Decline Of Marriage And Possible Solutions To Reverse The Trend

[Norseman82]

if a catholic man is thinking about what the outcome could be in divorce court he should not be getting married plain and simple.  So who gives a flip what happens in divorce court.  If you go into marriage with divorce as a possible out, your not practicing your faith properly and are being unjust to your future wife.

Whereas what you say is true in general, there are also the unfortunate circumstances where one spouse could be the "innocent victim" in which they are unwilling to divorce but the other spouse goes ahead over their objections. 

 

Of course, studies show that the more a husband and wife practice their religion, that decreases the risk of divorce, so it is important for practicing Catholics to be there for one another when it comes to looking for spouses so that Catholics don't have to go outside the Church to find a spouse and therefore take on unnecessary risk. 

 

Additionally, Polskieserce was referring to economic incentives as well.  Many have complained that the tax code is structured such that marriage is penalized (google "marriage penalty").  Additionally, some benefits are curtailed if one gets married:  I have heard of social security benefits, as well as if single mothers marry the fathers of their children, they lose their government assistance or see it cut back (I am not looking to go off on a tangent on whether we should have welfare programs or not, I am just illustrating a point).

Edited February 21, 2014 by Norseman82

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

So you are saying that people don't analyze the pros and cons of long term, life changing decisions?  Women are obviously going to be more pro-marriage since the legalities and social structure of marriage are geared for their benefit, while with men, it is geared towards reducing their autonomy in every aspect of life.  I agree 100% that the education bubble and poor economy are taking a big toll on the marriage rate, but those issues are only part of the story.  Marriage was declining long before the great recession began.

 

Oh come on, don't be ridiculous. Of course people analyze pros and cons, but when it comes to things like relationships people aren't so cold and analytical. Women generally don't think about marriage as pragmatically as you're framing it.  You're making marriage sound like some trap women set for men. 

[Norseman82]

There's also this idea in society that you need "all of your ducks in a row" before getting married. You need to establish a good-paying and solid career, have money in the bank, and be able to afford an expensive ring and even more expensive wedding. In this era of student debt, none of these things usually happens until people are in their late 30's. Add onto the fact that people also won't have children until after a few years of marriage, because again, they need these mythical pesky ducks in a row. This actually reminds me of what one Catholic apologist said when someone asked him if it was okay to wait to have children after marriage until he had the money: "It depends on your economic situation, but I'll tell you, I have five children, and if I waited to have them until I had the money, I wouldn't have ever had them."

 

Add to that the theological untruth that you are not qualified to be married unless you are willing first to be alone for the rest of your life.  This leads to a joke: 

 

Q:  "What do you say to a man who knows he can live a life without a wife and kids?"

A:  "Bless me father, for I have sinned..."

Edited February 21, 2014 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

Premarital sex was common in bygone eras. It just wasn't talked about unless a problem came up.

 

It also wasn't glorified in public like it is today.  In fact, society in general frowned upon such things as cohabitation and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and that served as a societal "brake", whereas today it is completely the opposite (google the term "virgin-shaming" to see what I am talking about).

[PhuturePriest]

It also wasn't glorified in public like it is today. In fact, society in general frowned upon such things as cohabitation and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and that served as a societal "brake", whereas today it is completely the opposite (google the term "virgin-shaming" to see what I am talking about).

At the same time, it was wrong for people back then to shame people who had premarital sex and conceived children out of wedlock and turn them into outcasts. Those people need love and pastoral care and correction, not to be shunned.

I'm not saying you were saying differently, but just clarifying.

[CatherineM]

Plus, when a woman got in trouble 50 - 100 years ago, unless she had been raped, she knew who the father was. Maury Povich was on the TV in a waiting room I was stuck in, and he had a woman on there who had had 10 potential baby daddies on for DNA tests and still didn't find out who had fathered her child. You're fertile for like 48 hours at most in a month. Even narrowing it down to a week, how would a woman not be able to narrow it down to less than 12 guys? I'm not sure our local prostitutes get that much action.

[polskieserce]

Lon Chaney, Jr. is an example. Contrary to what his dad's bio movie showed, his dad was repeatedly refused custody of him because he was an unmarried man. Didn't matter how nice his home was or how much money he made. He got custody immediately after marrying.

 

I have not heard of that.  Not saying it didn't happen, but what I mostly heard of were cases in which fathers were awarded primary custody.  Not that it was fair either, but the point I'm making is that there was more in it for a man in previous eras.  Nowadays, the risks are much higher and the rewards are much lower.  That's why more and more people are asking: Why even bother?

