NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the most common refrains I hear from anti-feminists and social conservatives is how feminism and permissive liberal attitudes about sexuality have lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution.

The oft-cited statistic is that 50% of American marriages end in divorce, and the oft-repeated assertion is that back in The Good Old Days (when women were housebots and gay people didn't exist) everybody stayed married and liked it fine.

I'm sure you all will be shocked--shocked!--to learn that this is a load of hooey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html?em&ex=1191297600&en=ac8146a0a0c71360&ei=5087

As it turns out, divorce rates are the lowest they've been since the 1970s. You know, that decade of bra-burning and women's lib and all that jazz?

People who married in the 1990s are more likely to have celebrated a 10th anniversary than those who wed in the 1980s, who, in turn, are more likely to have stayed together than those who married in the 1970s.

My theory? The liberalization of divorce laws and the increase in gender equality around the 1970s allowed a whole lot of people to get out of marriages that they'd been wanting to escape. Remember that the "baby boomer" era was one in which a whole bunch of people married very young and had a ton of children, both of which are serious stress factors for marriages. Divorce wasn't a realistic option for quite some time, so it's no surprise that when it finally became one there would be some people chomping at the bit.

In this regard, progressive changes in society did contribute to an increase in the divorce rate, by making it easier for people to escape bad marriages.

However, socially progressive changes (including feminism) began to have a positive impact at the same time. People (particularly women) felt more free to get married when they were a bit older, which would allow them to have more experience and maturation under their belts before they selected a life-long mate. Increased access to contraception has allowed more control over family size, which also helps keep marriages together. Greater access to education and economic opportunities for women also help out tremendously. And so on...there's a bunch more to list, of course.

Long story short: I think the increase in progressive social values allowed people to more easily get out of bad marriages, while also increasing their ability to avoid getting in to bad marriages in the first place. This directly contradicts the established wisdom that permissive social values are the cause of high divorce rates.

The states that make up the Bible Belt have some of the highest divoce rates in the country. Massachusetts, the state that gave gays the right to marry, has one of the lowest.

Bottle, I respect you, I really do, but, if you think conservatives care for or about facts, you're acting in a VERY naive way.

Dunno... I'd think the decline in marriages in the first place has a far greater affect, unless of course you're counting that in as well.

The OP entirely ignores the lack of marriages begun in the first place. The number of children born to parents that are not and will never marry is the flaw in the theories conclusions.

The OP entirely ignores the lack of marriages begun in the first place. The number of children born to parents that are not and will never marry is the flaw in the theories conclusions.

Do you think that less marriages begun are a bad thing?

in the old days people pretended that everything was OK. it wasnt OK. couples didnt get along any better than they do in our more permissive era. there was just more misery.

at least today we dont have to pretend. we move on and try it again. or dont try it at all if we dont want to.

liberal divorce laws, contraception and abortion rights have been a great boon to general happiness.

Do you think that less marriages begun are a bad thing?

I only pointed out that the affects of the lack of marriages skewers the theory presented in the OP.

The OP entirely ignores the lack of marriages begun in the first place. The number of children born to parents that are not and will never marry is the flaw in the theories conclusions.
Actually, the OP specifically addressed that. Try reading before responding.

liberal divorce laws, contraception and abortion rights have been a great boon to general happiness.
See? Nevada CAN do something good. ;)

I only pointed out that the affects of the lack of marriages skewers the theory presented in the OP.
How so?

I specifically pointed out that progressive values make it more acceptable for people to not get married. It's also more realistic for women, in particular, to not get married, because they are more able to support themselves (thanks to better education and improved career options).

My theory is simply that people are less likely to seek divorce when marriage is something they choose, rather than something they feel compelled to do. People are also less likely to seek divorce when they are better able to control their family size, when they have more education and better economic opportunities, and when both partners in the marriage actually want to be there. I think progressive values help on all counts, here.

See? Nevada CAN do something good. ;)

god bless them!

i remember people having to go to reno for a quick divorce.

Bottle, I respect you, I really do, but, if you think conservatives care for or about facts, you're acting in a VERY naive way.
Who says I'm trying to win over conservatives?

I'm just gloating, really. My family values are better than theirs, nyah-nyah!

:D

Show some statistics on how many children are living with only 1 parent instead of 2 now and historically. The family is very important but it's the children's situation that counts not the marriage contracts.

Not saying it's bad to grow up with only 1 parent, I did and didn't find any problem with that. But 2 persons are clearly more capable of doing a good job raising the kids then 1. Specially in the stressed society we live in today where 1 person who works extra to get by on only 1 salary really doesn't have time to do on their own everything parents should do.

I don't think liberal vs conservative matters that much here. It's how well the 2 parents can deal with the pressure their family is put under by the situation they live in that matters.

the "right" to have sex before you are married is also a huge help.

those few people today who feel that they have to wait for sex until they are married get married far too young usually to someone they dont know well enough but are IN LUUUUV with.

better to just have the sex you crave and get married later when you are educated, settled and better able to judge who will make a good spouse for you.

this way you dont marry the mistakes you would have to divorce in your early 20s

Show some statistics on how many children are living with only 1 parent instead of 2 now and historically.

Why? That's not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to start a thread on that topic, nobody is stopping you.


The family is very important but it's the children's situation that counts not the marriage contracts.

Not in this thread. This thread is about marriage. Many marriages don't have children at all, and many families don't include a married mother and father.

Who says I'm trying to win over conservatives?

I'm just gloating, really. My family values are better than theirs, nyah-nyah!

:D

*hands you a cookie*

A very special cookie. :p

Ah, so you don't care about the family. I'll leave you to debate contracts that are nothing but an empty completely pointless formality if you ignore the family, which you do, then.

Now now, don't start putting words in people's mouths until the thread has at least four pages.

Why? That's not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to start a thread on that topic, nobody is stopping you.


Not in this thread. This thread is about marriage. Many marriages don't have children at all, and many families don't include a married mother and father.
Ah, so you don't care about the family. I'll leave you to debate contracts that are nothing but an empty completely pointless formality if you ignore the family, which you do, then.

Ah, so you don't care about the family. I'll leave you to debate contracts that are nothing but an empty completely pointless formality if you ignore the family, which you do, then.
What's up with the trolls this morning?

Actually, the OP specifically addressed that. Try reading before responding.

Just because you mentioned it in passing doesn't mean you addressed the implications of it in your theory. Try to establish how fewer marriages total makes the marriage institution stronger, the argument that there are more, stronger marriages now, via your theory, is speculation without causation and could easily be countered by the other side by equally plausible speculation.

For example: IF all the marriages now only represent 25% of what would have been the strongest marriages then, then it's like comparing our best against their worst and current rates don’t’ look so good anymore.

Additionally, you don’t establish the parameters of what constitutes a strong marriage institution you run into counter arguments quickly as well. If a "strong marriage institution" is represented by the total percentage of children raised in marriages, then marriages are weaker now, if a "strong marriage institution" is represented by the total percentage of adults in a society that are in it, then marriages are weaker now. If it's something else, then we can discuss it, but you didn't address it in the OP.

What's up with the trolls this morning?

I'm not sure. Maybe they're getting their caves fumigated?

Ah, so you don't care about the family. I'll leave you to debate contracts that are nothing but an empty completely pointless formality if you ignore the family, which you do, then.

What you're like the hetero version of Fass?

Just because you mentioned it in passing doesn't mean you addressed the implications of it in your theory. Try to establish how fewer marriages total makes the marriage institution stronger, the argument that there are more, stronger marriages now, via your theory, is speculation without causation and could easily be countered by the other side by equally plausible speculation.

Seriously, read more carefully. I never speculated that there are MORE, stronger marriages. I simply pointed out that the marriages that are occuring are, statistically speaking, less likely to end in divorce since the "Women's Lib" era.

Personally, I believe in quality over quantity when it comes to marriage.


For example: IF all the marriages now only represent 25% of what would have been the strongest marriages then, then it's like comparing our best against their worst and current rates don’t’ look so good anymore.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm comparing marriages today to marriages back in the day. Marriages today are more likely to survive than marriages started in the 1970s. That's just the numbers.


Additionally, you don’t establish the parameters of what constitutes a strong marriage institution you run into counter arguments quickly as well. If a "strong marriage institution" is represented by the total percentage of children raised in marriages, then marriages are weaker now, if a "strong marriage institution" is represented by the total percentage of adults in a society that are in it, then marriages are weaker now. If it's something else, then we can discuss it, but you didn't address it in the OP.
I'm talking about divorce rates.

Following that logic, surely hundreds of parents would do a much better job than 2. In this case, having communal families(whereby every adult is the parent of every child in the commnity) would be the best case evar. Interesting.
The notion of having only two (biological) parents to care for a child is a very new one. It's odd that so many people view this as "traditional," when historically it was actually more common to have families where grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives all lived together and brought up children together.

Remember, folks, it's called the "nuclear family" because it is an invention dating to the nuclear age. It's a modern concept.

Not saying it's bad to grow up with only 1 parent, I did and didn't find any problem with that. But 2 persons are clearly more capable of doing a good job raising the kids then 1.
Following that logic, surely hundreds of parents would do a much better job than 2. In this case, having communal families(whereby every adult is the parent of every child in the commnity) would be the best case evar. Interesting.

What's up with the trolls this morning?
I apologize. I honestly thought this thread was about if families stick together more or less often now compared to in the past. If I had understood what the thread is about I would have stayed away from it. It was not my intention to come here and troll. I made a mistake that I'm both sorry and embarrassed for.

Seriously, read more carefully. I never speculated that there are MORE, stronger marriages. I simply pointed out that the marriages that are occuring are, statistically speaking, less likely to end in divorce since the "Women's Lib" era.

Then you have to compare them to divorces from before the “women’s lib” era, meaning before the 60's, not after the 60's.

Personally, I believe in quality over quantity when it comes to marriage.

Then establish what is quality in the institution of marriage.


I don't know what you're talking about. I'm comparing marriages today to marriages back in the day. Marriages today are more likely to survive than marriages started in the 1970s. That's just the numbers.

You can't compare marriages to the 70's, the movement was already in place then. The other side of the argument could try and claim the decrease since the 70's as their success in cutting back against "women’s' lib" mistakes... (I'm not saying it's true, only pointing out that you didn't establish ownership of the improvement for your side)


I'm talking about divorce rates.

If that's the only criteria of measurement, then I believe the divorce rate from the seventeenth century is vastly less then it is now so they must have had a stronger marriage institution?

Snip.

"Focus on the Family! Think of the Children! We MUST keep the woman in a miserable marriage and we WILL use the most fallacious appeals to emotion we can!"

If you gave a damn about the children, you'd not be willing to have them withstand a horrible marriage between their parents to earn an emotion point.

If you gave a damn about the family, you'd not be willing to have it turned into a dystopia for all involved to, again, earn an emotion point.

All you DO care about is making sure women are submissive and men are trapped in a marriage with someone they don't like, all for YOUR pleasure of seeing people act like you wish they did.

Keep making more moves, would you? I was feeling like playing this game. I wonder what my next move should be...

The notion of having only two (biological) parents to care for a child is a very new one. It's odd that so many people view this as "traditional," when historically it was actually more common to have families where grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives all lived together and brought up children together.

Remember, folks, it's called the "nuclear family" because it is an invention dating to the nuclear age. It's a modern concept.

i know it's a modern concept and all but i always thought it was called a nuclear family because it was like a nucleus and it didn't include periferal members in it's unit whole, not simply that it developed since the atom was first identified. or am i being stupid here?

How so?

I specifically pointed out that progressive values make it more acceptable for people to not get married. It's also more realistic for women, in particular, to not get married, because they are more able to support themselves (thanks to better education and improved career options).

My theory is simply that people are less likely to seek divorce when marriage is something they choose, rather than something they feel compelled to do. People are also less likely to seek divorce when they are better able to control their family size, when they have more education and better economic opportunities, and when both partners in the marriage actually want to be there. I think progressive values help on all counts, here.

the "right" to have sex before you are married is also a huge help.

those few people today who feel that they have to wait for sex until they are married get married far too young usually to someone they dont know well enough but are IN LUUUUV with.

better to just have the sex you crave and get married later when you are educated, settled and better able to judge who will make a good spouse for you.

this way you dont marry the mistakes you would have to divorce in your early 20s
To me, these ideas/conclusions seem so obvious that it astonishes me to hear people argue against them. But then I was born progressive, so I guess I just can't conceive of the world any other way.

Then you have to compare them to divorces from before the “women’s lib” era, meaning before the 60's, not after the 60's.

Read the link, please.


Then establish what is quality in the institution of marriage.

In this case, I'm talking about the likelihood that the participants will seek divorce when given the opportunity.


You can't compare marriages to the 70's, the movement was already in place then.

Oy. I don't think I have the strength to explain the women's lib movement and the sociohistorical impact thereof. At least, not this early. Anybody else feel like stepping up?


The other side of the argument could try and claim the decrease since the 70's as their success in cutting back against "women’s' lib" mistakes... (I'm not saying it's true, only pointing out that you didn't establish ownership of the improvement for your side)

And what "mistakes" would those be? Pay equality? Improved career opportunities for women? Better education? Access to contraception?

Precisely which of the "mistakes" have been "corrected"?


If that's the only criteria of measurement, then I believe the divorce rate from the seventeenth century is vastly less then it is now so they must have had a stronger marriage institution?
You seem to be missing my point.

Claim: Divorce rates are high because of feminism and permissive sexual/social values. These anti-family values are destroying the institution of marriage!

Refutation: Divorce rates are actually decreasing, as they have been for almost 40 years. This time span just so happens to represent the period including and immediately following the peak of the women's lib and gay pride movements.

If feminism/progressivism were to blame for people getting divorces, then why are children who were born in the 70s less likely to get divorced than their parents? These are the children who have grown up in the supposedly-hellbound era of women's rights and gay pride.

I grew up in a single parent household and look how I turned ou....

...okay, bad example. :p

i know it's a modern concept and all but i always thought it was called a nuclear family because it was like a nucleus and it didn't include periferal members in it's unit whole, not simply that it developed since the atom was first identified. or am i being stupid here?
Miriam-Webster says the term dates back to 1947, for whatever that is worth.

I apologize. I honestly thought this thread was about if families stick together more or less often now compared to in the past. If I had understood what the thread is about I would have stayed away from it. It was not my intention to come here and troll. I made a mistake that I'm both sorry and embarrassed for.
Reading OPs before you respond to them will help you avoid such errors in the future.

Miriam-Webster says the term dates back to 1947, for whatever that is worth.

fair enough, i always thought the concept dated from the industrial revolution. perhaps it had a different name then.

The notion of having only two (biological) parents to care for a child is a very new one. It's odd that so many people view this as "traditional," when historically it was actually more common to have families where grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives all lived together and brought up children together.

Remember, folks, it's called the "nuclear family" because it is an invention dating to the nuclear age. It's a modern concept.

All this proper family values hooha is just that, imo. The biological imperative is to keep the kids alive. HOW that gets done has varied tremendously over time and across cultures, but the fact remains, the USA atom-bomb family structure is a 20th century invention that, from its inception, never worked very well at all.

1950s nostalgia for the Ward and June Cleaver lifestyle drives me nuts. It's a lie!!! The vast majority of American families even in those "Happy Days" were desperately struggling with financial issues, emotional issues, social issues. The pressure to keep up that facade saw middle class white suburban families (the "ideal" model) infested with infidelity, substance abuse and hidden violence. And let us remember that whole segments of the population were locked out of the fantasy altogether -- hello, segregation, anyone?; and don't forget that faithful standby, poverty that always provides a vast underclass that the "desirable" classes can ignore as they play house with each other.

I am sick of today's right wingers trying to sell this ridiculous fantasy as the American way to live. The goal is to raise happy, healthy, educated children who will be able to prosper on their own and contribute to society. The conservative values "tradition" has a hard time doing that. The progressive values makes it easier. I choose the easier way. Done.

I grew up in a single parent household and look how I turned ou....

...okay, bad example. :p

I pity the parent that had to deal with a goofball single handed.

I also pity your wife, who has to deal with 4 of them single handed.

To me, these ideas/conclusions seem so obvious that it astonishes me to hear people argue against them. But then I was born progressive, so I guess I just can't conceive of the world any other way.
And that's pretty much my point.

People who grew up in the post-Lib era (like me) are more likely to think that such ideas are obvious. We still have a long way to go, of course, but I am always happy to see signs of progress.

To me, the news that people are choosing to stay married, even though they are legally more able to get divorced than in any previous generation, is a sign of progress. It suggests that people are probably making better choices when they select their spouse, and they're more content with those choices down the line. That's a good thing, in my opinion!

...
If feminism/progressivism were to blame for people getting divorces, then why are children who were born in the 70s less likely to get divorced than their parents? These are the children who have grown up in the supposedly-hellbound era of women's rights and gay pride.

The counter argument is; because they are less likely to get married at all. Thus, the total percentage of succesful marriages is lower now than it would be otherwise. The overall institution of marriage is weaker by being a smaller percentage of the population. Without evidences presented, their claims are as valid as your claims.

The counter argument is; because they are less likely to get married at all.

That's not really a "counter argument," since it's a point that I included in my argument. But I'm glad you noticed it.


Thus, the total percentage of succesful marriages is lower now than it would be otherwise.

No, it isn't. The percentage of successful marriages is higher. This is because you compare the percent of marriages that end in divorce to the percent of marriages which do not.

You may be trying to argue that the raw number of successful marriages has gone down, since fewer people may choose to marry. Of course, I'm not arguing against that in the first place, so I don't know who you're arguing with.


The overall institution of marriage is weaker by being a smaller percentage of the population.

This assumes that the institution of marriage is strengthened when more people are forced to remain in marriages they don't like.


Without evidences presented, their claims are as valid as your claims.
Well, I would hope they are, since some of the claims you just presented are, in fact, mine.

fair enough, i always thought the concept dated from the industrial revolution. perhaps it had a different name then.
It didn't exist then.

Extended families assisted in raising children. If not, then wealthier (middle class and higher) people hired other people to do the work that relatives would otherwise have done. Poor people with no extra relatives to help out just struggled, and suffered high child mortality rates. Poor marriages often also broke up, even if they could not get a legal divorce. It was not at all uncommon for poor people to leave their marriages and take up with another person and have children with that new person, all without the benefit of legal marriage/divorce/remarriage. This contributed to the prejudice of the rich that the poor were "immoral." Richer people did not get divorced or leave the family. They just cheated on each other.

As a starting point for reading up on the differences between the fantasy lifestyles of the wealthy and the real lifestyles of the poor, I recommend the book "Low Life," by Luc Sante. It is a history of the underclasses in New York City throughout the 19th century.

All this proper family values hooha is just that, imo. The biological imperative is to keep the kids alive. HOW that gets done has varied tremendously over time and across cultures, but the fact remains, the USA atom-bomb family structure is a 20th century invention that, from its inception, never worked very well at all.

1950s nostalgia for the Ward and June Cleaver lifestyle drives me nuts. It's a lie!!! The vast majority of American families even in those "Happy Days" were desperately struggling with financial issues, emotional issues, social issues. The pressure to keep up that facade saw middle class white suburban families (the "ideal" model) infested with infidelity, substance abuse and hidden violence. And let us remember that whole segments of the population were locked out of the fantasy altogether -- hello, segregation, anyone?; and don't forget that faithful standby, poverty that always provides a vast underclass that the "desirable" classes can ignore as they play house with each other.

I am sick of today's right wingers trying to sell this ridiculous fantasy as the American way to live. The goal is to raise happy, healthy, educated children who will be able to prosper on their own and contribute to society. The conservative values "tradition" has a hard time doing that. The progressive values makes it easier. I choose the easier way. Done.

I fail to see how there is less infidelity, substance abuse and hidden violence today than there was then. As to it being easier now, what is easier? Raising children in a single parent one income household now is not what I would call easy by any stretch of the imagination, and there is a far higher percentage of children raised in one parent households today then there was then...

I fail to see how there is less infidelity, substance abuse and hidden violence today than there was then. As to it being easier now, what is easier? Raising children in a single parent one income household now is not what I would call easy by any stretch of the imagination, and there is a far higher percentage of children raised in one parent households today then there was then...

