village". The multitude of different parenting philosophies does not lend itself well to 'the village' raising a child, unless there is concurrence on cultural values.
If someone in "The Village" who believes a dose of corporal punishment would do a young hellion a good lesson intervened in 'raising' said child, the child's parent will likely claim discrimination, abuse, et al. because 'junior just needs to be talked to' or have a 'time out'. It also may lead to the unpleasant application of a different 'cultural value set' , or outright denial of wrongdoing if the parents don't agree with the others 'cultural value set'.
This 'mindset' manifests itself in ridiculous cases like the six year old Colorado boy being charged initially as a sex offender for kissing a fellow elementary school female student and requires a public outcry to rectify the stupidity of it. I guess, in this particular case, if you consider "the village" the outraged parents, versus the 'state' defined initial application of school rules / guidelines.
Or, take the recent case of the Texas teen who killed four and critically wounded two others being charged with "Affluenza" and essentially serving no penalty for irresponsible behavior and actions. These are type of parents who apparently feel they are above the concerns of "the village", and I would wager, they would sue anyone before the incident who tried to 'raise' their spoiled child with discipline / corporal punishment / deprivation for bad behaviors etc....
Now on the other hand, you have the child who recently died when the parents declared their religious beliefs as reason for denying the need for what seemed to be appropriate health treatments for the ill child.
The point I'm trying to make here, is in today's world (USA culture) the community (ideally locally - not federally) should delineate when the individuals rights, parental rights and states rights should be applied. Apologize for the tangential topic, but wanted to put my thoughts in better context.
Now, back to the discussion at hand.
I always liked the variations of the old joke: "If marriage is an institution, I don't want to be institutionalized!"
Marriage in and of itself is an awfully poor decision. It comes down to this: Pick a person you like right now, at this stage in life, there now youre stuck with them forever.
Whats going to be interesting is to see where the institution of alimony is heading. Now that we have duel earning households, where many times a woman out earns a man, there is hardly reason for a man to have to continue shelling out his paycheck post marriage. Women dont like to address this fact because currently they are the ones benefiting.
Point one becomes very important in considering a second marriage. You aren't stupid by then. You don't believe in the fairy tale. What I've learned is unless the possible person likes you as you really are, no pr moments then he/she doesn't know you and visa versa. I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't live with first. I really don't think most first time marriages really are based on the idea of being 'stuck' with someone who may not be as you think forever. If its clear you made a bad decision, divorce is the option taken in most cases.
Having come out of a bad one, I'd think very very hard about a new one and if at some point I felt it was not good don't think I'd stay.
I think in divorces the issues surrounding children, like sufficent support and parents who let them love both need to be the primary consideration. Children too often become the weapon of choice to pay back an ex spouse you have issues with (done by both mothers and fathers).
The problem in todays society (as I see it the US in particular) is the past 40 years of encouraged social divisiveness through Political Correctness / Cultural Diversity et. al. has created a mess of the "The Village". The multitude of different parenting philosophies does not lend itself well to 'the village' raising a child, unless there is concurrence on cultural values.
When ever I read such statements, all that comes through to me is the regret of lost white male Christian hegemony. I could be wrong... but....
Quote:
If someone in "The Village" who believes a dose of corporal punishment would do a young hellion a good lesson intervened in 'raising' said child, the child's parent will likely claim discrimination, abuse, et al. because 'junior just needs to be talked to' or have a 'time out'. It also may lead to the unpleasant application of a different 'cultural value set' , or outright denial of wrongdoing if the parents don't agree with the others 'cultural value set'.
I would argue that the problem isn't a result of "political correctness or diversity" but rather the lack of sense of community where mores and values are shaped...dare I say it, collectively, which I will admit is difficult in a complex society such as ours. However, regardless of complexity overtime (and forty years is but a mere second in human history) a consensus is found and yesterdays political correctness simply become corrects. Personally, I think that historical view of far to many individuals is shaped by their own life span and not a view that encompasses the long road of social evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