 

if a catholic man is thinking about what the outcome could be in divorce court he should not be getting married plain and simple.  So who gives a flip what happens in divorce court.  If you go into marriage with divorce as a possible out, your not practicing your faith properly and are being unjust to your future wife.

 

There are two points I want to make.  Serious practicing Christians (regardless of what branch they are) as a whole do not make up the majority of the population.  What I'm getting at is what it would take on a political and economic level to spark interest in marriage among the general population, not just serious practicing christians.  The 2nd point is that it's illogical to make a decision without thinking about possible negative consequences.  If signing a marital contract gives the woman legal claim over assets that she never worked for, then the man has a logical reason to be concerned and question the necessity for such an unfair contract.  It's as simple as that.  Going by your logic, people should not bother with car insurance, since it's thinking about the outcome of a future car accident.

 

Whereas what you say is true in general, there are also the unfortunate circumstances where one spouse could be the "innocent victim" in which they are unwilling to divorce but the other spouse goes ahead over their objections. 

 

Of course, studies show that the more a husband and wife practice their religion, that decreases the risk of divorce, so it is important for practicing Catholics to be there for one another when it comes to looking for spouses so that Catholics don't have to go outside the Church to find a spouse and therefore take on unnecessary risk. 

 

Additionally, Polskieserce was referring to economic incentives as well.  Many have complained that the tax code is structured such that marriage is penalized (google "marriage penalty").  Additionally, some benefits are curtailed if one gets married:  I have heard of social security benefits, as well as if single mothers marry the fathers of their children, they lose their government assistance or see it cut back (I am not looking to go off on a tangent on whether we should have welfare programs or not, I am just illustrating a point).

 

That's precisely my point.  The legal contract (marriage contract) does not guarantee anything except the fact that it will be a hassle to break up.  If one of the spouses, usually the woman, starts making demands for things that she never worked for or decides she wants to be more litigious, then the man in the relationship can easily spend a fortune on attorney fees trying to defend what he worked for.  As norseman pointed out, there are other financial penalties that come with marriage.  It's clear that there are many financial risks with marriage.  The point I'm trying to make in the thread is that the financial rewards have to be greater than the financial risks for the majority of the population to have greater in marriage.  Otherwise, when they ask what the point of marriage is, there isn't much pragmatic justification.

 

Oh come on, don't be ridiculous. Of course people analyze pros and cons, but when it comes to things like relationships people aren't so cold and analytical. Women generally don't think about marriage as pragmatically as you're framing it.  You're making marriage sound like some trap women set for men. 

 

Of course women don't think about the pragmatic aspects of marriage that much.  They have already been raised to want marriage and marriage is more compatible with a woman's innate nature than it is with a man's innate nature. They don't need to analyze every minute pragmatic detail because it's already as visible as daylight that marriage primarily benefits women and children, not the man in the relationship.  And even if a girl is completely ignorant and has been living under a rock, if her marriage does fall apart, then a divorce attorney will see to it personally that she knows about her unfair legal advantages (and how they can be used to milk her ex until he is penniless).

 

Plus, when a woman got in trouble 50 - 100 years ago, unless she had been raped, she knew who the father was. Maury Povich was on the TV in a waiting room I was stuck in, and he had a woman on there who had had 10 potential baby daddies on for DNA tests and still didn't find out who had fathered her child. You're fertile for like 48 hours at most in a month. Even narrowing it down to a week, how would a woman not be able to narrow it down to less than 12 guys? I'm not sure our local prostitutes get that much action.

 

You make another excellent point.  In  previous decades, people were not as sexually active as they are now.  Yes, I know that premarital sex occurred and a lot of stuff wasn't talked about as much, but it was less prevalent than it is today.  One incentive for people to get married was that there were more virgins available.  Nowadays, even people who claim to be catholic are likely to be non-virgins before marriage.  That raises another question (even among secular men): "Why bother getting married and taking a lot of extra legal risks if you are still likely to end up with a woman who has been sexually active with a different man?"   For those of you who still remember the infamous finding a virgin thread from last year, we discussed this in great detail.

[HisChildForever]

Women are obviously going to be more pro-marriage since the legalities and social structure of marriage are geared for their benefit, while with men, it is geared towards reducing their autonomy in every aspect of life. 

 

I would argue that a woman's autonomy is far more at risk. Our society expects her to take on his name. Her legal identity is now based on his. And if she does decide to be a homemaker, and her husband becomes disabled, dies, or runs off with another woman, she has no real financial means to provide for herself or their children. Maybe she doesn't have a college education or if she does her resume is lacking job experience. Both a degree and experience are required if she is going to be a single mom with a few kids. Women are also disparaged (generally speaking) for wanting to be a homemaker, AND for wanting to be a mom with a career. Men have the "luxury" of having kids and a career without judgment--and if they stay home with the kids, it's endearing (for the most part), or frowned upon at most. He won't be ridiculed or judged like her.