One parent households are almost never one-parent households. Divorced parents eventually seek out and successfully pursue romantic relationships with other persons. Most so-called single households are actually reconstituted with the "single parent"'s new love interest. Thus resulting in what you might call a new nuclear family unit, except that one of the two "parents" isn't the biological mother or father of the children.

So really, the single parents households is nothing but a urban myth. Divorced parents do not stay celibate forever; once their divorce woes are over, they move on and build meaningful relationships with a new partner.

The counter argument is; because they are less likely to get married at all. Thus, the total percentage of succesful marriages is lower now than it would be otherwise. The overall institution of marriage is weaker by being a smaller percentage of the population. Without evidences presented, their claims are as valid as your claims.

So what if there are fewer marriages, as long as they are better ones? Do you count a social institution as strong only if it racks up high numbers, without caring whether those marriages are even functional?

I am a bit of an iconoclast who defines "tradition" as "the art of making the same mistake twice, on purpose." I also follow the "management by objective" principle which places function over form in figuring out how to do things and always asks "what system is best to get us where we want to be?" To me, social "institutions" should serve society, not the other way around, and if they fail to produce the desired results, they should be reformed or replaced. The fact is that a social system that values being married over being happy and functional produces a lot of unhappy, dysfunctional, married people who will not be as productive or supportive to society as happy, functional people would be, whether they are married or not. The goal should be to have a strong society, and if fewer marriages, later marriages, better marriages will give us that, then I fail to see the problem with allowing the number of marriages to go down.

It didn't exist then.

Extended families assisted in raising children. If not, then wealthier (middle class and higher) people hired other people to do the work that relatives would otherwise have done. Poor people with no extra relatives to help out just struggled, and suffered high child mortality rates. Poor marriages often also broke up, even if they could not get a legal divorce. It was not at all uncommon for poor people to leave their marriages and take up with another person and have children with that new person, all without the benefit of legal marriage/divorce/remarriage. This contributed to the prejudice of the rich that the poor were "immoral." Richer people did not get divorced or leave the family. They just cheated on each other.

As a starting point for reading up on the differences between the fantasy lifestyles of the wealthy and the real lifestyles of the poor, I recommend the book "Low Life," by Luc Sante. It is a history of the underclasses in New York City throughout the 19th century.
oh i understand that don't worry, i'm talking about the concept as a social engineering project. i can't remember the details and i've chucked most of my notes and resources since leaving uni but i did a lot on the 'geographies' of the family as part of one of my courses which was on the geography of gender. i remember a discussion point on the origins of the current 'standard' of family arrangement and it emerged that the ideal first came about in the industrial revolution (in britain) because it had some advantage to industrialists or it fit in with some political ideology of the time or something.

That's not really a "counter argument," since it's a point that I included in my argument. But I'm glad you noticed it.

No, it isn't. The percentage of successful marriages is higher. This is because you compare the percent of marriages that end in divorce to the percent of marriages which do not.

You are comparing succesful marriages to the total number of marriages, not the percentage of adults in succesful marriages.

You may be trying to argue that the raw number of successful marriages has gone down, since fewer people may choose to marry. Of course, I'm not arguing against that in the first place, so I don't know who you're arguing with.

Since my first post in this thread I pointed out that you didn't address for it, for the first time you understood that your OP didn't compensate for it in your postion. Thank you for recognizing the short coming of your postion. The total number of marriages are down, thus the possibility that what would have been all strong marriages before are now weakened by half... With weaker marriages not taking place anymore and the marriage total down, the result should have been stronger than it is now.


This assumes that the institution of marriage is strengthened when more people are forced to remain in marriages they don't like.

I made no such assumptions, I only point out that you didn't rule it out as a rebuttal.

I fail to see how there is less infidelity, substance abuse and hidden violence today than there was then. As to it being easier now, what is easier? Raising children in a single parent one income household now is not what I would call easy by any stretch of the imagination, and there is a far higher percentage of children raised in one parent households today then there was then...
I never said that there was less of the bad things -- though I would argue that the violence is less hidden in a progressive society and thus easier to find and stop.

You are trying to conflate two (edit: spelling) different points.

1) My point about infidelity, substance abuse, and hidden violence in the "traditional" nuclear family structure was that the idealistic view of that structure is false. It was and is not the ideal structure of stable family life that it is and has been portrayed as. That was one point.

2) I stated that the goal of families is to raise children to adulthood in good condition. I stated my opinion that progressive social values make it easier for people to do that. That was the second point. (Second edit: Actually, raising children is just one goal for forming a family. There are other reasons to do it as well.)

So what if there are fewer marriages, as long as they are better ones? Do you count a social institution as strong only if it racks up high numbers, without caring whether those marriages are even functional?

I am a bit of an iconoclast who defines "tradition" as "the art of making the same mistake twice, on purpose." I also follow the "management by objective" principle which places function over form in figuring out how to do things and always asks "what system is best to get us where we want to be?" To me, social "institutions" should serve society, not the other way around, and if they fail to produce the desired results, they should be reformed or replaced. The fact is that a social system that values being married over being happy and functional produces a lot of unhappy, dysfunctional, married people who will not be as productive or supportive to society as happy, functional people would be, whether they are married or not. The goal should be to have a strong society, and if fewer marriages, later marriages, better marriages will give us that, then I fail to see the problem with allowing the number of marriages to go down.

Marry me! :D

One parent households are almost never one-parent households. Divorced parents eventually seek out and successfully pursue romantic relationships with other persons. Most so-called single households are actually reconstituted with the "single parent"'s new love interest. Thus resulting in what you might call a new nuclear family unit, except that one of the two "parents" isn't the biological mother or father of the children.

So really, the single parents households is nothing but a urban myth. Divorced parents do not stay celibate forever; once their divorce woes are over, they move on and build meaningful relationships with a new partner.
Or they find another support system within their families and/or community. Or they do both. Few if any children are actually raised by just one adult.

...
So really, the single parents households is nothing but a urban myth. Divorced parents do not stay celibate forever; once their divorce woes are over, they move on and build meaningful relationships with a new partner.

Oh my goodness, urban myth?

The total number of never married women raising children instantly disproves your speculation that they don't exist your dismissal of their existence only belittles their troubles.

Oh my goodness, urban myth?

The total number of never married women raising children instantly disproves your speculation that they don't exist your dismissal of their existence only belittles their troubles.

Not married =/= not in a meaningful relationship with a partner.

Your assumption that not being married means you're alone and single is false. So no, those numbers of unmarried women do not disprove anything, because my "speculation that they don't exist" as you put it is not speculation at all. The flaw in your vision is probably that in the US, your government doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of unmarried people in a relationship. That is not the case in Canada, and the vast majority of so-called "single parents" or "unmarried mothers" actually live in monogamous, stable, long-term relationships with a partner that helps support them and their children.

In French, we call this phenomenon "Union Libre". In other words, it's people staying with each other and building a family because they want to, without the need of an official marriage, and they stay together because they want to, not because they're legally bound to do it.

oh i understand that don't worry, i'm talking about the concept as a social engineering project. i can't remember the details and i've chucked most of my notes and resources since leaving uni but i did a lot on the 'geographies' of the family as part of one of my courses which was on the geography of gender. i remember a discussion point on the origins of the current 'standard' of family arrangement and it emerged that the ideal first came about in the industrial revolution (in britain) because it had some advantage to industrialists or it fit in with some political ideology of the time or something.

I also can't remember where I read about this, but I rememer reading something about the rise of the bourgeois class in France during the Industrial Revolution, and the historian whose name I can't remember suggested that the phenomenon was about newly rich people attempting to mimic superficial aspects of the lifestyles of the aristocracy on a smaller scale, while copping the attitude that the aristocracy were immoral because they didn't work for their wealth.

So, on the one hand, they abandoned the extended family structures the poor used to rely on, as a relic of that poverty, while at the same time not taking advantage of the servant system of the super-rich because they didn't have enough money for that (though they said they didn't do it for moral reasons). As a result, many of these nouveau riche families found themselves struggling with a previously not-experienced set of problems.

You are comparing succesful marriages to the total number of marriages, not the percentage of adults in succesful marriages.

Yes. Because that's my point.


Since my first post in this thread I pointed out that you didn't address for it, for the first time you understood that your OP didn't compensate for it in your postion. Thank you for recognizing the short coming of your postion.

Are people really unaware that the OP stays there after you read it? It's in print, folks. You can't just make bogus claims about what it says, because it's sitting right there for anybody to read.

I specifically said, "I think the increase in progressive social values allowed people to more easily get out of bad marriages, while also increasing their ability to avoid getting in to bad marriages in the first place."

I also clarified this point further for you in subsequent posts. You done now?


The total number of marriages are down, thus the possibility that what would have been all strong marriages before are now weakened by half...

You're going to have to back that up with something.


With weaker marriages not taking place anymore and the marriage total down, the result should have been stronger than it is now.

Again, this will need supports.


I made no such assumptions, I only point out that you didn't rule it out as a rebuttal.
Um. It was my entire point.

My point is that more progressive social values, including more liberal attitudes and laws regarding divorce, do not increase the number of people getting divorced. And a major reason for this is that such progressive social values also tend to be more permissive of people delaying marriage or choosing not to get married, so the number of people who find themselves in marriages they don't like will decrease.

Marry me! :D
:D No! *smashes iconic social institution* :fluffle:

Not married =/= not in a meaningful relationship with a partner.

Your assumption that not being married means you're alone and single is false.
Particularly since the number of unmarried couple households in 1970 was 523,000, and in 2005 the number of unmarried couple households was 5,214,000.

Oh my goodness, urban myth?

The total number of never married women raising children instantly disproves your speculation that they don't exist your dismissal of their existence only belittles their troubles.

Their... troubles.

So the choice between "only one parent" and "a dysfunctional trainwreck of a family that ends up masking the violence and the drug habits" should be the second one?

:D No! *smashes iconic social institution* :fluffle:

But I don't wanna be socially institutionalized!

Not married =/= not in a meaningful relationship with a partner.

Your assumption that not being married means you're alone and single is false. So no, those numbers of unmarried women do not disprove anything, because my "speculation that they don't exist" as you put it is not speculation at all. The flaw in your vision is probably that in the US, your government doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of unmarried people in a relationship. That is not the case in Canada, and the vast majority of so-called "single parents" or "unmarried mothers" actually live in monogamous, stable, long-term relationships with a partner that helps support them and their children.

In French, we call this phenomenon "Union Libre". In other words, it's people staying with each other and building a family because they want to, without the need of an official marriage, and they stay together because they want to, not because they're legally bound to do it.

Speaking of "assumptions," you go so far as to "assume" that single parents don't even exist. Everyone who lives in urban america knows your assumtpion is wrong.

Their... troubles.

So the choice between "only one parent" and "a dysfunctional trainwreck of a family that ends up masking the violence and the drug habits" should be the second one?

Nice strawman

Speaking of "assumptions," you go so far as to "assume" that single parents don't even exist.
Where, exactly, do you find that assumption?

All I saw was somebody pointing out that most "single parents" aren't actually "single," they're just not married.

Oh my goodness, urban myth?

The total number of never married women raising children instantly disproves your speculation that they don't exist your dismissal of their existence only belittles their troubles.
Your insistence on people being married is skewing your argument away from reality. Skaladora made a valid point, that a single-parent household does not remain single for long. Whether the divorced or never-married person gets a mate or not, they will connect with other social support systems, thus bringing the functions of double-parenting into the picture, whether there is a legal spouse or not.

So I submit to you that the troubles of single-parent families stem from a lack of support systems (either family or community-based), and not from a lack of marriage. I further submit that even married couples will suffer those same troubles (overwhelmingly financial) in a society that lacks sufficient support systems. So married/unmarried really has little to do with it.

Nice strawman

By all means, then, tell me what you favor.

I swear, I don't understand how the idea of marriage got built up into this idea of this wonderful great thing that we somehow can bemoan its loss when people choose not to do so.

Sure marriage is a great idea, but it would only be such a great concept when it is entered into willingly, non? I would think all these "sanctity of marriage" people would prefer people who do NOT want to be married not do so so as to not disturb its precious sanctity.

Seriously, if marriage is so sacred why wish to defile it by forcing it on people who do not want it and will only resent it?

Your insistence on people being married is skewing your argument away from reality. Skaladora made a valid point, that a single-parent household does not remain single for long. Whether the divorced or never-married person gets a mate or not, they will connect with other social support systems, thus bringing the functions of double-parenting into the picture, whether there is a legal spouse or not.

So I submit to you that the troubles of single-parent families stem from a lack of support systems (either family or community-based), and not from a lack of marriage. I further submit that even married couples will suffer those same troubles (overwhelmingly financial) in a society that lacks sufficient support systems. So married/unmarried really has little to do with it.
To put it another way,

Marriage, in and of itself, solves precisely nothing.

A good marriage can be a wonderful, helpful, productive force. But a lousy marriage can be equally non-wonderful and counter-productive. Simply compelling people to get married will solve nothing.

...
My point is that more progressive social values, including more liberal attitudes and laws regarding divorce, do not increase the number of people getting divorced. And a major reason for this is that such progressive social values also tend to be more permissive of people delaying marriage or choosing not to get married, so the number of people who find themselves in marriages they don't like will decrease.

And thus, the original complaint against progressive social values because they claim it is harming the institution of marriage is proven correct. The total number of people in successful marriages is down as well. All marriages are decreased thus the institute of marriage has become weaker.

Nice strawman

If you don't like Heikoku's version of the question, then address mine:

So what if there are fewer marriages, as long as they are better ones? Do you count a social institution as strong only if it racks up high numbers, without caring whether those marriages are even functional?

I am a bit of an iconoclast who defines "tradition" as "the art of making the same mistake twice, on purpose." I also follow the "management by objective" principle which places function over form in figuring out how to do things and always asks "what system is best to get us where we want to be?" To me, social "institutions" should serve society, not the other way around, and if they fail to produce the desired results, they should be reformed or replaced. The fact is that a social system that values being married over being happy and functional produces a lot of unhappy, dysfunctional, married people who will not be as productive or supportive to society as happy, functional people would be, whether they are married or not. The goal should be to have a strong society, and if fewer marriages, later marriages, better marriages will give us that, then I fail to see the problem with allowing the number of marriages to go down.

I also can't remember where I read about this, but I rememer reading something about the rise of the bourgeois class in France during the Industrial Revolution, and the historian whose name I can't remember suggested that the phenomenon was about newly rich people attempting to mimic superficial aspects of the lifestyles of the aristocracy on a smaller scale, while copping the attitude that the aristocracy were immoral because they didn't work for their wealth.

So, on the one hand, they abandoned the extended family structures the poor used to rely on, as a relic of that poverty, while at the same time not taking advantage of the servant system of the super-rich because they didn't have enough money for that (though they said they didn't do it for moral reasons). As a result, many of these nouveau riche families found themselves struggling with a previously not-experienced set of problems.

aha, that sounds about right, didnt realise it was france where it was started. so i guess the new arrangement was then emulated in britain with some sort of ideal tagged on it. wish i could remember what it was about, its going to bother me now.



ps. my keyboard seems to have gone mental, the apostrophe key wont work and keeps bringing up a "quick search" function instead. and the arrows wont work either. dammit. so yeah, i do know grammar, my keyboard just wont let me use it.

And thus, the original complaint against progressive social values because they claim it is harming the institution of marriage is proven correct. The total number of people in successful marriages is down as well. All marriages are decreased thus the institute of marriage has become weaker.

Does it really count as a complaint if it has no negative effects?

Where, exactly, do you find that assumption?

The assumption was made here:


So really, the single parents households is nothing but a urban myth. Divorced parents do not stay celibate forever; once their divorce woes are over, they move on and build meaningful relationships with a new partner.

All I saw was somebody pointing out that most "single parents" aren't actually "single," they're just not married.

"most" was established by which argument or indicators? No, they were nothing but assumptions, see top of this post for the rebuttal to that...

Speaking of "assumptions," you go so far as to "assume" that single parents don't even exist. Everyone who lives in urban america knows your assumtpion is wrong.
Ah, it seems you must be an expert on straw men. This is a nice one too. It is nothing even remotely like the point Skaladora was making.

Does it really count as a complaint if it has no negative effects?

Who gets to judge? the children or the parents? The never married or the never parented? The society as a whole is most successful if which indicators are achieved?

Ah, it seems you must be an expert on straw men. This is a nice one too. It is nothing even remotely like the point Skaladora was making.

He accused me of not understanding the issues because of my false assumptions, I think that was his point.

aha, that sounds about right, didnt realise it was france where it was started. so i guess the new arrangement was then emulated in britain with some sort of ideal tagged on it. wish i could remember what it was about, its going to bother me now.



ps. my keyboard seems to have gone mental, the apostrophe key wont work and keeps bringing up a "quick search" function instead. and the arrows wont work either. dammit. so yeah, i do know grammar, my keyboard just wont let me use it.

That's ok. I'm making countless little typos, and I'm not sure if it's because I've had too much coffee or not enough. Whatever, I have to type 50% of my words at least twice today.

... So married/unmarried really has little to do with it.

...except that it is the topic of this thread.

He accused me of not understanding the issues because of my false assumptions, I think that was his point.

That was not his only point, though I happen to agree with him about it. And I am still waiting for you to show me where or how he claimed that single parent families don't even exist. Both Bottle and I have already explained to you that he said no such thing.

Who gets to judge? the children or the parents? The never married or the never parented? The society as a whole is most successful if which indicators are achieved?

So now you are, in fact, claiming it's better if more are married?

To put it another way,

Marriage, in and of itself, solves precisely nothing.

A good marriage can be a wonderful, helpful, productive force. But a lousy marriage can be equally non-wonderful and counter-productive. Simply compelling people to get married will solve nothing.
Exactly.

I am curious what importance it plays as to whether a couple is married. While it may, or may not be true that the number of sucessful marriages has declined, this says absolutly nothing about the number of sucessful relationships. I am curious why it is so important that they be married.

And thus, the original complaint against progressive social values because they claim it is harming the institution of marriage is proven correct.
Only if one assumes that "the institution of marriage" is strengthened by compelling people to enter into or remain in marriages that they would prefer not to be in.

Which I don't. Which was my point.


The total number of people in successful marriages is down as well.

Quantity versus quality.

Seriously, we've been over this.


All marriages are decreased thus the institute of marriage has become weaker.
You still need to support this with something.

The assumption was made here:





"most" was established by which argument or indicators? No, they were nothing but assumptions, see top of this post for the rebuttal to that...
And you would be the resident expert on assumptions as well as straw men. I have yet to see hard data in support of your assertions about marriage, although Bottle has asked you for some.

I am curious what importance it plays as to whether a couple is married. While it may, or may not be true that the number of sucessful marriages has declined, this says absolutly nothing about the number of sucessful relationships. I am curious why it is so important that they be married.
Well, as we've seen on this very thread, the pearl-clutching crowd still seem to be under the misapprehension that unmarried = single and alone.

A lot of people don't even seem aware that it's possible to be in a committed, loving, stable relationship with a person to whom you are not married.

And you would be the resident expert on assumptions as well as straw men. I have yet to see hard data in support of your assertions about marriage, although Bottle has asked you for some.

So far it's doesn't seem to be about data, but whether or not fewer marriages (we don't seem to disagree about this) mean marriage as an institution is weaker.

So what if there are fewer marriages, as long as they are better ones? Do you count a social institution as strong only if it racks up high numbers, without caring whether those marriages are even functional?

I am a bit of an iconoclast who defines "tradition" as "the art of making the same mistake twice, on purpose." I also follow the "management by objective" principle which places function over form in figuring out how to do things and always asks "what system is best to get us where we want to be?" To me, social "institutions" should serve society, not the other way around, and if they fail to produce the desired results, they should be reformed or replaced. The fact is that a social system that values being married over being happy and functional produces a lot of unhappy, dysfunctional, married people who will not be as productive or supportive to society as happy, functional people would be, whether they are married or not. The goal should be to have a strong society, and if fewer marriages, later marriages, better marriages will give us that, then I fail to see the problem with allowing the number of marriages to go down.

The OP argued that the institution of marriage is stronger because of progressive social values, not that it was better for society to have less of the institution of marriage.

I had been debating the merits of that position, not the benefits of lack of benefits of marriage to society.

However, for your position, we must define what are the indicators of a successful society. We can say, more happiness, but how do we measure it?

If the number of marriages has gone down, but the rate of successful marriages has gone up, that only indicates that in recent decades people have realized, oh my god, that they don't have to get married if they don't want to. Thus leading to marriages more for the actual desire to get married when they are ready to be married, and less for some social/religious pressure to do so.

Which I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Again, one would think that the "marriage is sacred" crowd would actually want less people getting married that don't want to get married, so as to not defile their oh so sacred institution by forcing people into it.

So far it's doesn't seem to be about data, but whether or not fewer marriages (we don't seem to disagree about this) mean marriage as an institution is weaker.

Which is weird to me, since I thought my OP made it pretty clear where I stood on that subject. Obviously I don't feel that the "strength" of marriage as an institution should be measured by the number of people who get married.

The OP argued that the institution of marriage is stronger because of progressive social values

It is absolutly stronger because of progressive social values. Even if the total number of marriages per year goes down, the institution is still stronger. Those progressive social values are what teach people that it's ok NOT to get married. It's ok NOT to be pressured into it. It's ok to live with your lover and fuck them on a regular basis and not feel like you're going to hell because a man in a robe hasn't officially told you it's ok to fuck your lover.

It has become stronger because more and more people are getting married for the sole reason that they want to. Not that they feel like they should, or they have to, or they just really want to get laid and feel they need to do that first. More and more people, because of those progressive social values, are entering marriage only when and if they feel ready.

And how can an institution that more and more is made up of people who truly want to be part of it rather than those who do so due to coercion guilt or a feeling of obligation be anything but stronger?

Speaking of "assumptions," you go so far as to "assume" that single parents don't even exist. Everyone who lives in urban america knows your assumtpion is wrong.

No. I state not that single parents don't exist. I state that the "single parents" as a widespread phenomenon is inexistant, because most of the so-called "single parents" are not single at all, they're just in a relationship with a partner that is not their children's biological parent.

Single parents remain single only for a temporary time period, and they will seek and enter into meaningful relationships. Most unmarried parents are into relationships. Most divorced parents enter new relationships with partner who will support their children as if they were their own.

Your equation of "unmarried" or "divorced" being the same as "single" is an urban myth. Married and Single are far from the only options to choose from when describing someone's marital status. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that fact, and insistence that marriage be the only way people can healthily raise children brands you as ignorant of how interpersonnal and romantic relationships work out in reality.

And thus, the original complaint against progressive social values because they claim it is harming the institution of marriage is proven correct. The total number of people in successful marriages is down as well. All marriages are decreased thus the institute of marriage has become weaker.

So, in other words, you do in fact think the only measure of the strength of the social institution of marriage is the number of marriages racked up annually, and you do not care whether those marriages are functional or not?

I'm sorry, but so far you have not even attempted to explain:

1) How society is damaged by fewer marriages;

2) How the institution of marriage is damaged by fewer marriages and fewer divorces;

3) how you are defining the term "damage" and how you are applying it in this context -- I remind you that you have not contested any of Bottle's assertions about progressive social polices promoting good marriages.

Based solely on what you have posted so far, I almost suspect you must be a professional wedding planner who thinks fewer marriages harms the institution of marriage because it means less income for you. Explain!! Why are more marriages better than fewer ones?

Which is weird to me, since I thought my OP made it pretty clear where I stood on that subject. Obviously I don't feel that the "strength" of marriage as an institution should be measured by the number of people who get married.

You obviously did, he apparently doesn't, hence the disagreement.

I am curious what importance it plays as to whether a couple is married. While it may, or may not be true that the number of sucessful marriages has declined, this says absolutly nothing about the number of sucessful relationships. I am curious why it is so important that they be married.
Me too.

You obviously did, he apparently doesn't, hence the disagreement.

the problem is, Bottle's position is reasonable. The contrary position is not.

It is absolutly stronger because of progressive social values. Even if the total number of marriages per year goes down, the institution is still stronger. Those progressive social values are what teach people that it's ok NOT to get married. It's ok NOT to be pressured into it. It's ok to live with your lover and fuck them on a regular basis and not feel like you're going to hell because a man in a robe hasn't officially told you it's ok to fuck your lover.

It has become stronger because more and more people are getting married for the sole reason that they want to. Not that they feel like they should, or they have to, or they just really want to get laid and feel they need to do that first. More and more people, because of those progressive social values, are entering marriage only when and if they feel ready.

And how can an institution that more and more is made up of people who truly want to be part of it rather than those who do so due to coercion guilt or a feeling of obligation be anything but stronger?
I think the confusion is arising from a sort of shifting-target problem.

Do you believe marriage is an institution that exists to people happy, or that people are supposed to live for the institution? Should people get married for themselves, or for Society?

If you think people should be marrying for the good of society, and if you feel that marriage primarily exists to benefit society, then it makes sense to argue that the quantity of marriages is what counts. Society benefits from marriage, so more marriage = more benefits.

If, on the other hand, you perceive marriage as something that exists for the people who are in the marriage, then you will argue in favor of quality of marriages rather than quantity.

...
You still need to support this with something.

The percentage of married adults among all adults is down. Do you dispute this? Have you presented any evidence that only unhappy marriages are gone?

the problem is, Bottle's position is reasonable. The contrary position is not.

*shrug* And lo, we are here.

The percentage of married adults among all adults is down. Do you dispute this? Have you presented any evidence that only unhappy marriages are gone?

Why would happy marriages end in proportion with unhappy ones?

The percentage of married adults among all adults is down. Do you dispute this?

Have you read any of this thread?


Have you presented any evidence that only unhappy marriages are gone?
Wait a minute. You actually are going to argue that happy marriages are as likely to end in divorce as unhappy marriages? So, people who are happy being married and like their marriage are going to seek divorce as often as people who don't like their marriage and want to leave it?

Really?

If you think people should be marrying for the good of society, and if you feel that marriage primarily exists to benefit society, then it makes sense to argue that the quantity of marriages is what counts. Society benefits from marriage, so more marriage = more benefits.


Surely. Unfortunatly for that position I have yet to see one single compelling argument as to why "more marriages", regardless of quality of relationships, is better for society.

I think an argument can be made that more good marriages is better for society, but then I question why it need be good marriages, and not simply good relationships, as if something about marriage was different.

But that's a far cry from the believe that marriage, in and of itself, regardless of the quality of relationship, benefits society. And I have yet to see one single reason to believe that it does, other than some magic handwaving and talk about god.

Have you presented any evidence that only unhappy marriages are gone?

Are you really trying to argue that more happily married people are getting divorced?

I think it's pretty fair to say that whenever there is a divorce ever at least one party is unhappy. Are you really trying to suggest that happily married people are getting divorced?

Surely. Unfortunatly for that position I have yet to see one single compelling argument as to why "more marriages", regardless of quality of relationships, is better for society.

Well, yeah, that's another big problem with that line of argument. But I'm trying to take the problems one at a time. So far it's like pulling teeth...


I think an argument can be made that more good marriages is better for society, but then I question why it need be good marriages, and not simply good relationships, as if something about marriage was different.

But that's a far cry from the believe that marriage, in and of itself, regardless of the quality of relationship, benefits society. And I have yet to see one single reason to believe that it does, other than some magic handwaving and talk about god.
Same here.

I know that my own relationship won't magically become more productive for society if my partner and I get married. Marriage won't magically make us work harder or dedicate more time to the community or anything like that. Marriage won't make us any more (or less) likely to have and rear children together. Marriage won't make us nicer people. Marriage won't make us love each other more (or less).

Indeed, the only changes that marriage would make would be FOR the two of us, in terms of the legal status that marriage would afford us.

The OP argued that the institution of marriage is stronger because of progressive social values, not that it was better for society to have less of the institution of marriage.

I had been debating the merits of that position, not the benefits of lack of benefits of marriage to society.
You may think you've been debating that, but the lack of substance in your argument as well as your failure to address the points the OP and others actually have made, mean you are debating not much of anything yet.

I would also point out that you are conflating unrelated points again. I called you to task for that in regard to one of my other posts earlier.

The OP argued that the institution of marriage is made stronger by progressive social values BECAUSE those values encourage people to build good quality relationships and do not penalize them for delaying or avoiding marriage early in adulthood.

I was the person who argued that the number of marriages does not matter to society as much as the quality of the marriages, and that a system whose main objective is to promote good marriages is better than a system whose main objective is to promote many marriages. I prefer progressive value systems that promote good relationships because I value quality over quantity. If the goal of good marriages is realized and it turns out that there are fewer marriages overall as a result, I fail to see the problem with that.

And you have so far failed to show me any problem with it.

However, for your position, we must define what are the indicators of a successful society. We can say, more happiness, but how do we measure it?
It is actually pretty easy to tell if people are generally happy or not -- at least in the ways of making people happy that are within the power of a social system. Lack of suffering is generally the accepted measure, on the assumption that if people are not suffering, they might be happy about it.

Wait a minute. You actually are going to argue that happy marriages are as likely to end in divorce as unhappy marriages? So, people who are happy being married and like their marriage are going to seek divorce as often as people who don't like their marriage and want to leave it?

Really?


Nope. I pointed out that your OP failed to account for the fact that the percentage of adults who are married is down. So the fact that marriages are down in total debunks your claim that marriages are stronger now because you didn’t prove that only bad marriages were gone, not all marriages. Additionally, you have to set the parameters of measurement to be something other than total percentage number of marriages that end in divorce, because if that is the only measurement indicator used then modern day marriages fail when compared to seventeenth century marriages. My point isn't that I believe seventeenth century marriage is better, only that you haven't established your position that marriages are stronger now than then because you didn’t establish what the measuring indicators should be to prove your point.

The topic of the thread since then has delved into the different but related topic of whether or not marriage is good for society at all. But previously you said that your family values was better then your oppositions because you think you positions makes marriages stronger. Did you plan to continue that position or were you expecting me to take that one up?

Nope. I pointed out that your OP failed to account for the fact that the percentage of adults who are married is down. So the fact that marriages are down in total debunks your claim that marriages are stronger now because you didn’t prove that only bad marriages were gone, not all marriages.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding her position despite ongoing repetition by her and others is entirely your failing, not hers.

I think the confusion is arising from a sort of shifting-target problem.

Do you believe marriage is an institution that exists to people happy, or that people are supposed to live for the institution? Should people get married for themselves, or for Society?

If you think people should be marrying for the good of society, and if you feel that marriage primarily exists to benefit society, then it makes sense to argue that the quantity of marriages is what counts. Society benefits from marriage, so more marriage = more benefits.

If, on the other hand, you perceive marriage as something that exists for the people who are in the marriage, then you will argue in favor of quality of marriages rather than quantity.
In a nutshell.

I'm one of those who think that society is a tool that serves the needs of people, and that is why I say that all social systems and traditions should be subject to regular critiques of their usefulness. When they stop fulfilling the needs of people -- stop supporting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in other words -- they should be reformed or replaced.

Sometimes people will have to make personal sacrifices in order to support an otherwise beneficial social system, but the belief that people should serve the State or the Society strikes me as totalitarian, and I personally reject it and arguments based on it.

...

It is actually pretty easy to tell if people are generally happy or not -- at least in the ways of making people happy that are within the power of a social system. Lack of suffering is generally the accepted measure, on the assumption that if people are not suffering, they might be happy about it.

And how do we compare THAT to other centuries?

And how do we compare THAT to other centuries?
Why do we care about other centuries? How are other centuries relevant in any way at all to the points made by the OP? EDIT: Or points made by me, for that matter, aside from the brief historical aside between me and Infinite Revolution?

Why do we care about other centuries? How are other centuries relevant in any way at all to the points made by the OP?

Debunking the traditionalists postion was the point of the OP. It seems self evident to me that traditionalist champion their understanding of values from past centuries.

Bottle, I respect you, I really do, but, if you think conservatives care for or about facts, you're acting in a VERY naive way.

I resent that generalization. All who don't agree with what your viewpoint is, don't care about the facts? VANITY MAN STRIKES AGAIN!

I resent that generalization. All who don't agree with what your viewpoint is, don't care about the facts? VANITY MAN STRIKES AGAIN!

Is vanity really what you're going for?

Debunking the traditionalists postion was the point of the OP.
No, actually, it wasn't. This has already been explained to you in other posts. She and I have both already made the argument that there is precious little tradition in the social-conservative concept of "the institution of marriage." But that was a just a sidebar to the main point, which is about the 20th and 21st centuries only.

It seems self evident to me that traditionalist champion their understanding of values from past centuries.
Then why have you so far failed to present any data in support of these supposed traditions?

No, actually, it wasn't. This has already been explained to you in other posts. She and I have both already made the argument that there is precious little tradition in the social-conservative concept of "the institution of marriage." But that was a just a sidebar to the main point, which is about the 20th and 21st centuries only.

Then you wish to define your opponents argument for them and set parameters for them they they do not hold themselves. Thats the essence of a strawman.

Then why have you so far failed to present any data in support of these supposed traditions?

Which supposed traditions have I supported? I've countered rebuttals for the traditionalist only so far as to point out that their postion/argument has not been debunked by the OP's argument and evidences (or lack of evidences). That there is more than one way of looking at the divorce rate trends presented in the OP.

I've never heard anyone say that divorces were less common in the seventies. In fact I have often heard the contrary, after all the seventies was just after the era of free love and a huge rise in feminism.

Then you wish to define your opponents argument for them and set parameters for them they they do not hold themselves.

It's more like, I started a thread discussing a given topic within particular parameters. If you'd like to talk about something else entirely, that's fine. You're perfectly able to make your own thread.


Which supposed traditions have I supported? I've countered rebuttals for the traditionalist only so far as to point out that their postion/argument has not been debunked by the OP's argument and evidences (or lack of evidences).

Except you haven't done that. You've introduced several tangents and made a number of unsupported assertions, but none of that actually "counters" anything. Heck, half the time you have been "arguing" my point at me.


That there is more than one way of looking at the divorce rate trends presented in the OP.
You know, I would really love it if there were somebody stepping up to actually present sound, valid counterpoints. That's the whole reason I hang out on this forum. Instead, all I've seen is a couple of people who can't be bothered to actually read what I post and respond to it, because they're too busy arguing against their own mistaken assumptions.

Disappointing, to say the least.

I've never heard anyone say that divorces were less common in the seventies. In fact I have often heard the contrary, after all the seventies was just after the era of free love and a huge rise in feminism.
I hear it all the time. People constantly sob over how nobody stays married any more, not like they did In The Good Old Days. Hands are wrung over the decline of marriage as an institution all the time, and the evil slutty feminists and the filthy gays are almost always Exhibits One and Two.

Meanwhile, people point to a "return to family values" as the key for safeguarding marriage. Never mind that the areas of the country which are most strictly in line with such values also happen to be the regions with the highest rates of divorce...

You know, I would really love it if there were somebody stepping up to actually present sound, valid counterpoints.

To...what? "family values aren't really in danger"?

You know, I would really love it if there were somebody stepping up to actually present sound, valid counterpoints. That's the whole reason I hang out on this forum. Instead, all I've seen is a couple of people who can't be bothered to actually read what I post and respond to it, because they're too busy arguing against their own mistaken assumptions.

Disappointing, to say the least.

No no bottle, he's right, there are more ways than one to read divorce rates. I mean, looking at the fact that a fewer percentage of married couples are getting divorced, and interpreting that as a higher percentage of married people are happily married, is just ONE way of looking at it, it may not be the correct one.

After all, happily married people can get divorced too. Indeed, many among us will one day have the conversation with our loved ones "honey, i love you, I am happy we are married, every day with you is fantastic. Let's go through the effort of having our marriage legally dissolved and our property divided by the courts. you know, just for fun!"

Bottle, if nobody's offering valid counterpoints to your OP and conclusions, it's simply because you're right about marriage being strenghtened. Despite the fact that some people are anal retentive about acknowledging the existance that marriage is not, by any stretch, the only way of living in a healthy, serious, comitted long-term relationship.

Quality over quantity anytime. Better to have fewer marriages overall, but most of them holding up nicely, than have a lot of marriages caused by societal pressure and seeing a lot of those breaking up under the duress of the factors presented earlier in this thread.

Is vanity really what you're going for?

Are you accusing me of vanity? Never! I am worthless, completely worthless. I am proud of my humility! It completely annihilates anyone else's! I defy you to find someone more humble then myself!

OK, the problem with this thread so far; the progressive side has actually proclaimed its position, whereas the conservative side has not, it has just attempted to refute the arguments initially made without replacing them with an alternative view to even evaluate, thus frustrating the progressives who can't identify what they're arguing with and quickly decide its just the conservative stupidity. Hm. Thoroughly unproductive, IMO.

Allow me to address this. I am, myself, in the conservative camp, and here I will attempt to provide an actual argument. I know, I know, very uncharacteristic, but, in these extreme circumstances, I think it may be worth it.

There appears to be a widely held belief among the progressive camp that marriage's primary goal is to allow people to engage in sexual activity without fear of eternal consequences or simply shame that comes from religious or societal pressures. Based on this assumption, marriage quickly becomes a meaningless institution that people are, by nature, forced into, and would never choose, and thus cannot be a good social policy. This belief, indoctrinated, it would appear, into those who are 'born progressive,' arises from the domination of the marriage institution by Catholicism, who only supported marriage, because of the writings of Paul, as an alternative to celibacy, based on the example of the (supposedly) celibate Christ. But marriage predates the epistles of Paul, so this cannot be the actual intention, can it?

I would claim that the actual intention of marriage, according to the conservative camp, is to create a stable environment for the rearing of children, thus producing stable, productive members of society. Allow me to elaborate; when two adults get married, they make vows to each other, and, originally, to God, to honor and cherish the other, of course, as well as a variety of other things. Once married, within such a relationship, the relationship is no longer primarily a romantic relationship, but a parenting partnership, though the romantic element is still vital to the health of the marriage. When two people are married, they can raise children without (theoretically) the constant worry about impressing their spouse all the time. We are allowed to be human, to have bad days, to be irritable, angry, etc., and have our spouse still love us. When married, the focus can thus be on supporting and raising a family instead of attracting a lover. Why is this distinction important? The children.

One major argument of the progressive camp is that single or divorced parents aren't single, they seek out other meaningful relationships and cobble together a new, complete family unit, either in a new companion or the support of the society. What this argument neglects is the psychological reaction children have to their parents seeking new love interests. In all children, boys more noticeably, competing for the attention of the mother is psychologically traumatic, and can cause long-term social problems for the child. This oedipal complex is just one of the psychological threats to children posed by their parents being unmarried and seeking such 'meaningful relationships.' It would appear that we are wired to respond to two stable parents better, that's just how it works. The documentation of the debilitating, long-term effects on the social and psychological health of children coming from such 'single-parent' households is fairly extensive. This is a powerful argument on the side of the conservative camp.

A favorite point of disagreement is the claim of the 'gilded' appearance of 1950's nuclear families, who were, in fact, plagued with problems emotionally and financially, which often contributed to substance abuse, violence, etc., etc. Such a 'fake' representation of happiness is supposedly the cause of all this. There is little evidence that the marriage institution was responsible for substance abuse or violence. Since there is a compellingly large amount of marriages where such occurrences are not present, marriage cannot, logically, be the culprit.

I haven't finished my argument, but I will return to this.

To...what? "family values aren't really in danger"?
Obviously I believe that my position on this subject is the correct one (otherwise I would hold a different position). However, I'm always delighted when somebody steps up to present new information for me to consider.

I hear it all the time. People constantly sob over how nobody stays married any more, not like they did In The Good Old Days


As have I, but I believe that the 'good old days' is actually referring to times like the 40s, 50s and early 60s. Rather then the 70s.

No no bottle, he's right, there are more ways than one to read divorce rates. I mean, looking at the fact that a fewer percentage of married couples are getting divorced, and interpreting that as a higher percentage of married people are happily married, is just ONE way of looking at it, it may not be the correct one.

Could also be that fewer unhappy marriages are ending?

Could also be that fewer unhappy marriages are ending?

possible, however with the growth of "progressive social views", easier access to divorce, and all those mean nasty things that social conservatives bemoan as destroying marriage, I fail to see why less divorce would be occuring for unhappy couples.