 

It's clear that you're dead-set on men/husbands/fathers = victims of marriage/women. I honestly can only assume that you've experienced this in some capacity, which is why you have such a fixed opinion. I know because I've been there--I was in an abusive relationship years ago, and for quite some time after I was convinced that marriage = slavery for women. But now I'm engaged. I can't fault you, really. Just remember that time heals all wounds.

[Norseman82]

 What I'm getting at is what it would take on a political and economic level to spark interest in marriage among the general population, not just serious practicing christians. 

 

Well, politically speaking, some states - I know Arkansas and maybe Louisiana, maybe others - have adopted an option called "covenant marriage", in which it is harder to get divorced: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

Edited February 22, 2014 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

At the same time, it was wrong for people back then to shame people who had premarital sex and conceived children out of wedlock and turn them into outcasts. Those people need love and pastoral care and correction, not to be shunned.

I'm not saying you were saying differently, but just clarifying.

 

But in today's age are they even getting correction?  And do not some people consider a simple correction to be a form of shaming? 

[polskieserce]

I would argue that a woman's autonomy is far more at risk. Our society expects her to take on his name. Her legal identity is now based on his. And if she does decide to be a homemaker, and her husband becomes disabled, dies, or runs off with another woman, she has no real financial means to provide for herself or their children. Maybe she doesn't have a college education or if she does her resume is lacking job experience. Both a degree and experience are required if she is going to be a single mom with a few kids. Women are also disparaged (generally speaking) for wanting to be a homemaker, AND for wanting to be a mom with a career. Men have the "luxury" of having kids and a career without judgment--and if they stay home with the kids, it's endearing (for the most part), or frowned upon at most. He won't be ridiculed or judged like her.

 

It's clear that you're dead-set on men/husbands/fathers = victims of marriage/women. I honestly can only assume that you've experienced this in some capacity, which is why you have such a fixed opinion. I know because I've been there--I was in an abusive relationship years ago, and for quite some time after I was convinced that marriage = slavery for women. But now I'm engaged. I can't fault you, really. Just remember that time heals all wounds.

 

If women were truly more at risk than men, then they would not be embracing marriage in the numbers we currently have.  But the reality is that there is more in it for a woman than a man.  I have spoken to several females on the issue who agreed with that statement.  Your first 2 points about last names and legal identity aren't huge issues.  A woman doesn't lose here identity when she changes her last name.  Regarding housewives, unless a couple is planning to have a really large family, then there is no reason why a woman should not be working.  If she chooses to be a housewife, then she should accept the fact that it will be harder to get a job if she gets divorced.  I don't see that as a justification for her husband to have to pay her alimony and divide assets that she did not work for.  The family courts feel differently since family law is geared in favor of the woman.  Family judges give women handsome alimony payments, divorce settlements, make the husband pay for her attorney fees if she couldn't afford a lawyer, give her custody of the kids, etc.  If you have some time, Google "Marriage strike".  You will see some interesting articles about a growing number of men who are turning away from marriage due to the legal risks.  Marriage is not declining because of a few people who are unhappy about it.  Marriage is declining because a large part of the population is either delaying it or writing it off completely.

 

Regarding my personal life, yes, I have seen this stuff happen with my parents' marriage, as well as the parents of my friends.  I would be willing to get married to a girl that meets my criteria.  However, if I had to pick between being unmarried for the rest of my life and having to compromise on core demands I have for a girl, then I would rather just do a solo flight.  The rewards always have to be bigger than the risks for me to do something.  That's the motto I operate under.  My decision to be reluctant to marry is not a trauma-based reaction.  It is the product of observing other people, seeing the risks/rewards, and deciding for myself what level of risk is acceptable and what it would take for me to sign a contract like that.

 

 

[4588686]

Hey I like this how you doing?

[CatherineM]

I've seen/done a couple of hundred divorces. Did five for my secretary. Don't know where you are getting your stats from about alimony. Most of the time if alimony is given, it is only given where the husband is at fault, and the marriage lasted at least ten years.

As down as you are on women, I hope for my sisters' sakes that you don't find one that meets your requirements.

[Winchester]

More costumes. 

[NotreDame]

Didn't you guys read brave new world?  Or maybe a little Asimov or Heinlein?  That's basically what's happening.  Until we can design FTL drives and break free from the local systems we are all doomed.