Could also be that fewer unhappy marriages are ending?
That would be a logical guess, if there were some new force that was discouraging people from ending their marriages.

However, the opposite is the case today. Divorce is far more socially accepted, can be obtained with greater ease (legally speaking), and is a realistic option for a greater number of people (thanks to improved education and pay equality and whatnot).

So, if divorce is more accepted, easier to obtain, and a more viable option, why would FEWER unhappy marriages be ending?

possible, however with the growth of "progressive social views", easier access to divorce, and all those mean nasty things that social conservatives bemoan as destroying marriage, I fail to see why less divorce would be occuring for unhappy couples.

*shrug* Perhaps it has something to do with the reasons for unhappy marriages nowadays? Have those changed?

*shrug* Perhaps it has something to do with the reasons for unhappy marriages nowadays? Have those changed?

not in the past...oh...I'd say....5000 years or so.

...
Except you haven't done that. You've introduced several tangents and made a number of unsupported assertions, but none of that actually "counters" anything. Heck, half the time you have been "arguing" my point at me.


You know, I would really love it if there were somebody stepping up to actually present sound, valid counterpoints. That's the whole reason I hang out on this forum. Instead, all I've seen is a couple of people who can't be bothered to actually read what I post and respond to it, because they're too busy arguing against their own mistaken assumptions.

Disappointing, to say the least.

No tangents, one point you fail to address. You failed to address the implications of less marriages overall. Just because you mentioned it doesn't mean that you accounted for it in your analyses of the data.

I'll make it simple for you.

IF Then: 90% of the population of adults in a society were married and 40% of them were happy then we know that 38% of the total population was happy with the institute of marriage.

IF Now: 50% of the population of adults in a society are married now and 50% of them are happy, then we know that 25% of the total population is happy with the institute of marriage.

Your conclusion fails because of the possibility that the total strength of the institution of marriage has gone down from a higher to a lower percentage of the adult population using just your data.

And I don't have to show any statistics because I'm not arguing that it is higher or lower now, I've only been pointing out that your argument has failed to address it. The onus is on your OP to discredit the possibility...

*shrug* Perhaps it has something to do with the reasons for unhappy marriages nowadays? Have those changed?
See, now HERE is an interesting question.

This is a new angle, but is also tied directly to my OP. I believe that people's expectations about marriage have changed, and that progressive values (feminism in particular) have directly contributed to this.

Think about the typical image of marriage that people held 100 years ago. Now compare it to the image of marriage most commonly held today. The roles of the participants are radically different in many ways!

Then you wish to define your opponents argument for them and set parameters for them they they do not hold themselves. Thats the essence of a strawman.
No, it's the essence of reading comprehension. You should try it, and you should apply it to ALL the posts in the thread because they constitute whole arguments.

Which supposed traditions have I supported? I've countered rebuttals for the traditionalist only so far as to point out that their postion/argument has not been debunked by the OP's argument and evidences (or lack of evidences). That there is more than one way of looking at the divorce rate trends presented in the OP.
So, you admit that you have no real argument of your own then about marriage?

And you are still ignoring the several people here, including the OP, who have pointed out -- with examples and explanations -- that your so-called counter arguments have not in fact countered anything because you are addressing arguments the OP did not make.

What was that you were saying about straw men?

By the way, you are also still ignoring all the challenges to these supposed counter arguments of yours. Choosing not to defend your statements is not the same as carrying the argument.

No tangents, one topic. You failed to address the implications of less marriages.


FEWER! Rot in hell blasphemer!

No tangents, one topic. You failed to address the implications of less marriages.

No, I didn't. Please re-read the thread.


Just because you mentioned it doesn't mean that you accounted for them in your analyses of the data.

I'll make it simple for you.

IF Then: 90% of the population of adults in a society were married and 40% of them were happy then we know that 38% of the total population was happy with the institute of marriage.

IF Now: 50% of the population of adults in a society are married now and 50% of them are happy, then we know that 25% of the total population is happy with the institute of marriage.

The your conclusions fail because the total strength of the institute of marriage has gone down from 38% to 25% of the adult population, not up.

This has already been addressed, by me and by others, several times. Since you apparently cannot be bothered to read before you post, I see no reason to continue responding to this line of "argument" from you.

And you are still ignoring the several people here, including the OP, who have pointed out -- with examples and explanations -- that your so-called counter arguments have not in fact countered anything because you are addressing arguments the OP did not make.
Precisely.

I started a thread on a topic I found interesting. If somebody wants to talk about a different topic, or wishes to address other arguments, that's fine. But if I had wanted to discuss those topics/arguments, I would have posted about them. It is a waste of time for anybody to wander into my thread and then complain because I didn't make the argument they wanted to talk about.

As have I, but I believe that the 'good old days' is actually referring to times like the 40s, 50s and early 60s. Rather then the 70s.
I already posted a small rant about how those times were not actually better, but I agree that the "good old days" crowd are more often fantasizing about the war/post-war period before 1960.

However, the 1970s can be taken as the first decade for which we have statistical data about the results of the feminist movement and the start of the gay rights movement, so Bottle's use of data from and since that decade is appropriate to show that the predictions/claims of the "good old days" crowd are not true.

FEWER! Rot in hell blasphemer!
Ditto. :D (dammit, that mistake gets on my nerves)

And in addition, his claim is false.

No tangents, one point you fail to address. You failed to address the implications of less marriages overall. Just because you mentioned it doesn't mean that you accounted for it in your analyses of the data.

I'll make it simple for you.

IF Then: 90% of the population of adults in a society were married and 40% of them were happy then we know that 38% of the total population was happy with the institute of marriage.

IF Now: 50% of the population of adults in a society are married now and 50% of them are happy, then we know that 25% of the total population is happy with the institute of marriage.

Your conclusion fails because of the possibility that the total strength of the institution of marriage has gone down from a higher to a lower percentage of the adult population using just your data.

And I don't have to show any statistics because I'm not arguing that it is higher or lower now, I've only been pointing out that your argument has failed to address it. The onus is on your OP to discredit the possibility...

And yet again you fail to understand. Marriage is a social, legal, spiritual and/or communal bond. As such the strength of marriage is determined by the strength of that bond. Thus we can evaluate the strength of marriage in society by how likely that bond is to endure. And has been pointed out, in today's society, those who enter into that bond are more likely than before to have it endure.

The strength of such bond can not be evaluated by those who choose, for whatever reason, to not enter into it. The overal strength of the bonds of marriage does not take into account those not married. Their experiences in their non existant marriage are irrelevant to the discussion as to whether marriages today are stronger than before. Since they are not married, they are irrelevant to that discussion.

And yet again you fail to understand. Marriage is a social, legal, spiritual and/or communal bond. As such the strength of marriage is determined by the strength of that bond. Thus we can evaluate the strength of marriage in society by how likely that bond is to endure. And has been pointed out, in today's society, those who enter into that bond are more likely than before to have it endure.

But, as I mentioned earlier, I think this is the real bone of contention. I think we have one person in this thread who is arguing from the perspective of "marriage for the benefit of society" rather than from the perspective that marriage exists to benefit the participants.


The strength of such bond can not be evaluated by those who choose, for whatever reason, to not enter into it. The overal strength of the bonds of marriage does not take into account those not married. Their experiences in their non existant marriage are irrelevant to the discussion as to whether marriages today are stronger than before. Since they are not married, they are irrelevant to that discussion.
If, however, we perceive marriage as providing some benefit(s) to society, then all we care about is what percentage of our population is providing said benefit(s).

Of course, then you've got to establish that such benefits exist. Which hasn't been done, either.

See, now HERE is an interesting question.

This is a new angle, but is also tied directly to my OP. I believe that people's expectations about marriage have changed, and that progressive values (feminism in particular) have directly contributed to this.

Think about the typical image of marriage that people held 100 years ago. Now compare it to the image of marriage most commonly held today. The roles of the participants are radically different in many ways!
It is an interesting question. I do think people's expectations for marriage are changing (the process is only just beginning, I think), but I'm not sure they are becoming something new. I kind of think expectations are becoming more realistic, which would bring them into line with older ways of thinking -- much older. If we are putting off marriage until later in life, perhaps it is only because we can, having longer life expectancy and more personal wealth at our disposal. Maybe what is new will be the how of marriage, not the why. Fantasy why's for marriage change with societies. Realistic why's for marriage have not changed at all througout history.

But, as I mentioned earlier, I think this is the real bone of contention. I think we have one person in this thread who is arguing from the perspective of "marriage for the benefit of society" rather than from the perspective that marriage exists to benefit the participants.


If, however, we perceive marriage as providing some benefit(s) to society, then all we care about is what percentage of our population is providing said benefit(s).

Of course, then you've got to establish that such benefits exist. Which hasn't been done, either.

Sure, again. If we view marriage as being something beneficial to the people involved, we can see marriage as growing stronger because more people, once married, see fit to continue with those benefits, be they legal, financial, emotional, spiritual or what have you. marriage can be seen as stronger for it because more people by percentage are willing to stick with it.

it can be seen as "weaker" if the goal of marriage is to benefit society, and as such, fewer marriages means it is weaker in its purpose to provide that benefit.

Of course if one really wishes to argue that marriage provides benefits to society, the onus is really on him to define what that benefit is and how it functions. So far all we've seen is "nuh uh" with no real substance behind that.

edit: and you need to read your TGs more often *nods*

It is an interesting question. I do think people's expectations for marriage are changing (the process is only just beginning, I think), but I'm not sure they are becoming something new. I kind of think expectations are becoming more realistic, which would bring them into line with older ways of thinking -- much older. If we are putting off marriage until later in life, perhaps it is only because we can, having longer life expectancy and more personal wealth at our disposal. Maybe what is new will be the how of marriage, not the why. Fantasy why's for marriage change with societies. Realistic why's for marriage have not changed at all througout history.
Good point.

Put it this way:

I don't think people's fundamental desires have changed much. What has changed is people's expectations regarding ATTAINING those desires. For instance, I think people today are more likely to perceive an unmarried lifestyle as acceptable and realistic. This doesn't necessarily mean that more people WANT such a lifestyle, just that more people seriously consider it as an option because they see it as viable.

edit: and you need to read your TGs more often *nods*
Yeah, I probably should include "Does Not Check TGs" in my sig or something. I log in to my nation once a month or so, just so it doesn't get deleted, but most of the time I skip straight to the forums without ever checking my nation status or TGs. :P

I already posted a small rant about how those times were not actually better, but I agree that the "good old days" crowd are more often fantasizing about the war/post-war period before 1960.

However, the 1970s can be taken as the first decade for which we have statistical data about the results of the feminist movement and the start of the gay rights movement, so Bottle's use of data from and since that decade is appropriate to show that the predictions/claims of the "good old days" crowd are not true.

But it doesn't show that today actually has a lower or equal divorce rate to the 'good old days', assuming that the 70's is not the good old days which I think was the main point of the OP.

Sure, again. If we view marriage as being something beneficial to the people involved, we can see marriage as growing stronger because more people, once married, see fit to continue with those benefits, be they legal, financial, emotional, spiritual or what have you. marriage can be seen as stronger for it because more people by percentage are willing to stick with it.

it can be seen as "weaker" if the goal of marriage is to benefit society, and as such, fewer marriages means it is weaker in its purpose to provide that benefit.

Of course if one really wishes to argue that marriage provides benefits to society, the onus is really on him to define what that benefit is and how it functions. So far all we've seen is "nuh uh" with no real substance behind that.
Of course, the flaw in that argument is the question of whether bad marriages benefit society or harm it.

As I argued earlier, my position is that, all questions of marriage aside, happy, functional people benefit society by doing more work, driving a healthy economy, having better health, and committing fewer crimes. From that point of view, it can be argued that any system that causes a significant number of people to be unhappy and dysfunctional is bad for society. So a system that promotes quantity of marriages over quality of marriages must be seen as bad for society, even for a top-down totalitarian type.

Unless it is considered more important for the people to be seen to be actively obeying the demands of Society than for them to be actually producing good results for society. In other words, if appearance is more important than reality.

Of course, the flaw in that argument is the question of whether bad marriages benefit society or harm it.

Well again, for that argument to work there must be a societal benefit to marriage. Not happy marriage. Not happy long term relationships. Marriage. Regardless of the happiness of those involved

Good point.

Put it this way:

I don't think people's fundamental desires have changed much. What has changed is people's expectations regarding ATTAINING those desires. For instance, I think people today are more likely to perceive an unmarried lifestyle as acceptable and realistic. This doesn't necessarily mean that more people WANT such a lifestyle, just that more people seriously consider it as an option because they see it as viable.

I agree.

But it doesn't show that today actually has a lower or equal divorce rate to the 'good old days', assuming that the 70's is not the good old days which I think was the main point of the OP.
Well, leaving aside assumptions about what the real numbers would be for those so-called "good old days," I dispute that that was the main point of the OP at all. I think the main point was that the assertion that progressive values would lead to a steady decline of marriage are proved false because statistics since the onset of a progressive attitude to marriage have shown a trend towards stable marriages instead, with fewer divorces. She is not talking about the "good old days" at all. She is talking about the results of progressive policies and attitudes.

She already accounted for the initial uptick of divorces in the 1970s by suggesting that it was a temporary boom, if you will, in divorces caused by older people escaping bad marriages that they previously had no way to get out of. When that boom was done, we began to see the steady stabilization of marriage.

But really, I do wish people, even those I don't necessarily disagree with, would read the thread before posting. For several pages now, we have just been repeating arguments that were already posted.

The notion of having only two (biological) parents to care for a child is a very new one. It's odd that so many people view this as "traditional," when historically it was actually more common to have families where grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives all lived together and brought up children together.

Remember, folks, it's called the "nuclear family" because it is an invention dating to the nuclear age. It's a modern concept.

Here are some studies that suggest Bottle's theory is pretty well on track. I've included one study from religoustolerance.org and one that is purely agnostic. The relig.org examines the age component, the religous component, and other societal factors. The other information deals with divorce rates per 1000 in each state. The region with the lowest percentage of divorces is that evil bastion of liberalism, the Northeast.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate&b_map=1

Well again, for that argument to work there must be a societal benefit to marriage. Not happy marriage. Not happy long term relationships. Marriage. Regardless of the happiness of those involved

Well, I personally believe that, a lot of times, people talk about one thing when what they really mean is something else entirely.

So, when people say "Society" is benefitted by marriage and that when people don't get married it's bad for "Society," yet those people fail to show any actual benefits coming from marriage that "Society" can't get in other ways, I start to wonder:

Is "Society" benefitted by marriage per se, in their view? Or is "Society" benefitted by people obeying its dictates and organizing their lives to serve it, regardless of any practical results?

If there is a social benefit to marriage, surely someone can identify it and explain why it is important enough for people to do it whether it is good for them personally or not. In the absence of that, I tend to suspect that something else is behind "marry for Society" arguments.

No tangents, one point you fail to address. You failed to address the implications of less marriages overall. Just because you mentioned it doesn't mean that you accounted for it in your analyses of the data.

Actually, it's pretty clear that this has been addressed over and over and over again.

Bottle made it clear in the OP that she thinks that progressive values have led to less marriages overall and that this is a good thing - something that strengthens the institution of marriage itself. People are now less likely to enter into marriage simply because they think they have to. Instead, they make that decision when they are ready and when they truly feel that they want to do so. As a result, their marriages are more likely to last than those who got married in the 50's, 60's, and so on when the social expectation was that they had to get married (and that the women would stay at home with no job skills and be homemakers).

Well, I personally believe that, a lot of times, people talk about one thing when what they really mean is something else entirely.

So, when people say "Society" is benefitted by marriage and that when people don't get married it's bad for "Society," yet those people fail to show any actual benefits coming from marriage that "Society" can't get in other ways, I start to wonder:

Is "Society" benefitted by marriage per se, in their view? Or is "Society" benefitted by people obeying its dictates and organizing their lives to serve it, regardless of any practical results?

If there is a social benefit to marriage, surely someone can identify it and explain why it is important enough for people to do it whether it is good for them personally or not.

Because if we don't we'll all be turned into pillars of salt.

(and that the women would stay at home with no job skills and be homemakers).

and the man would go out and "be the breadwinner" inspite of any desire he may have to actually stay home and take care of his children.

But it doesn't show that today actually has a lower or equal divorce rate to the 'good old days', assuming that the 70's is not the good old days which I think was the main point of the OP.

You can't really make that comparison, since divorces were extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to get in the "good old days." The comparison can only be made during times in which divorce was a viable option for an unhappy marriage. But, with high divorce rates in the 70's, whose marriages do you think were often breaking up? I don't have statistics on it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a lot of the "good old days" marriages were ending right about then.

<snip>

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate&b_map=1
Thanks. :)

Because if we don't we'll all be turned into pillars of salt.
Something like that, maybe. ;)

Actually, it's pretty clear that this has been addressed over and over and over again.

Bottle made it clear in the OP that she thinks that progressive values have led to less marriages overall and that this is a good thing - something that strengthens the institution of marriage itself. People are now less likely to enter into marriage simply because they think they have to. Instead, they make that decision when they are ready and when they truly feel that they want to do so. As a result, their marriages are more likely to last than those who got married in the 50's, 60's, and so on when the social expectation was that they had to get married (and that the women would stay at home with no job skills and be homemakers).
Bingo.

Related to this:


As I argued earlier, my position is that, all questions of marriage aside, happy, functional people benefit society by doing more work, driving a healthy economy, having better health, and committing fewer crimes. From that point of view, it can be argued that any system that causes a significant number of people to be unhappy and dysfunctional is bad for society. So a system that promotes quantity of marriages over quality of marriages must be seen as bad for society, even for a top-down totalitarian type.
(Bold mine)

This is why I feel comfortable hypothesizing that progressive values are good for marriage from a societal point of view, in addition to the obvious individual benefits.

I think progressive values encourage people to view marriage as an institution which exists to benefit the participants in the marriage, and it is for this reason that progressive values also make marriage stronger to society.

When you get right down to it, most "family values" objections to feminism and gay marriage are based on the idea that people are selfishly choosing to pursue their personal pleasure at the expense of their responsibilities. Gay people are selfishly choosing to have relationships that they enjoy with partners of their choice, instead of entering dutifully into unions which provide "society" with what it supposedly wants. Feminists are selfishly insisting that women should be allowed to choose their path in life, rather than sacrificing their personal hopes and dreams in order to better cater to the needs/wants of others. And so on.

My point, really, is that this underlying idea is a load of crap. I believe that society benefits more when people are happy, as opposed to when people are unhappily conforming to arbitrary rules and hierarchies.

This is why I feel comfortable hypothesizing that progressive values are good for marriage from a societal point of view, in addition to the obvious individual benefits.

I think progressive values encourage people to view marriage as an institution which exists to benefit the participants in the marriage, and it is for this reason that progressive values also make marriage stronger to society.

When you get right down to it, most "family values" objections to feminism and gay marriage are based on the idea that people are selfishly choosing to pursue their personal pleasure at the expense of their responsibilities. Gay people are selfishly choosing to have relationships that they enjoy with partners of their choice, instead of entering dutifully into unions which provide "society" with what it supposedly wants. Feminists are selfishly insisting that women should be allowed to choose their path in life, rather than sacrificing their personal hopes and dreams in order to better cater to the needs/wants of others. And so on.

My point, really, is that this underlying idea is a load of crap. I believe that society benefits more when people are happy, as opposed to when people are unhappily conforming to arbitrary rules and hierarchies.

I would add to this that I think a happy, truly stable marriage (or non-marriage relationship) is not only better for the two people in the marriage, but also for any children they might be raising. My mother stayed in an unhappy marriage for quite a while because people kept telling her that she had to do it for my brother and I - that we needed our father at home. But two of the best - and, at the same time, most traumatic - points in my life were when my parents finally divorced and when I finally saw my mother in a stable, happy relationship with someone she wanted to be with. I was ecstatic for her, of course, but also saddened when I realized that it was the first time I could remember seeing my mother truly happy with her own life. Before that, I didn't really know what she was like when she was really happy. I was 17.

How, I wonder, was it better for any of us when my mother was staying with my father, an alcoholic who had not yet hit the bottom and would not sober up for years after their divorce? How was it better for us to see her in a life she was unhappy with? And how was it better for my father to have support that allowed him to continue into his addiction?

I would add to this that I think a happy, truly stable marriage (or non-marriage relationship) is not only better for the two people in the marriage, but also for any children they might be raising.

Precisely! The most common cited benefit of marriage is that it helps provide a good environment for rearing children...yet I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that marriage is necessary OR sufficient for optimal child rearing.


My mother stayed in an unhappy marriage for quite a while because people kept telling her that she had to do it for my brother and I - that we needed our father at home. But two of the best - and, at the same time, most traumatic - points in my life were when my parents finally divorced and when I finally saw my mother in a stable, happy relationship with someone she wanted to be with. I was ecstatic for her, of course, but also saddened when I realized that it was the first time I could remember seeing my mother truly happy with her own life. Before that, I didn't really know what she was like when she was really happy. I was 17.
My maternal grandparents were very similar. They divorced when my mother was in her mid twenties, and my mother often remarked on how she never realized how unhappy her mom had been until after that marriage ended.

Here are some studies that suggest Bottle's theory is pretty well on track. I've included one study from religoustolerance.org and one that is purely agnostic. The relig.org examines the age component, the religous component, and other societal factors. The other information deals with divorce rates per 1000 in each state. The region with the lowest percentage of divorces is that evil bastion of liberalism, the Northeast.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate&b_map=1
Amg. You cited sources. You appear to have actually READ them before posting the links. You are my hero.

The problem with this thread is that the conservative camp of the argument is yet to make, well, an argument. All that there is here is counter-arguments and then trivial, peripheral discussions of semantics. Whoo-hoo.

So, myself being in the conservative camp, allow me to lay out an actual argument. I know, I know, highly uncharacteristic, I may lose my party status on this, but, let's see how far I can get.

It becomes evident, reading these posts, that the progressive camp assumes that marriage is an institution based in Judeo-Christian values and the primary purpose thereof is to control people by conditioning them to feel guilty about having sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage, which they control. The Catholic Church, in its inception, preferred the celibacy of all people, following the (supposed) example of Christ. The writings of Paul, however, says that since we are not likely to abide by this, let's use marriage as an acceptable arrangement for men and women to act on their sexual urges, but the Church will condone it so that this isn't sin. From this, then, is where all the talk comes in about guilt and fear of eternal consequences or societal shame. The Church, and every Judeo-Christian religion, thus manipulates its people into becoming married to each other in potentially unhappy circumstances, or face the idea of damnation or simply societal backlash ala The Scarlet Letter.

What a misguided assumption! First of all, marriage as an institution predates Paul, Christ, even predates Abraham. Marriage was widespread before any of these religious texts were codified. So marriage was not a Judeo-Christian idea; it was not the tool of some priest towards the goal of the domination of women or anything. That idea actually began with a book by Friedrich Engels. That's right, Communism contributed greatly to the argument against monogamy. Little wonder that social liberals today are moving towards more socialized industries, towards a veritable system of communism.

Well, what do we think marriage is about, then? The conservative camp believes that it's about family solidarity; maintaining the physical, social, and psychological well-being of children and parents, in order to propagate continuing generations of productive members of society.

The progressive camp argues that marriage is an institution that satisfies traditional society's male leaders at the expense of suffering women (or men, but that's just ridiculous). That gives it some kind of legitimacy, and for crying out loud, women need to be secure in their relationships, no one is arguing against that. The progressive camp has solved this issue by making marriage optional and easier to end. It's true that it's easier to end a marriage than it is to fire an employee. But, now it's the conservative camp's turn to ask, but at who's expense?

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure. The conservative camp believes that divorce or the decision to not marry is damaging to men, women, and children. Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)
And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)

Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness. This is a direct refute of one such progressive argument. Well, let me just refer you to some articles.

Here. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673603123240/abstract)
And here. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020126/02a00150/0)
One more. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00093920/ap030232/03a00230/0)

OK, so we can see that the evidence seems to indicate that biological parents are just better for rearing their own children, and that married couples actually have more stability than cohabitating couples. So all the conservative camp is trying to do is to protect the interests and the happiness of the men, women, and children involved in social arrangements. The evidence actually does point to marriage as being the best way to ensure happiness, stability, and success for adults and children.

As for such relationships contributing to substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and suicide; these things are not unique to marriage, nor is marriage a reliable predictor of such things. The statistical association between marriage and any of these things is extremely small, and to claim causation like this is just ridiculous. The conservative Judeo-Christian values camp also proscribes against these, anyway, so it's not really fair to attack a system based on examples where the whole system is not being used.

So again, the conservative camp fosters healthy, stable relationships, when marriage is done right. That seems pretty philanthropic, doesn't it? Apparently not. The general sentiment coming from the progressive camp is that society is some kind of dictator that favors men over women and should be abolished or at the most be a minimal influence in our lives. Isn't that anarchy? Good luck reconciling communism and anarchy.

It becomes evident, reading these posts, that the progressive camp assumes that marriage is an institution based in Judeo-Christian values and the primary purpose thereof is to control people by conditioning them to feel guilty about having sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage, which they control.

And right here, you made it exceedingly obvious that you haven't read the posts in this thread. No one has made that argument. No one has even come remotely close to that. I don't know who you want to argue with or where you've heard that, but it certainly wasn't in this thread.

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure. The conservative camp believes that divorce or the decision to not marry is damaging to men, women, and children. Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)
And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)

Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness. This is a direct refute of one such progressive argument. Well, let me just refer you to some articles.

Here. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673603123240/abstract)
And here. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020126/02a00150/0)
One more. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00093920/ap030232/03a00230/0)

I can't get to most of your links, but the ones that are readily available don't say what you seem to think they say. The one relating to children, for instance, compares children in a single-adult household with children in a two-adult household. It does not confine the two-adult household to married couples or to biological parents. It would appear that a child who has at least two adults to look after him is likely to fare better than a child who has only one. Is this really surprising to anyone?

The one on divorce, again, doesn't show a causative link. It says that people who are currently married are more likely to be happy than people who have been divorced. Considering that some source of unhappiness led the couple to dissolve their marriage, this is, once again, not surprising. The abstract also points out that divorce leads to very good outcomes for some who go through it.

So again, the conservative camp fosters healthy, stable relationships, when marriage is done right.

Isn't it interesting that this is precisely what the progressive side has been arguing for throughout this thread? Everyone on the progressive side has pointed out that a stable, healthy marriage is better than an unhealthy one, and that less pressure to enter into marriage before one is ready increases the chance that a marriage will be healthy.

That seems pretty philanthropic, doesn't it? Apparently not. The general sentiment coming from the progressive camp is that society is some kind of dictator that favors men over women and should be abolished or at the most be a minimal influence in our lives. Isn't that anarchy? Good luck reconciling communism and anarchy.

Once again, you seem to be arguing with the boogie men in your head, as no one has even come remotely close to an argument anything like this in the thread.

One parent households are almost never one-parent households. Divorced parents eventually seek out and successfully pursue romantic relationships with other persons. Most so-called single households are actually reconstituted with the "single parent"'s new love interest. Thus resulting in what you might call a new nuclear family unit, except that one of the two "parents" isn't the biological mother or father of the children.

So really, the single parents households is nothing but a urban myth. Divorced parents do not stay celibate forever; once their divorce woes are over, they move on and build meaningful relationships with a new partner.
This is true. It took my mother 14 years to 'get over' the death of my father when I was three, but eventually I DID have a step-father and who cares that it was when I was 17 right? She didn't raise my sister and I up by herself in the end after all, nope.

Bottle,

I am one of those conservative anti-feminists who thinks that feminism is the cause of rising divorce rates. I have not looked at that article yet because it is late here and I need to go to bed soon. Your original post is thought provoking and I look forward to reading the article at some point tomorrow.

Do Christian family values lead to higher divorce rates?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/137829/evangelicals_why_do_we_have_the_highest.html

http://www.logcabin.org/lef/divorce_rates_higher_in_red_states.html?member_key=we3ge6i217nkxn5

I can't get to most of your links, but the ones that are readily available don't say what you seem to think they say. The one relating to children, for instance, compares children in a single-adult household with children in a two-adult household. It does not confine the two-adult household to married couples or to biological parents. It would appear that a child who has at least two adults to look after him is likely to fare better than a child who has only one. Is this really surprising to anyone?

The one on divorce, again, doesn't show a causative link. It says that people who are currently married are more likely to be happy than people who have been divorced. Considering that some source of unhappiness led the couple to dissolve their marriage, this is, once again, not surprising. The abstract also points out that divorce leads to very good outcomes for some who go through it.



Isn't it interesting that this is precisely what the progressive side has been arguing for throughout this thread? Everyone on the progressive side has pointed out that a stable, healthy marriage is better than an unhealthy one, and that less pressure to enter into marriage before one is ready increases the chance that a marriage will be healthy.



Once again, you seem to be arguing with the boogie men in your head, as no one has even come remotely close to an argument anything like this in the thread.

What thread did you read? Let me show you:


All you DO care about is making sure women are submissive and men are trapped in a marriage with someone they don't like, all for YOUR pleasure of seeing people act like you wish they did.

I am sick of today's right wingers trying to sell this ridiculous fantasy as the American way to live. The goal is to raise happy, healthy, educated children who will be able to prosper on their own and contribute to society. The conservative values "tradition" has a hard time doing that. The progressive values makes it easier. I choose the easier way. Done.

A lot of people don't even seem aware that it's possible to be in a committed, loving, stable relationship with a person to whom you are not married.

It is absolutly stronger because of progressive social values. Even if the total number of marriages per year goes down, the institution is still stronger. Those progressive social values are what teach people that it's ok NOT to get married. It's ok NOT to be pressured into it. It's ok to live with your lover and fuck them on a regular basis and not feel like you're going to hell because a man in a robe hasn't officially told you it's ok to fuck your lover.

I'm sorry, but so far you have not even attempted to explain:

1) How society is damaged by fewer marriages;

2) How the institution of marriage is damaged by fewer marriages and fewer divorces;

3) how you are defining the term "damage" and how you are applying it in this context -- I remind you that you have not contested any of Bottle's assertions about progressive social polices promoting good marriages.

I know that my own relationship won't magically become more productive for society if my partner and I get married. Marriage won't magically make us work harder or dedicate more time to the community or anything like that. Marriage won't make us any more (or less) likely to have and rear children together. Marriage won't make us nicer people. Marriage won't make us love each other more (or less).

I'm one of those who think that society is a tool that serves the needs of people, and that is why I say that all social systems and traditions should be subject to regular critiques of their usefulness. When they stop fulfilling the needs of people -- stop supporting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in other words -- they should be reformed or replaced.

Sometimes people will have to make personal sacrifices in order to support an otherwise beneficial social system, but the belief that people should serve the State or the Society strikes me as totalitarian, and I personally reject it and arguments based on it.

hear it all the time. People constantly sob over how nobody stays married any more, not like they did In The Good Old Days. Hands are wrung over the decline of marriage as an institution all the time, and the evil slutty feminists and the filthy gays are almost always Exhibits One and Two.

Meanwhile, people point to a "return to family values" as the key for safeguarding marriage. Never mind that the areas of the country which are most strictly in line with such values also happen to be the regions with the highest rates of divorce...

Bottle, if nobody's offering valid counterpoints to your OP and conclusions, it's simply because you're right about marriage being strenghtened. Despite the fact that some people are anal retentive about acknowledging the existance that marriage is not, by any stretch, the only way of living in a healthy, serious, comitted long-term relationship.

If, however, we perceive marriage as providing some benefit(s) to society, then all we care about is what percentage of our population is providing said benefit(s).

Of course, then you've got to establish that such benefits exist. Which hasn't been done, either.

As I argued earlier, my position is that, all questions of marriage aside, happy, functional people benefit society by doing more work, driving a healthy economy, having better health, and committing fewer crimes. From that point of view, it can be argued that any system that causes a significant number of people to be unhappy and dysfunctional is bad for society. So a system that promotes quantity of marriages over quality of marriages must be seen as bad for society, even for a top-down totalitarian type.

Unless it is considered more important for the people to be seen to be actively obeying the demands of Society than for them to be actually producing good results for society. In other words, if appearance is more important than reality.

So, when people say "Society" is benefited by marriage and that when people don't get married it's bad for "Society," yet those people fail to show any actual benefits coming from marriage that "Society" can't get in other ways, I start to wonder:

Is "Society" benefitted by marriage per se, in their view? Or is "Society" benefitted by people obeying its dictates and organizing their lives to serve it, regardless of any practical results?

If there is a social benefit to marriage, surely someone can identify it and explain why it is important enough for people to do it whether it is good for them personally or not. In the absence of that, I tend to suspect that something else is behind "marry for Society" arguments.

This is a collaboration of posts that stressed that marriage harmed society or was a tool of society to oppress, etc., or posts that indicate the religious aspect of the debate, or posts that claim that non-married cohabitants are as stable as married people, etc., etc., basically, the things I attempted to address. I'll admit, the articles aren't conclusive, but in different places they point out evidence for my points. I don't know why the links don't work for you, and I apologize for that.

I did try to claim that the 'traditionalists' have a better method for stable relationships in a variety of ways, and are thus good for society, whereas progressive values' relationships are, by nature, easily terminated and always under critique. Fidelity is only employed when it is convenient. Hm, I believe in capitalism and free market, but not for emotional relationships.

And right here, you made it exceedingly obvious that you haven't read the posts in this thread. No one has made that argument. No one has even come remotely close to that. I don't know who you want to argue with or where you've heard that, but it certainly wasn't in this thread.
Thanks for taking this one on, Dem. I wish I could say I was surprised by the on-going rudeness of the "conservatives" visiting this thread, yet all I feel is overwhelming bordom.

Bottle,

I am one of those conservative anti-feminists who thinks that feminism is the cause of rising divorce rates.
It should be interesting to watch you defend your theory, considering that divorce rates aren't rising.

Thanks for taking this one on, Dem. I wish I could say I was surprised by the on-going rudeness of the "conservatives" visiting this thread, yet all I feel is overwhelming bordom.

Boredom.

It's ok, I understand it's early over in Bottle-land.

:p

Boredom.

It's ok, I understand it's early over in Bottle-land.

:p
Nah, bad spelling persists throughout the day in Bottle-land.

Nah, bad spelling persists throughout the day in Bottle-land.

Bad spelling's always better than bad logic.

Thanks for taking this one on, Dem. I wish I could say I was surprised by the on-going rudeness of the "conservatives" visiting this thread, yet all I feel is overwhelming bordom.

This forum doesn't really work in real-time, I see. Everything I said was in response to allegations or demands made by others in this thread, and I went through and found them and quoted them for Dem's benefit, again. I will admit that I didn't address the narrow argument in the OP. So let me do that now.

The assertion that progressive values have made marriage stronger by percentage, I suppose, is supported by the figures. However, I would say that it is too early in the 'post-women's lib' era to have accurate figures comparing truly long-term marriages, since the first generation of marriages afterwards is only now growing into maturity and the second generation is not yet in long-term status. The overall effects on the children are difficult to ascertain, as well.

But the claim that marriage is stronger period is not supported. I do suppose that this wasn't your initial claim, anyway, though. My claim, however, would be that since less and less of the population chooses to enter marriage, indeed, increasingly less and less do, that the institution is losing its place in society. Now, if it were truly a destructive institution, then that would be proper, but the sociological research seems to indicate that marriage has little or no causal relationship to unhappiness, is preferable to non-married long-term relationships, and fosters more productivity, social well-being, and academic success in children. People can make marriages hellish, yes, but people are the problem, according to the research, not marriage itself. Why not spend time on advocating spousal respect and honor, yea, even love, alongside, I don't know, independence from alcohol and drugs, for instance, instead of just trying to rid the world of the institution which is merely guilty by association?

This is a collaboration of posts that stressed that marriage harmed society or was a tool of society to oppress, etc., or posts that indicate the religious aspect of the debate, or posts that claim that non-married cohabitants are as stable as married people, etc., etc., basically, the things I attempted to address. I'll admit, the articles aren't conclusive, but in different places they point out evidence for my points. I don't know why the links don't work for you, and I apologize for that.

None of those posts stressed the idea that marriage harms society or was a tool to oppress. They pointed out that it has been used that way, and that it shouldn't be used that way and that it is stronger for not being used that way.

No one has been arguing that marriage itself is harmful or that it should be done away with.

I did try to claim that the 'traditionalists' have a better method for stable relationships in a variety of ways, and are thus good for society, whereas progressive values' relationships are, by nature, easily terminated and always under critique. Fidelity is only employed when it is convenient. Hm, I believe in capitalism and free market, but not for emotional relationships.

Why on earth would you think that a relationship formed under progressive values are "easily terminated"? My husband and I both embrace progressive values, but neither of us see marriage as a light matter. Neither of us would find it easy to end our marriage, nor would we attempt to do so without fighting tooth and nail for it first.

In fact, that is largely what we have gained from progressive values. We entered into marriage completely willingly and after careful consideration of its implications. We didn't feel that we *had* to get married. We didn't do it because it was "the next step." We didn't do it because we thought we couldn't have sex until we did. Instead, we knew that we wanted to commit our lives to one another and we waited until we were both absolutely sure of that wish before we made that commitment official.

We view our marriage as an equal partnership. Both of us will help the other to pursue our career goals and we will determine, together, when to have children. This is a far cry from the "traditional" viewpoint in which he would be the head of the family and breadwinner and I would be the homemaker.

Bad spelling's always better than bad logic.

Ohhh I don't know I quite like both!

Typical woman moaning...

Typical woman moaning...Well, yes, I expect that this is the only sort of "moaning" you ever hear from women. But I really don't see why you want to bring your personal problems into this discussion.

Well, yes, I expect that this is the only sort of "moaning" you ever hear from women. But I really don't see why you want to bring your personal problems into this discussion.

You, madame, should be an Olympic athlete! That's the most impress conclusion jump I've seen in years!

I <3 humour blow-back...

Ah... feminism ftw btw....

AND ITS TRUE! I aint getting any! :P

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure. The conservative camp believes that divorce or the decision to not marry is damaging to men, women, and children. Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)
And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)

I can actually get to the links now. YAY!

And, as I suspected, your studies don't really show what you think they do. The first study is really the only one in which they aren't constantly comparing apples and oranges. When they compared all cohabitating couples to married couples (apples and oranges), they found a difference in relationship satisfaction. However, when they compared cohabitating couples who had long-term plans with one another - in this case, those who intended to eventually marry - they saw no significant difference. This suggests that it is not the marriage status itself which has an effect. Instead, it is the level of commitment to each other - the long-term plans for the relationship - that matter.

Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness.

Do you have any articles that actually examine both the health of the marital relationship and the response of children? None of the studies you linked did so.

OK, so we can see that the evidence seems to indicate that biological parents are just better for rearing their own children, and that married couples actually have more stability than cohabitating couples.

No, we don't. You can look at it that way if you like, but the evidence you have presented does not directly lead to it. First of all, your own evidence points to the idea that cohabitating couples with an equal level of commitment to married couples show no significant differences in measures of relationship health.

Second of all, your articles with children don't include any analysis of the health of the marriages where both biological parents are involved, nor do they put forth any data on children who were raised from birth by non-biological parents vs. those who go through a divorce and remarriage of their parents. Thus, you have not shown that it is better for children to be raised by parents in an unhealthy marriage than to go through their parents' divorce and you have not shown that there is anything inherently better about being raised by biological parents. At best, you have demonstrated that the emotional hurdles caused by divorce have more negative affects than a stable marraige - which is really a "no duh" statement.

But the claim that marriage is stronger period is not supported. I do suppose that this wasn't your initial claim, anyway, though. My claim, however, would be that since less and less of the population chooses to enter marriage, indeed, increasingly less and less do, that the institution is losing its place in society.

Is there a reason that it can't be seen as changing its place in society? People are marrying later in life and some people are choosing not to marry altogether. I see this as strengthening marriage altogether because it indicates that, increasingly, those who enter into marriage are doing it after careful thought and because they want to and are prepared for it. People who are not well-suited for a long-term relationship are less likely to get married because they "have to", thus strengthening marriage as a whole - and its place in society.

Why not spend time on advocating spousal respect and honor, yea, even love, alongside, I don't know, independence from alcohol and drugs, for instance, instead of just trying to rid the world of the institution which is merely guilty by association?

Again, what makes you think anyone is trying to "get rid of" the institution of marriage? The most that has been suggested in this thread is that marriage is not always necessary and that the commitment of marriage can be achieved without making it legally official. No one has been calling for doing away with marriage altogether. In fact, most have been applauding the shift from early, socially pressured marraige to later, more considered marriages that are entered into willingly and with foresight.

Again, what makes you think anyone is trying to "get rid of" the institution of marriage? The most that has been suggested in this thread is that marriage is not always necessary and that the commitment of marriage can be achieved without making it legally official. No one has been calling for doing away with marriage altogether. In fact, most have been applauding the shift from early, socially pressured marraige to later, more considered marriages that are entered into willingly and with foresight.

You know, I've begun to wonder how real the distinction between long-term non-married couples and married couples is.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine a few months back, on the topic of polyamory and marriage. After about a half hour of going back and forth, we came to the realization that his definition of marriage and my definition of marriage were different, and that this difference required us to reevaluate each other's positions in the new context.

The problem was, he had been defining marriage on his side of the discussion as any long-term committed relationship, whether or not it was formalized by a contract or ceremony, whereas mine was specifically those long-term committed relationships that HAD been formalized by a contract or ceremony.
And I'm beginning to wonder if his definition was the more accurate of the two, or rather the more realistic.

You, madame, should be an Olympic athlete! That's the most impress conclusion jump I've seen in years!

I <3 humour blow-back...

Ah... feminism ftw btw....

AND ITS TRUE! I aint getting any! :P
You have to forgive me, I just can't resist an opportunity for a quality burn. :D

You have to forgive me, I just can't resist an opportunity for a quality burn. :D

Had I been in your (prolly high helled :p) shoes, I'd have done the same...

You know, I've begun to wonder how real the distinction between long-term non-married couples and married couples is.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine a few months back, on the topic of polyamory and marriage. After about a half hour of going back and forth, we came to the realization that his definition of marriage and my definition of marriage were different, and that this difference required us to reevaluate each other's positions in the new context.

The problem was, he had been defining marriage on his side of the discussion as any long-term committed relationship, whether or not it was formalized by a contract or ceremony, whereas mine was specifically those long-term committed relationships that HAD been formalized by a contract or ceremony.
And I'm beginning to wonder if his definition was the more accurate of the two, or rather the more realistic.


Heh well in terms of language a marriage is when two people get married, if they live together without the formalised ceremony, then they are co-habituating!:D

You know, I've begun to wonder how real the distinction between long-term non-married couples and married couples is.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine a few months back, on the topic of polyamory and marriage. After about a half hour of going back and forth, we came to the realization that his definition of marriage and my definition of marriage were different, and that this difference required us to reevaluate each other's positions in the new context.

The problem was, he had been defining marriage on his side of the discussion as any long-term committed relationship, whether or not it was formalized by a contract or ceremony, whereas mine was specifically those long-term committed relationships that HAD been formalized by a contract or ceremony.
And I'm beginning to wonder if his definition was the more accurate of the two, or rather the more realistic.

I tend to gravitate to his definition, although yours is the one I think most people use. In my mind, it is the commitment that matters, not the "official" status. In a very real sense, I believe my husband and I have been married for years, despite the fact that we actually just hit our official 5-month mark.

Thing is, getting an official marriage certificate didn't change my relationship with my husband. It didn't alter our commitment to each other. Having a wedding and getting legal documentation allowed us to share our decision with our friends and family and has allowed us legal protections we didn't yet have, but didn't change our relationship with each other.

I certainly think there is a difference between levels of commitment. A relationship can range from people who sometimes meet for drinks/sex to people who have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together. But I don't see any difference between my relationship with my husband the month before our wedding and the month after. And the studies I've seen presented here seem to agree with me.

I can actually get to the links now. YAY!

And, as I suspected, your studies don't really show what you think they do. The first study is really the only one in which they aren't constantly comparing apples and oranges. When they compared all cohabitating couples to married couples (apples and oranges), they found a difference in relationship satisfaction. However, when they compared cohabitating couples who had long-term plans with one another - in this case, those who intended to eventually marry - they saw no significant difference. This suggests that it is not the marriage status itself which has an effect. Instead, it is the level of commitment to each other - the long-term plans for the relationship - that matter.

You can look at it that way, but what the article actually said is that cohabitating couples with plans to marry were similar to married couples, and did not generalize it to any couple having long-term commitments.


Do you have any articles that actually examine both the health of the marital relationship and the response of children? None of the studies you linked did so.

I have looked for, but not found, a study examining these effects. I concede this point.


No, we don't. You can look at it that way if you like, but the evidence you have presented does not directly lead to it. First of all, your own evidence points to the idea that cohabitating couples with an equal level of commitment to married couples show no significant differences in measures of relationship health.


Again, the only thing the article specifically said was that cohabitating couples with the intention to marry had similar relationship health status as those who were married. I applaud you for examining the articles more closely than I anticipated, but don't generalize where the article doesn't.


Second of all, your articles with children don't include any analysis of the health of the marriages where both biological parents are involved, nor do they put forth any data on children who were raised from birth by non-biological parents vs. those who go through a divorce and remarriage of their parents. Thus, you have not shown that it is better for children to be raised by parents in an unhealthy marriage than to go through their parents' divorce and you have not shown that there is anything inherently better about being raised by biological parents. At best, you have demonstrated that the emotional hurdles caused by divorce have more negative affects than a stable marraige - which is really a "no duh" statement.

You're right, I cannot find a study that explicitly shows either of those things. I should re-iterate my point. My point is that marriage is not a predictor of violence, substance abuse, or anything of that nature. Divorce, on the other hand, is a predictor for problems in children. But the divorce rates are going down thanks to progressive values. Well, only because of the increase in cohabitation. Here's a quote from a study that cites a number of articles about that;

Demography[/i]]
Past research provides limited evidence that cohabitation has negative emotional and behavioral repercussions for children. Cohabitors tend to be more socially isolated than married persons, which contributes to higher levels of family violence and depression among women and potentially affects child outcomes.

Limited evidence? Yes. Not conclusive, I realize.

Allow me to put some regulations on my argument; a good marriage is a very stable relationship and benefits the adults and children involved. The only group of cohabitants that display similar relationship happiness are those which intend to marry. There is limited evidence that cohabitation contributes indirectly to family violence, depression among women, and negative effects on children.

So instead of encouraging cohabitation as an alternative to a good marriage (which it does not appear to be), I would advocate that we be more responsible about making marriages better. This begins with being responsible about who you marry in the first place, and limiting destructive, even inhumane influences of substance abuse, spousal abuse, neglect, violence, etc., etc. We should strengthen marriage internally through education, counseling, and such established methods, instead of creating a culture that blindly touts alternative social arrangements as OK when they have a propensity for inferiority in terms of satisfaction, stability, and effect on children.

I will not attach the superiority of the parenting of biological parents in a marriage over the parenting of non-biological parents in any arrangement, since this is, at the moment, not supported by readily available studies (but not refuted, either), and not even a possibility in many scenarios. I will only say that in my life experience, this holds up, but that is not objective nor subject to review, so I will not make the claim any more.

Progressive values are not to blame for stronger marriages. Responsibility is what is to blame for stronger marriages. Any institution which promotes irresponsible marriages, or any irresponsible romance, is in conflict with the good of individuals and of society. That is an argument not made enough in the conservative camp; responsibility. Interesting that liberal politicians, or progressive politicians, are all about their political enemies being 'accountable' and 'responsible,' but don't stress the same values in social policy.

So instead of encouraging cohabitation as an alternative to a good marriage (which it does not appear to be)

Why would this be the case?

I can think of a number of reasons why cohabitation might correlate with bad outcomes... but all else being equal, I fail to see why there would be any difference between long-term cohabitation and marriage.

Indeed, the quote you provided referred to social isolation, which hardly seems to indicate a necessary feature of cohabitation.

None of those posts stressed the idea that marriage harms society or was a tool to oppress. They pointed out that it has been used that way, and that it shouldn't be used that way and that it is stronger for not being used that way.

No one has been arguing that marriage itself is harmful or that it should be done away with.


I refuse to re-post old posts that I've already re-posted once, but the posters making the argument about marriage's scandalous history are not the same posters saying that it is now stronger and better. Your opinion is far more valid, IMO.


Why on earth would you think that a relationship formed under progressive values are "easily terminated"? My husband and I both embrace progressive values, but neither of us see marriage as a light matter. Neither of us would find it easy to end our marriage, nor would we attempt to do so without fighting tooth and nail for it first.

In fact, that is largely what we have gained from progressive values. We entered into marriage completely willingly and after careful consideration of its implications. We didn't feel that we *had* to get married. We didn't do it because it was "the next step." We didn't do it because we thought we couldn't have sex until we did. Instead, we knew that we wanted to commit our lives to one another and we waited until we were both absolutely sure of that wish before we made that commitment official.

I'm happy for you, that sounds like a very productive arrangement. But your personal anecdotes are not valid evidence in a broad case about marriage and values. There are perfect success stories on both sides. Progressive values, meaning the women's liberation movement and others that have been touted as strengthening marriage, have successfully pushed legislation in all free countries to make it easier to sever marriages when one of the parties wants to. They have also encouraged people to seek relationships outside of marriage to avoid the binding effects of marriage, in short, relationships that are easier to get out of and less traumatic for you when you do. This is why I believe that progressive values leads to 'easily terminated' relationships; that's what it actually supports in legislation and in philosophy.

There is a bit of an interesting paradox here; they believe in the absolute virtue and/or goodwill of men and women towards creating stable, satisfying, productive relationships without the structure of marriage, which would appear to be a noble, if somewhat naive goal. But, when they argue that marriages should not be so binding, and that alternative arrangements are far safer, they assume the opposite; that the virtue or love or whatever of men and women can't be trusted.


We view our marriage as an equal partnership. Both of us will help the other to pursue our career goals and we will determine, together, when to have children. This is a far cry from the "traditional" viewpoint in which he would be the head of the family and breadwinner and I would be the homemaker.

Again, I wish you and your husband the best.

I never addressed the traditional view of breadwinner and homemaker gender roles, and I don't intend to. Neither has anyone else. You must be arguing with the boogie men in your head or something.

Why would this be the case?

I can think of a number of reasons why cohabitation might correlate with bad outcomes... but all else being equal, I fail to see why there would be any difference between long-term cohabitation and marriage.

Indeed, the quote you provided referred to social isolation, which hardly seems to indicate a necessary feature of cohabitation.

It is an established tendency, not a necessity, but a potentially harmful propensity that doesn't exist in similar populations of married couples. I repeatedly stated that the evidence about this wasn't conclusive, so thank you for reiterating this. However, your personal observations or imaginings about the difference between cohabitation and marriage is not based on objective evidence, merely your gut feelings on the matter. I could say that I see a great deal of reason for difference between marriage and long-term cohabitation, and it would be as authoritative as your statement.

What I did provide, instead, was a peer-reviewed article citing several other articles that show that individuals who choose to cohabitate have a tendency to exhibit such social isolation, which has been proven to be a predictor of violence, depression, and overall instability.

Edit: Actually, the quote from Demography does say that there is evidence that cohabitation has negative effects on children.

You can look at it that way, but what the article actually said is that cohabitating couples with plans to marry were similar to married couples, and did not generalize it to any couple having long-term commitments.

But "plans to marry" and "married" are not the same thing. Hence it is obviously not the state of marriage itself that increased happiness and stability.

Again, the only thing the article specifically said was that cohabitating couples with the intention to marry had similar relationship health status as those who were married. I applaud you for examining the articles more closely than I anticipated, but don't generalize where the article doesn't.

I don't think it's a huge leap to go from "planning to marry" to "same level of commitment as marriage, but I'll concede that there could be a difference.

You're right, I cannot find a study that explicitly shows either of those things. I should re-iterate my point. My point is that marriage is not a predictor of violence, substance abuse, or anything of that nature.

Of course not. But pressured marriage and pressure to remain in a failing marriage make people less able to get out of such situations.

Divorce, on the other hand, is a predictor for problems in children.

Perhaps. Of course, it could be the problems that led to divorce in the first place and the upheaval in the child's life that is actually causal, rather than the divorce itself.

I can tell you point blank that my brother and I were much, much better off after our parents divorced. I may be in the minority, but I was happy when that time finally came.

But the divorce rates are going down thanks to progressive values. Well, only because of the increase in cohabitation.

Evidence? The quote you provide has nothing whatsoever to do with this contention.

Allow me to put some regulations on my argument; a good marriage is a very stable relationship and benefits the adults and children involved. The only group of cohabitants that display similar relationship happiness are those which intend to marry.

Or, rather, that was true in a study conducted 20 years ago, when long term commitment still equated to "official marriage" in the eyes of most.

Out of curiosity, what does it take to be "married" in your view? As Bottle and I discussed, there are different viewpoints on this. Do you view marriage as a relationship between two people? Or must it be made official by outside entities?

So instead of encouraging cohabitation as an alternative to a good marriage (which it does not appear to be), I would advocate that we be more responsible about making marriages better. This begins with being responsible about who you marry in the first place, and limiting destructive, even inhumane influences of substance abuse, spousal abuse, neglect, violence, etc., etc. We should strengthen marriage internally through education, counseling, and such established methods, instead of creating a culture that blindly touts alternative social arrangements as OK when they have a propensity for inferiority in terms of satisfaction, stability, and effect on children.

Interestingly enough, all of the progressive people you have quoted in this thread have made a very similar argument. Being responsible about who you marry was a major point in the very first post - in which Bottle pointed out that progressive values have allowed people to marry later in life and to put more thought into the decision to get married, rather than being pressured into it as something they *must* do. She also touted education as an important factor in strong marriages.

Where some may differ from you is not in that they think cohabitation should be encouraged, but that it should be allowed, as only the individual can determine the best situation for their own lives.

Progressive values are not to blame for stronger marriages. Responsibility is what is to blame for stronger marriages.

And that responsibility is what is allowed by progressive values. It is progressive values that brought us the idea that men and women should be equally responsible for their own lives and for their relationships. No longer are men relegated to one responsibility and women relegated to another. Instead, they are expected to be equally responsible in creating their life together.

It is progressive values that have allowed people to put more thought into their decision to marry. Instead of being pushed into it at a young age as the next step in life, they are now taking their time, finding a good partner, and marrying because it is right for them.

It is progressive values that have allowed both men and women to take equal responsibility in childrearing. We're pushing out the idea that only women should be nurturing to their children and only men should put food on their tables. Instead, we hope that their parents will work that arrangement out by considering what is best for the children and for the parents.

In the end, responsibility is the exact opposite of what you get when you push people into rigid social institutions. There is no thinking. There is no personal responsibility. If this is what society says to do, you do it, and you don't think about it. If it doesn't work, it must be someone else's fault, right? Progressive values don't allow for such excuses. You have to determine for yourself what is right. If you make the wrong choice, you have only yourself to blame.

Any institution which promotes irresponsible marriages, or any irresponsible romance, is in conflict with the good of individuals and of society.

Indeed. I believe that was Bottle's point. It was certainly mine.

That is an argument not made enough in the conservative camp; responsibility.

Of course not. Those who would push to force values on others cannot also value responsibility. Either they value personal responsibility, or they feel that individuals are incapable of it and must be told what to do. Not all in the conservative camp feel that such values should be forced or pressured on others, but most who are politically conservative do.

Interesting that liberal politicians, or progressive politicians, are all about their political enemies being 'accountable' and 'responsible,' but don't stress the same values in social policy.

Being accountable and responsible is exactly what is being stressed here.

However, your personal observations or imaginings about the difference between cohabitation and marriage is not based on objective evidence, merely your gut feelings on the matter.

No, it's not based on my "gut feelings"... it's based on rational consideration of the notion of "cohabitation."

Lots of things correlate meaninglessly, and we never can control for everything. So it would be nice to hear a plausible causal argument.

I could say that I see a great deal of reason for difference between marriage and long-term cohabitation,

Great! Why?

(Assuming you actually believe that.)

What I did provide, instead, was a peer-reviewed article citing several other articles that show that individuals who choose to cohabitate have a tendency to exhibit such social isolation

Yeah, but this tells us nothing about proper public policy (or about what we should do in our own lives) unless the relation is causal.

Edit: Actually, the quote from Demography does say that there is evidence that cohabitation has negative effects on children.

It said "potentially", and again, was referring to social isolation.

I refuse to re-post old posts that I've already re-posted once, but the posters making the argument about marriage's scandalous history are not the same posters saying that it is now stronger and better. Your opinion is far more valid, IMO.

Yes, actually, they are. You quoted Bottle, Muravyets, Skaladora, and, I believe, Neo Art. Maybe a few others who were overall less active in the thread. While the people I named will readily point to problems in marriage's history (as will I), they have also been pointing to indicators that marriage is now stronger. All of the posters you quoted in that long quote have been agreeing with me throughout the thread and have actually made most of the points I'm making before they even entered the thread..

I'm happy for you, that sounds like a very productive arrangement. But your personal anecdotes are not valid evidence in a broad case about marriage and values. There are perfect success stories on both sides. Progressive values, meaning the women's liberation movement and others that have been touted as strengthening marriage, have successfully pushed legislation in all free countries to make it easier to sever marriages when one of the parties wants to. They have also encouraged people to seek relationships outside of marriage to avoid the binding effects of marriage, in short, relationships that are easier to get out of and less traumatic for you when you do. This is why I believe that progressive values leads to 'easily terminated' relationships; that's what it actually supports in legislation and in philosophy.

Easy termination allows people to get out of bad relationships. You'd be hard pressed to find people arguing that you should throw away a good relationship on a whim.

Again, I wish you and your husband the best.

I never addressed the traditional view of breadwinner and homemaker gender roles, and I don't intend to. Neither has anyone else. You must be arguing with the boogie men in your head or something.

Again, I wonder if you have actually read the thread. Bottle brought up these traditional gender roles from the very start - pointing out that a woman's ability to make her own living have allowed her to put off marriage until she is ready for it - to do it when she is in a stable relationship, rather than because she needs a man to take care of her.


It is an established tendency, not a necessity, but a potentially harmful propensity that doesn't exist in similar populations of married couples. I repeatedly stated that the evidence about this wasn't conclusive, so thank you for reiterating this. However, your personal observations or imaginings about the difference between cohabitation and marriage is not based on objective evidence, merely your gut feelings on the matter. I could say that I see a great deal of reason for difference between marriage and long-term cohabitation, and it would be as authoritative as your statement.

There have been a number of studies observing children raised by homosexual couples. In most countries, homosexual couples cannot marry and are thus, by definition, cohabitating. Yet children raised by homosexual couples are just as well-adjusted as those raised by married couples. In the studies I have seen in the past, the only significant difference was that children raised by homosexual parents were more likely to be accepting of those of different sexualities (surprise, surprise).

*looks around for studies*

There have been a number of studies observing children raised by homosexual couples. In most countries, homosexual couples cannot marry and are thus, by definition, cohabitating. Yet children raised by homosexual couples are just as well-adjusted as those raised by married couples. In the studies I have seen in the past, the only significant difference was that children raised by homosexual parents were more likely to be accepting of those of different sexualities (surprise, surprise).

*looks around for studies*

Here are some of those studies:
APA: Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html)
Children of Lesbian and Single Women Parents (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn41.htm)
Children in Lesbian-Led Families: A Review (http://ccp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/153?maxtoshow=&HITS=50&hits=50&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=lesbian+parent&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1121112935367_1722&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=50&sortspec=relevance&tdate=7/31/2005)

On a related note:
Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28gay+parent%29)

The problem with this thread is that the conservative camp of the argument is yet to make, well, an argument. All that there is here is counter-arguments and then trivial, peripheral discussions of semantics. Whoo-hoo.

So, myself being in the conservative camp, allow me to lay out an actual argument. I know, I know, highly uncharacteristic, I may lose my party status on this, but, let's see how far I can get.

It becomes evident, reading these posts, that the progressive camp assumes that marriage is an institution based in Judeo-Christian values and the primary purpose thereof is to control people by conditioning them to feel guilty about having sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage, which they control. The Catholic Church, in its inception, preferred the celibacy of all people, following the (supposed) example of Christ. The writings of Paul, however, says that since we are not likely to abide by this, let's use marriage as an acceptable arrangement for men and women to act on their sexual urges, but the Church will condone it so that this isn't sin. From this, then, is where all the talk comes in about guilt and fear of eternal consequences or societal shame. The Church, and every Judeo-Christian religion, thus manipulates its people into becoming married to each other in potentially unhappy circumstances, or face the idea of damnation or simply societal backlash ala The Scarlet Letter.

What a misguided assumption! First of all, marriage as an institution predates Paul, Christ, even predates Abraham. Marriage was widespread before any of these religious texts were codified. So marriage was not a Judeo-Christian idea; it was not the tool of some priest towards the goal of the domination of women or anything. That idea actually began with a book by Friedrich Engels. That's right, Communism contributed greatly to the argument against monogamy. Little wonder that social liberals today are moving towards more socialized industries, towards a veritable system of communism.

Well, what do we think marriage is about, then? The conservative camp believes that it's about family solidarity; maintaining the physical, social, and psychological well-being of children and parents, in order to propagate continuing generations of productive members of society.

The progressive camp argues that marriage is an institution that satisfies traditional society's male leaders at the expense of suffering women (or men, but that's just ridiculous). That gives it some kind of legitimacy, and for crying out loud, women need to be secure in their relationships, no one is arguing against that. The progressive camp has solved this issue by making marriage optional and easier to end. It's true that it's easier to end a marriage than it is to fire an employee. But, now it's the conservative camp's turn to ask, but at who's expense?

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure. The conservative camp believes that divorce or the decision to not marry is damaging to men, women, and children. Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)
And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)

Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness. This is a direct refute of one such progressive argument. Well, let me just refer you to some articles.

Here. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673603123240/abstract)
And here. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020126/02a00150/0)
One more. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00093920/ap030232/03a00230/0)

OK, so we can see that the evidence seems to indicate that biological parents are just better for rearing their own children, and that married couples actually have more stability than cohabitating couples. So all the conservative camp is trying to do is to protect the interests and the happiness of the men, women, and children involved in social arrangements. The evidence actually does point to marriage as being the best way to ensure happiness, stability, and success for adults and children.

As for such relationships contributing to substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and suicide; these things are not unique to marriage, nor is marriage a reliable predictor of such things. The statistical association between marriage and any of these things is extremely small, and to claim causation like this is just ridiculous. The conservative Judeo-Christian values camp also proscribes against these, anyway, so it's not really fair to attack a system based on examples where the whole system is not being used.

So again, the conservative camp fosters healthy, stable relationships, when marriage is done right. That seems pretty philanthropic, doesn't it? Apparently not. The general sentiment coming from the progressive camp is that society is some kind of dictator that favors men over women and should be abolished or at the most be a minimal influence in our lives. Isn't that anarchy? Good luck reconciling communism and anarchy.

Meh. Progressives are not necessarily either communists or anarchists, but I find your equation of these terms humorous.

I love your argument that critiques of traditional marriage are bad because Engels wrote about them. I guess puppies are evil if Hitler liked one.

Who on earth is against "healthy, stable relationships, when marriage is done right"?

The question is whether progressive values encourage healthy, stable relationships where marriage is "done right."

Nothing you point to answers this question in the negative.

I'd love to see you point to a study that showed the availability of divorce itself was harmful -- more harmful than forcing unhappy couples to stay together.

The problem with this thread is that the conservative camp of the argument is yet to make, well, an argument. All that there is here is counter-arguments and then trivial, peripheral discussions of semantics. Whoo-hoo.

Hmmm that is a roundabout way of using the "splitting hairs" dismissal

So, myself being in the conservative camp, allow me to lay out an actual argument. I know, I know, highly uncharacteristic, I may lose my party status on this, but, let's see how far I can get.

It becomes evident, reading these posts, that the progressive camp assumes that marriage is an institution based in Judeo-Christian values and the primary purpose thereof is to control people by conditioning them to feel guilty about having sexual relations outside of the institution of marriage, which they control.


The concept of marriage predates Judeo-Christian values and yes the Church does use guilt as a major weapon. Hell in some South American countries it was viewed that sex was only for procreation and you had to use a "sex sheet" to do it.


The Catholic Church, in its inception, preferred the celibacy of all people, following the (supposed) example of Christ.

You do know there was a time Priests could be married right? You do know that the celibacy order was more about retaining land; right?

The writings of Paul, however, says that since we are not likely to abide by this, let's use marriage as an acceptable arrangement for men and women to act on their sexual urges, but the Church will condone it so that this isn't sin.

Hmm? Did you ever read that it was right to stone a woman because she was on top?

Why did we have Sodomy laws enacted? Why didn't the Church speak out about it if they condoned it?

From this, then, is where all the talk comes in about guilt and fear of eternal consequences or societal shame. The Church, and every Judeo-Christian religion, thus manipulates its people into becoming married to each other in potentially unhappy circumstances, or face the idea of damnation or simply societal backlash ala The Scarlet Letter.


Do you know why they used the Scarlet Letter?

What a misguided assumption! First of all, marriage as an institution predates Paul, Christ, even predates Abraham. Marriage was widespread before any of these religious texts were codified. So marriage was not a Judeo-Christian idea; it was not the tool of some priest towards the goal of the domination of women or anything. That idea actually began with a book by Friedrich Engels.


Holy moly. I had to read this a couple times. Marriage predates Abraham and you bring up Engels?

That's right, Communism contributed greatly to the argument against monogamy.
Ok. Let's see the master plan for that claim. Even extremely religous countries have cheating.

Shall we talk about Baker, Swaggert, etc....

Little wonder that social liberals today are moving towards more socialized industries, towards a veritable system of communism.

Well, what do we think marriage is about, then? The conservative camp believes that it's about family solidarity; maintaining the physical, social, and psychological well-being of children and parents, in order to propagate continuing generations of productive members of society.


Are you even married?

Sorry just about every family wants that.

The progressive camp argues that marriage is an institution that satisfies traditional society's male leaders at the expense of suffering women (or men, but that's just ridiculous).

Rather broad claim.


That gives it some kind of legitimacy, and for crying out loud, women need to be secure in their relationships, no one is arguing against that. The progressive camp has solved this issue by making marriage optional and easier to end. It's true that it's easier to end a marriage than it is to fire an employee. But, now it's the conservative camp's turn to ask, but at who's expense?


Forcing people to remain in a bad marriage is just plain dumb. Some marriages are repairable. Some aren't.

My mom tossed my old man and we were better for it. He was a 3 time loser and we would have been worst off if he remained.

Shall we talk about my friend who terminated a marriage because the (might I add) religious conservative husband would beat her?

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure.

I challenge you to prove that claim. Let's see the "research"

The conservative camp believes that divorce or the decision to not marry is damaging to men, women, and children. Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)
And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)


Meh. They want logins and jstor wants you to be in their network.


Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness. This is a direct refute of one such progressive argument. Well, let me just refer you to some articles.

Actually no it doesn't. Some of the worst schools have both biological parents(hmmm a statement about boy/girl friends and a parent or remarried people?) and the kids do poorly.

A parent needs to be involved in their kids education. Marital unhappiness tends to distract people. That is if they even care about it in the first place.

Marriage is NOT a declaration of good parenting.



Here. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673603123240/abstract)
And here. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020126/02a00150/0)
One more. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00093920/ap030232/03a00230/0)



OK, so we can see that the evidence seems to indicate that biological parents are just better for rearing their own children, and that married couples actually have more stability than cohabitating couples.


:D Wow. You really need to get out and talk to people. I can introduce you to many married people that are not better at rearing kids.

So all the conservative camp is trying to do is to protect the interests and the happiness of the men, women, and children involved in social arrangements. The evidence actually does point to marriage as being the best way to ensure happiness, stability, and success for adults and children.

Do you even know how many conservatives get divorces? More then you think.

As for such relationships contributing to substance abuse, domestic violence, depression, and suicide; these things are not unique to marriage, nor is marriage a reliable predictor of such things. The statistical association between marriage and any of these things is extremely small, and to claim causation like this is just ridiculous. The conservative Judeo-Christian values camp also proscribes against these, anyway, so it's not really fair to attack a system based on examples where the whole system is not being used.


Dang people really don't know what's good for them.


So again, the conservative camp fosters healthy, stable relationships, when marriage is done right. That seems pretty philanthropic, doesn't it? Apparently not. The general sentiment coming from the progressive camp is that society is some kind of dictator that favors men over women and should be abolished or at the most be a minimal influence in our lives. Isn't that anarchy?

As granddad would say. You are talking through your hat.

I don't know of any people that enter into marriage where they declared I want an unhealthy rocky arrangement!

Good luck reconciling communism and anarchy.

Progressives = communism = anarchy?

Wow.

On a personal note, my divorce was the best thing that ever happened to me. For the life of me, I cannot think of any reason why I should have continued in a miserable abusive relationship, or anyway in which its continuance could have benefited any other person or society as a whole. Perhaps someone from the "traditionalist" camp can enlighten me?

I tend to gravitate to his definition, although yours is the one I think most people use. In my mind, it is the commitment that matters, not the "official" status. In a very real sense, I believe my husband and I have been married for years, despite the fact that we actually just hit our official 5-month mark.

Thing is, getting an official marriage certificate didn't change my relationship with my husband. It didn't alter our commitment to each other. Having a wedding and getting legal documentation allowed us to share our decision with our friends and family and has allowed us legal protections we didn't yet have, but didn't change our relationship with each other.

I certainly think there is a difference between levels of commitment. A relationship can range from people who sometimes meet for drinks/sex to people who have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together. But I don't see any difference between my relationship with my husband the month before our wedding and the month after. And the studies I've seen presented here seem to agree with me.
There is a difference though. It's not much, but given human need to delineate everything under the sun, it's there. The month before, you weren't married, the month after, you were. In your mind, you've already marked that as SOME sort of point in your life, a change in status.

Heck, my wife and I joked how we act like an old married couple the night before our wedding (Something our friends noted) and nothing changed the day after in terms of how I feel about her, but I still "wear" my status as you will as her husband just as I'm sure you wear your status as your husband's wife.

The actual MEANING of said status depends upon you, your husband, culture, beliefs and local area and can range from life mate to sex toy to target, but it's still there.

Like I said though, how much that actually means now... ;)

You know, I don't have psychic powers, and I've often lamented that. The ability to read minds and see the future would be really handy in a lot of cases.

But it's nice to see that, even without such powers, I'm sometimes able to read people with great accuracy and predict the future. In this case, I knew from his first post that Rabarac wasn't going to actually read anything I'd posted, and that he wasn't remotely interested in having a legit discussion with me. I must confess a certain smug satisfaction in seeing my predictions come true.

I do want to thank the people who have actually troubled to READ before they respond. I'm only slightly disappointed that all of you seem to agree with me...this makes for a somewhat less entertaining debate! :D

Being responsible about who you marry was a major point in the very first post - in which Bottle pointed out that progressive values have allowed people to marry later in life and to put more thought into the decision to get married, rather than being pressured into it as something they *must* do. She also touted education as an important factor in strong marriages.
This was really a key point that I was making in the OP.

As a general rule, people tend to make better life choices when they have more information, more time to think, and more previous experience to draw upon. Progressive social values encourage people to apply this principle to marriage and relationships. Indeed, progressive values are the very values which state that marriage should be a choice in the first place, rather than an obligation that all individuals are compelled toward.

I think a marriage is stronger when both people knew what they were getting into and wanted to get into it. I think values which encourage people to know what they're getting into and choose what is best for themselves are values which will strengthen marriages. It's that simple.

Debunking the traditionalists postion was the point of the OP. It seems self evident to me that traditionalist champion their understanding of values from past centuries.

I don't know, in my experience, traditionalists' views tend to be based on 'when I was young...'.

I don't know, in my experience, traditionalists' views tend to be based on 'when I was young...'.

Nicely done, this move.

It was nice debating dempublicents about this; she forced me to refine my arguments, convinced me to concede a point about which there is no evidence, and she used eloquent personal anecdotes. Bottle, on the other hand, apparently expects everybody to bring up nothing but the few items of information he provides from a news report in the Times. I was making broader arguments about the intention of progressive values.

Bottle's argument does not lead from the article he posted; he uses figures it cites, which are estimates only, and attributes a political force behind them with little or no statistical correlation. As people have pointed out, there is no study that compares the marriages from before and after the mid-70's, and such a study could not be accurate anyway, as has been discussed. There is little or no basis for claiming that progressive values have lowered the divorce rate, the only conclusion that could come from the article in the OP is that divorce rates aren't rising, they're only lower than they were in a few recent decades. The figures in the article were approximations, at best; it basically gave about ten percent of marriages the benefit of the doubt and tacked on 4 extra years to rework the figures and then compared the rates. It's a shame that a decent writer and thinker like Bottle has chosen to resort to childish insults to support his view.

These points were made by other posters, so I didn't bother to address them. I was more interested in the claim that progressive values promote strong marriages. In my view, this simply isn't true, since progressive groups spend their resources typically against groups that foster marriages (yea, even strong marriages), and in support of groups like the NAMBLA.

Of course we all want the same good things in a relationship, progressives and traditionalists alike, we just believe in achieving it in a slightly different way. It does not hurt my argument to re-claim for my position what Bottle claimed for his. In fact, the only way we have a debate is if this happens.

I laugh at calls for proof of causation. You people know that the only way to establish causation is through experimentation, right? The only way to measure causation in such a case would be to have identical twins marry or cohabitate with identical twins and live in the exact same circumstances and study their lives throughout. That level of control is simply unethical, not to mention impossible. There can be no proof of causation in this matter.

I never equated communism and anarchy. The verb 'to reconcile' does not indicate equation, quite the opposite. Engels was the proponent of marriage as a weapon, not the idea of marriage itself; I apologize if this was unclear. Finally, I in no way support abusive relationships. Good for your mother.

It was nice debating dempublicents about this; she forced me to refine my arguments, convinced me to concede a point about which there is no evidence, and she used eloquent personal anecdotes. Bottle, on the other hand, apparently expects everybody to bring up nothing but the few items of information he provides from a news report in the Times. I was making broader arguments about the intention of progressive values.

1. Classic retreat. You seek to avoid answering Dem and others specific points by making a long, rambling post that side-steps the issues being debated.

2. Bottle is a "she."

3. Your arguments about the "intention of progressive values" is largely a parade of strawmen.

Bottle's argument does not lead from the article he posted; he uses figures it cites, which are estimates only, and attributes a political force behind them with little or no statistical correlation. As people have pointed out, there is no study that compares the marriages from before and after the mid-70's, and such a study could not be accurate anyway, as has been discussed. There is little or no basis for claiming that progressive values have lowered the divorce rate, the only conclusion that could come from the article in the OP is that divorce rates aren't rising, they're only lower than they were in a few recent decades. The figures in the article were approximations, at best; it basically gave about ten percent of marriages the benefit of the doubt and tacked on 4 extra years to rework the figures and then compared the rates. It's a shame that a decent writer and thinker like Bottle has chosen to resort to childish insults to support his view.

Meh. You below argue there can be no evidence of causation in this area, but then try to criticize Bottle for relying on evidence of correlation.

Moreover, you have rather missed Bottle's point. Increasingly progressive times have not seen an increase in divorce. To the contrary, divorce rates are down -- that is the opposite of what people like you predict is the consequence of progressive values.

These points were made by other posters, so I didn't bother to address them. I was more interested in the claim that progressive values promote strong marriages. In my view, this simply isn't true, since progressive groups spend their resources typically against groups that foster marriages (yea, even strong marriages), and in support of groups like the NAMBLA.

Progressive groups oppose marriage and support NAMBLA? Bullshit.

I'm not suprised that your view boils down to some trite strawman smear like that.

I laugh at calls for proof of causation. You people know that the only way to establish causation is through experimentation, right? The only way to measure causation in such a case would be to have identical twins marry or cohabitate with identical twins and live in the exact same circumstances and study their lives throughout. That level of control is simply unethical, not to mention impossible. There can be no proof of causation in this matter.

Nice way to avoid talking about the studies that are on the table. If there can be no proof, I guess wild speculation becomes acceptable.

I never equated communism and anarchy. The verb 'to reconcile' does not indicate equation, quite the opposite.

You equated progressive values with communism (more than once) and anarchy. That is what we objected too. Trying to act like you don't understand that point is simply bad form.

Engels was the proponent of marriage as a weapon, not the idea of marriage itself; I apologize if this was unclear.

Again, you were perfectly clear. You tried to make a sloppy ad hominem argument with the logic that if Engels supported a position it must be bad.

Finally, I in no way support abusive relationships. Good for your mother.

Good for you. How do you reconcile opposing divorce with not wanting to trap people in abusive relationships?

There is a difference though. It's not much, but given human need to delineate everything under the sun, it's there. The month before, you weren't married, the month after, you were. In your mind, you've already marked that as SOME sort of point in your life, a change in status.

Indeed. But it is a change in official status. It has nothing at all to do with any change in the relationship between my husband and I. Others view us differently, but we do not view each other any differentlly. The words we use when speaking with others may be different (ie. husband instead of fiance or boyfriend), but the way we actually view each other is not. That's what I was getting at.

These points were made by other posters, so I didn't bother to address them. I was more interested in the claim that progressive values promote strong marriages. In my view, this simply isn't true, since progressive groups spend their resources typically against groups that foster marriages (yea, even strong marriages), and in support of groups like the NAMBLA.

What groups are we talking about here? I don't know of any progressive groups that support NAMBLA or who are trying to get rid of marriage. I occasionally hear an individual doing one or the other, but I've never seen anything indicating either goal as a typical goal of progressive thinkers.

Long story short: I think the increase in progressive social values allowed people to more easily get out of bad marriages, while also increasing their ability to avoid getting in to bad marriages in the first place. This directly contradicts the established wisdom that permissive social values are the cause of high divorce rates.

They probably played a role, but I think there were other causes. First, people are marrying later and later, as you said. I think this is tied to the fact that more people are going to college, because it is becoming more necessary to in order to get a well-paying job. And of course, better medicine means you don't have to become a mother when your 20 if you want to have any children before you die.
At the same time, people are moving around more (like when they attend college). People are less likely to marry someone they grew up with, and I think this can have a effect on the divorce rate. You're more likely to divorce someone you've only known for two years than someone you've known since you were four.

At the same time, people are moving around more (like when they attend college). People are less likely to marry someone they grew up with, and I think this can have a effect on the divorce rate. You're more likely to divorce someone you've only known for two years than someone you've known since you were four.

......I think you missed something. Divorce rates are going down, but you're proposing an explanation for an increase in divorce.

A growing body of research is showing that divorced people aren't as happy as they thought they would be. Admittedly, they say they are happier than in their previous marriage, but for some reason life still sucks. Go figure.

So divorced couples are happier for having gotten divorced. 'Nuff said.

But let's not take your word for it. Here is a study:
Do Divorcing Couples Become Happier By Breaking Up? (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/jrssoct05.pdf)(pdf)

Men and women who are not married just don't have the same satisfaction in relationships. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020133/02a00130/0) Here's another one. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020140/02a00200/0)

These links both require subscriptions to JSTOR. Please give the titles and dates of the article and quote the most relevant parts. (Or provide a link that is usable).

We simply can't have an intelligent discussion if your links remain hidden.

Without reading the first study, however, I can note that it probably doesn't prove anything. Those in a marriage are those most likely to benefit from marriage, thus they are likely to have higher satisfaction in relationships. That doesn't mean there is anything magic about the marital contract.

And on divorce. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x?cookieSet=1)

This link takes me to an error message. Again, provide the information necessary to assess your assertion.

Children I could go on for hours. There is a hefty body of evidence regarding children and family solidarity. The facts point out that for some 'magical' reason, children do much better socially and academically when both biological parents are in the home, regardless of the marital happiness. This is a direct refute of one such progressive argument. Well, let me just refer you to some articles.

Here. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673603123240/abstract)

This is just an abstract.

But more importantly it compares "children living in households with one adult and those living in households with two adults." Nothing directly linked to marriage, divorce, or biological parents.

That you would cite this study to support your thesis leads me to believe your other citations may also be without merit.


And here. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00222445/ap020126/02a00150/0)
One more. (http://www.jstor.org/view/00093920/ap030232/03a00230/0)

Again, these require subscriptions.

As further refutation of your thesis, I point to the following article and study:
Matrimony Has Its Benefits, and Divorce Has a Lot to Do With That (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/business/19scene.html?ex=1334635200&en=f44f4a8d8b639402&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces (http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/JEP_Marriage_and_Divorce.pdf)(pdf)

......I think you missed something. Divorce rates are going down, but you're proposing an explanation for an increase in divorce.

I don't think that caused divorce rates to increase, I was just explaining what I thought was behind most modern marriages and divorces.

damn it TCT, are you actually expecting people to read their own sources? Damn you and you dirty liberal ideology!

One of the most common refrains I hear from anti-feminists and social conservatives is how feminism and permissive liberal attitudes about sexuality have lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution.

The oft-cited statistic is that 50% of American marriages end in divorce, and the oft-repeated assertion is that back in The Good Old Days (when women were housebots and gay people didn't exist) everybody stayed married and liked it fine.

I'm sure you all will be shocked--shocked!--to learn that this is a load of hooey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html?em&ex=1191297600&en=ac8146a0a0c71360&ei=5087

As it turns out, divorce rates are the lowest they've been since the 1970s. You know, that decade of bra-burning and women's lib and all that jazz?

People who married in the 1990s are more likely to have celebrated a 10th anniversary than those who wed in the 1980s, who, in turn, are more likely to have stayed together than those who married in the 1970s.

My theory? The liberalization of divorce laws and the increase in gender equality around the 1970s allowed a whole lot of people to get out of marriages that they'd been wanting to escape. Remember that the "baby boomer" era was one in which a whole bunch of people married very young and had a ton of children, both of which are serious stress factors for marriages. Divorce wasn't a realistic option for quite some time, so it's no surprise that when it finally became one there would be some people chomping at the bit.

In this regard, progressive changes in society did contribute to an increase in the divorce rate, by making it easier for people to escape bad marriages.

However, socially progressive changes (including feminism) began to have a positive impact at the same time. People (particularly women) felt more free to get married when they were a bit older, which would allow them to have more experience and maturation under their belts before they selected a life-long mate. Increased access to contraception has allowed more control over family size, which also helps keep marriages together. Greater access to education and economic opportunities for women also help out tremendously. And so on...there's a bunch more to list, of course.

Long story short: I think the increase in progressive social values allowed people to more easily get out of bad marriages, while also increasing their ability to avoid getting in to bad marriages in the first place. This directly contradicts the established wisdom that permissive social values are the cause of high divorce rates.

The best phrased post I've seen in history. I'm not gonna speak in debates, just link to your posts.

2. Bottle is a "she."


Wow, that's embarassing. My sincere apologies.


Meh. You below argue there can be no evidence of causation in this area, but then try to criticize Bottle for relying on evidence of correlation.


Bottle has no correlation, it's actually speculation, as she said in the OP. The link she provided doesn't support her argument at all, it's talking about divorce rates within the progressive era, not comparing them to within and without the era. The article's figures are estimates, and there's no real comparison to the strength of marriage with progressive values or without, and such a study would be flawed because of the political and historical environment about it. That's my opinion of the OP.


Moreover, you have rather missed Bottle's point. Increasingly progressive times have not seen an increase in divorce. To the contrary, divorce rates are down -- that is the opposite of what people like you predict is the consequence of progressive values.


I never said that divorce was becoming more common. I stipulate that cohabitation is becoming more common.


Progressive groups oppose marriage and support NAMBLA? Bullshit.


You can read NAMBLA's homepage where they identify themselves as having progressive values, if you would like.


Nice way to avoid talking about the studies that are on the table. If there can be no proof, I guess wild speculation becomes acceptable.


No one's barking at Bottle for speculating. I show correlations and then people demand proof?


You equated progressive values with communism (more than once) and anarchy. That is what we objected too. Trying to act like you don't understand that point is simply bad form.


No, really, the responses seemed to criticize me for relating communism to anarchy. Forgive me for misunderstanding when they didn't even use full sentences.


Again, you were perfectly clear. You tried to make a sloppy ad hominem argument with the logic that if Engels supported a position it must be bad.


I never said it was a bad position because Engels said it, I just said that that's where the assumption began. If Bottle can discredit me simply by claiming that I haven't read the thread (untrue), then why is there outrage about me discrediting an argument because it began with a proponent of an unpopular, abusive, defunct economic system?


Good for you. How do you reconcile opposing divorce with not wanting to trap people in abusive relationships?

I never opposed divorce as an institution; it's vital in such situations. But advocating easier divorces to make marriages better seems almost counter-intuitive. Not every marriage that has trouble is abusive. A little therapy, a little counseling, does a world of wonders for thousands of people every year. I never addressed abusive relationships, but progressive values have not only freed people from abusive relationships, but lifted the responsibility for many to take care of their relationships in the first place. Necessarily? No, but that's been the byproduct, alongside a smaller rate of divorce.

The states that make up the Bible Belt have some of the highest divoce rates in the country. Massachusetts, the state that gave gays the right to marry, has one of the lowest.Last time I checked Oklahoma was right up there at the top. Such a liberal, progressive state. You know adultery still carries up to a five year prison term here? Considering my divorce wasn't yet final when I moved up here, I'm hoping the statute of limitations is up. :p

You can read NAMBLA's homepage where they identify themselves as having progressive values, if you would like.

And if they said, "We're conservative!" would that make it true?

Given the long history of adults entering into relationships with young people long before those people are mature, they could actually claim to be "traditional".

I just said that that's where the assumption began.

Really?

Engels, specifically, was concerned with a materialist analysis of marriage--an analysis of how the institution, in the capitalist context, was rooted in property relations.

His ideas as to what marriage constituted were hardly new in radical circles.

You can read NAMBLA's homepage where they identify themselves as having progressive values, if you would like.

So?

The real question is not whether NAMBLA is "progressive"... it is whether progressives, broadly speaking, support NAMBLA. They (obviously) do not.

You can read NAMBLA's homepage where they identify themselves as having progressive values, if you would like.


How they elect to describe themselves is entirely irelevant to your spurious claim that progresives support NAMBLA.

The correlated bullshit statement pointed the other way would be an assertion that all conservatives actively support the KKK because the KKK defines themselves as conservative.

Or that people exonerated thanks to Project Truth support OJ Simpson because he self-identifies himself as innocent....

Or that all Christians actively support the Westboro Baptist Church.

Or that all musicians support Britney Spears.

Or... well, I think the point is made. Which is that you's originating statement was a steaming pile of BS that sinks far below the most basic standards of reasoned, logical discourse.

Or... well, I think the point is made. Which is that you's originating statement was a steaming pile of BS that sinks far below the most basic standards of reasoned, logical discourse.

Ah, such emotion! But such an off-base accusation, too. The ACLU in America has defended NAMBLA on multiple occasions, are they a progressive group? I dunno. Mrs. Hillary Clinton? What group would I have to associate them with in order to satisfy you? Is there a Progressive Party I can investigate for you?

Would you care to address the argument that the thread is about, now that you have demanded it out of me? You know what, don't bother. I grow tired of these peripheral arguments over semantics and minor irrelevancies. I've made my point about the OP and that seems to still stand. Enjoy agreeing with each other.

The ACLU in America has defended NAMBLA on multiple occasions

The ACLU has defended the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church, too.

Their defense of the civil liberties of organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with any agreement with their message.

The ACLU has defended the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church, too.

Their defense of the civil liberties of organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with any agreement with their message.

How about Harry Hay, then? The 'father' of the gay rights movement, a celebrated progressive era hero, said this:


“Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”


His support of NAMBLA was only second to his support for homosexuals. He was never a member, but he appeared and spoke at many events and openly supported them. Does he count as progressive? NAMBLA's website features him, too. I'm sorry for returning, but when I saw this tidbit, well, I just couldn't help myself. I'm really done now, have a good night.

Bottle has no correlation, it's actually speculation, as she said in the OP. The link she provided doesn't support her argument at all, it's talking about divorce rates within the progressive era, not comparing them to within and without the era. The article's figures are estimates, and there's no real comparison to the strength of marriage with progressive values or without, and such a study would be flawed because of the political and historical environment about it. That's my opinion of the OP.


Bottle isn't speculating. The article she linked expressly stated the existence of the false hypothesis that progressive values were increasing divorce. It further provided evidence that divorce rates are down over the last quarter-century.

But a useful family policy should instead be based on facts. The facts are that divorce is down, and today’s marriages are more stable than they have been in decades.

As for your demand for a broader study that looks up and down a longer time period, you should read the study I linked: Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces (http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/JEP_Marriage_and_Divorce.pdf)(pdf)

Here are a few facts from that study:
Figure 1 lays out some facts about marriage and divorce in the United States over the last 150 years: the divorce rate—measured as the number of new divorces each year on a per capita basis—has risen, while the marriage rate has fluctuated around a relatively stable mean.

Divorce rates have increased at a similar rate across the last 150 years. Current divorce rates can be predicted from the divorce rates from 1860 to 1945. While the 1970s overshot the trend, the subsequent fall in divorce has put the divorce rate back on the trend line, and by 2005, the annual divorce rate projected by the pre-1946 trend is quite close to actual divorce rates.

Figure 1 also points to a remarkable and often overlooked fact: the divorce rate per thousand people actually peaked in 1981, and has been declining over the ensuing quarter century. The divorce rate in 2005—3.6 divorces per thousand people—is at its lowest level since 1970.

Yet even when measuring the number of divorces relative to the “at-risk
population” (that is, those who are currently married), we see a similar decline in the divorce rate over the last 25 years, falling from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 to 16.7 in 2005.

Figure 3 shows the proportion of the population currently married, by age, for
every-other-decade, from 1880 to the present. Four striking patterns emerge from this analysis. First, the proportion married at each age has been surprisingly stable over more than a century; the pattern in 1980, for instance, is remarkably similar to that in 1880.

So the data. Especially data that looks at marriage and divorce over the last 150 years in the U.S. clearly supports Bottle's theses.

You can read NAMBLA's homepage where they identify themselves as having progressive values, if you would like.

Is this really the best you can come up with?

Whether or not NAMBLA claims to be a progressive organization is irrelevant to whether progressives in an significant way support NAMBLA. They simply don't and you should withdraw your feeble smear tactic.


I never said it was a bad position because Engels said it, I just said that that's where the assumption began. If Bottle can discredit me simply by claiming that I haven't read the thread (untrue), then why is there outrage about me discrediting an argument because it began with a proponent of an unpopular, abusive, defunct economic system?

LOL. I love how your first sentence denies that you were making an ad hominem argument about the (alleged) source of an argument. Then, in your second sentence you want to know what is wrong with "discrediting an argument" through an ad hominem.

I never opposed divorce as an institution; it's vital in such situations. But advocating easier divorces to make marriages better seems almost counter-intuitive. Not every marriage that has trouble is abusive. A little therapy, a little counseling, does a world of wonders for thousands of people every year. I never addressed abusive relationships, but progressive values have not only freed people from abusive relationships, but lifted the responsibility for many to take care of their relationships in the first place. Necessarily? No, but that's been the byproduct, alongside a smaller rate of divorce.

Did you just concede that a byproduct of progressive values is a smaller rate of divorce? It certainly seems like you did.

Ah, such emotion! But such an off-base accusation, too. The ACLU in America has defended NAMBLA on multiple occasions, are they a progressive group? I dunno. Mrs. Hillary Clinton? What group would I have to associate them with in order to satisfy you? Is there a Progressive Party I can investigate for you?

Would you care to address the argument that the thread is about, now that you have demanded it out of me? You know what, don't bother. I grow tired of these peripheral arguments over semantics and minor irrelevancies. I've made my point about the OP and that seems to still stand. Enjoy agreeing with each other.

How about Harry Hay, then? The 'father' of the gay rights movement, a celebrated progressive era hero, said this:

His support of NAMBLA was only second to his support for homosexuals. He was never a member, but he appeared and spoke at many events and openly supported them. Does he count as progressive? NAMBLA's website features him, too. I'm sorry for returning, but when I saw this tidbit, well, I just couldn't help myself. I'm really done now, have a good night.

1. For someone that is tired of peripheral arguments and minor irrelevancies, you seem to be wallowing in just such quibbling now.

2. You know full well that the ACLU's "defense" of NAMBLA has nothing whatsoever with support for NAMBLA's agenda.

3. Why do you bring up Hillary Clinton? Is she someone supportive of NAMBLA?

4. I'm not sure if you are lying or merely exaggerating Henry Hay's support of NAMBLA.

5. Regardless, this is a dead-end pointless "argument." Yes, NAMBLA exists. It's cause is not only not held, but rather is opposed by the vast majority of progressives.

6. We could play this same game with right-wing nutcase groups like Operation Rescue, the KKK, white supremicists, etc.

7. Now that is out of our system, how about you go back and respond to the many substantive posts regarding your argument with the OP.

They probably played a role, but I think there were other causes. First, people are marrying later and later, as you said. I think this is tied to the fact that more people are going to college, because it is becoming more necessary to in order to get a well-paying job. And of course, better medicine means you don't have to become a mother when your 20 if you want to have any children before you die.

Both true. Both, also, points that I specifically raised in my OP.

And who, pray tell, has fought to make it possible for female human beings to go to college, work outside the home, own their own property, and obtain reproductive health care? Hmm...:D


At the same time, people are moving around more (like when they attend college). People are less likely to marry someone they grew up with, and I think this can have a effect on the divorce rate. You're more likely to divorce someone you've only known for two years than someone you've known since you were four.
Really? Do you have numbers on that? (Honestly curious, not baiting you or anything.)

I grow tired of these peripheral arguments over semantics and minor irrelevancies.
Me too. Are you done wandering off into hopeless tangents about NAMBLA yet?


I've made my point about the OP and that seems to still stand.

Which point was that? So far, I've seen everything you've proposed be demolished by at least two different people. If I'm missing something, please point it out.


Enjoy agreeing with each other.
You should know by now that we much prefer disagreeing with you, though it would be nice if you'd start throwing us some decent pitches instead of lobbing all these softballs.

<snip>

7. Now that is out of our system, how about you go back and respond to the many substantive posts regarding your argument with the OP.

Clearly, that will be impossible for him.

After a couple days' absence, I return to find myself (along with others) yet again being used to prop up some ridiculous strawman belonging to someone not brave enough to address the arguments people here have actually made. Annoyed to the max, I was prepared to attack Rabarac's statements point-by-point, but I am happy to see that you and others have done that very well already. Thank you.

Having read all of Rabarac's posts so far, I have to say that this self-appointed representative of the "conservative camp" is doing them no favors. He obviously came into the thread with a fully conceived set of prejudices and no intention of testing them by comparing them to the facts presented in Bottle's OP. In fact, the only word he seems to have responded to at all is "progressive" which he knee-jerk defines as "communist," "anarchist," and "anti-marriage" -- despite a total lack of information to support such associations and a positive presence of information debunking them. He even goes so far -- without the slightest provocation -- to accuse progressives as being supporters of NAMBLA. What a disgusting insult!

Not surprisingly, upon having his fantastical assertions shot down, he tries to backpedal and change the subject rather than attempt to defend what cannot be defended.

From his opening tactic of presenting a frankenstein monster of a false post -- cobbled together out of different people's statements taken out of context and without proper attribution and mashed together as if they had originally been made in relation to each other (the physical body of his strawman, I suppose) -- to his final attempt to demonize progressives by those offensive NAMBLA remarks, Rabarac has shown us nothing here but intellectual dishonesty, underhanded personal attacks, and a total disregard for facts. As far as I am concerned, he has completely discredited himself. If there are any conservatives who do not want to be represented by such as he, I suggest they speak up, because this representative of the "conservative camp" is not good for their reputation.

I would also point out that, so far, Rabarac's embarrassingly bad performance has been the only attempt to attack the OP argument. If this is the best opposition that can be offered, then I believe we may take the OP's points as carried. Conclusion: Progressive values encourage healthy marriages and, therefore, invigorate and strengthen the social institution of marriage in general, and no one can prove otherwise.

librulz hav no values cuz they hate families and want us all 2 b sodomites

;)

How about Harry Hay, then? The 'father' of the gay rights movement, a celebrated progressive era hero, said this:

The "father" of the gay rights movement? That's, um, questionable. At most, the father of the US gay rights movement.

Harry Hay was also a Communist, like many of the early Mattachine Society members. But you already said that you wouldn't equate progressives with Communists... so clearly you recognize that this argument is absurd. ;)

His support of NAMBLA was only second to his support for homosexuals.

An interesting statement. I don't think there's any real support for it.

He was never a member, but he appeared and spoke at many events and openly supported them.

He did so, incidentally, long after his leadership role in the gay rights movement (such as it was) had passed.

Does he count as progressive?

Yes. Indeed, I have never even disputed that NAMBLA itself counts as progressive.

But, surprising as it may be to you, the progressive movement is not monolithic... just because some progressives support certain things does not mean that the rest of us do.

In the case of NAMBLA, it is quite clear that the vast majority of progressives oppose it.

"since progressive groups spend their resources typically against groups that foster marriages (yea, even strong marriages), and in support of groups like the NAMBLA."

Backpedaling, are you?

librulz hav no values cuz they hate families and want us all 2 b sodomites

;)
That's totally untrue. Liberals don't want EVERYBODY to be sodomites. At least a few people have to be doing it hetero-style so they can get preggers and we libruls can abort their bay-bees.

That's totally untrue. Liberals don't want EVERYBODY to be sodomites. At least a few people have to be doing it hetero-style so they can get preggers and we libruls can abort their bay-bees.

Nah, we had ur ebil librul scientiztz invent artificial insemination to do that.

Oh, right. Forgot about that.

Never mind. Back to your sodomy, everyone.
But... if we're all busy doing the 3bv1L buttsexors, how are we getting the sperm for the insemination?

... Er, never mind. I just thought ahead and I really don't want to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion.

Nah, we had ur ebil librul scientiztz invent artificial insemination to do that.
Oh, right. Forgot about that.

Never mind. Back to your sodomy, everyone.

But... if we're all busy doing the 3bv1L buttsexors, how are we getting the sperm for the insemination?

... Er, never mind. I just thought ahead and I really don't want to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion.

Did you not hear, they can now make sperm from stem cells! All we need do is kill some babies to get em!

Oh, right. Forgot about that.

Never mind. Back to your sodomy, everyone.

Had no idea Bottle was a fan of pegging :p

But... if we're all busy doing the 3bv1L buttsexors, how are we getting the sperm for the insemination?

... Er, never mind. I just thought ahead and I really don't want to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion.


Well, some of us will have to bite the bullet and use a condom then ;)

I would also point out that, so far, Rabarac's embarrassingly bad performance has been the only attempt to attack the OP argument. If this is the best opposition that can be offered, then I believe we may take the OP's points as carried.

I must confess some disappointment on this front.

So far, the only substantive opposition has been so hilariously lame that I suspect at least one of the "opposition" was actually a left-wing operative taking the piss.


Conclusion: Progressive values encourage healthy marriages and, therefore, invigorate and strengthen the social institution of marriage in general, and no one can prove otherwise.
Maybe if I were to say, "Conservative values result in weaker marriages" it would stir up enough controversy to get some of the real conservatives in here.

I must confess some disappointment on this front.

So far, the only substantive opposition has been so hilariously lame that I suspect at least one of the "opposition" was actually a left-wing operative taking the piss.
This is entirely possible. In fact, I often wonder if some of the people who post here aren't professional comedy writers. But Rabarac still deserves to be beaten about the head and shoulders for this particular performance.


Maybe if I were to say, "Conservative values result in weaker marriages" it would stir up enough controversy to get some of the real conservatives in here.
Well, if what we've seen here is anything to judge by, maybe they haven't responded because they don't know what the word "progressive" means.

But... if we're all busy doing the 3bv1L buttsexors, how are we getting the sperm for the insemination?

... Er, never mind. I just thought ahead and I really don't want to take that line of thought to its logical conclusion.

If you mean what I think you mean, you have a sick disgusting mind.

If you don't mean what I think you mean, then I guess I have a sick disgusting mind.

I must confess some disappointment on this front.

So far, the only substantive opposition has been so hilariously lame that I suspect at least one of the "opposition" was actually a left-wing operative taking the piss.

Aren't they all?

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22452