Decline Of Marriage And Possible Solutions To Reverse The Trend

[NotreDame]

So is "patronizing." :|

 

I think the word you are looking for is "condescending." 

[PhuturePriest]

It's really sad in a thread on marriage when a 17yo with limited life experience makes the most sense, but this post and your next are closer to the mark than any other post on this thread.  When you go on to say that these are cultural/secular issues that aren't going to change because society's going to become increasingly immoral per B16... well, you nailed it.

 

Was there any doubt that my posts always make incredible sense and nail the issues?

[NotreDame]

Was there any doubt that my posts always make incredible sense and nail the issues?

 

I am giving credit where it's due :bravo:
 

[PhuturePriest]

I am giving credit where it's due :bravo:
 

 

You and your loved ones will be spared death when I rule the world one day.

[Deus te Amat]

You and your loved ones will be spared death when I rule the world one day.

According to your posts, you are going to be a married priest dictator. Sounds like fun.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think the word you are looking for is "condescending." 

 

They're synonyms. But if you want to get technical, your response to me is condescending because you're saying I'm too young to know any better, and once me and my friends are in our 30s that inevitable baby fever will set in and I'll understand oh so much better.  Your response to 171 was patronizing because you're using false flattery (oh that's an awfully big word for you to use!) to also imply that she's too young to know better. 

 

You responded to Catherine without any of that tone, so I'm sure the rest of us would appreciate the same favor. Stop belittling the arguments of people who might be younger than you simply because we're younger than you. 

[NotreDame]

They're synonyms. But if you want to get technical, your response to me is condescending because you're saying I'm too young to know any better, and once me and my friends are in our 30s that inevitable baby fever will set in and I'll understand oh so much better.  Your response to 171 was patronizing because you're using false flattery (oh that's an awfully big word for you to use!) to also imply that she's too young to know better. 

 

You responded to Catherine without any of that tone, so I'm sure the rest of us would appreciate the same favor. Stop belittling the arguments of people who might be younger than you simply because we're younger than you. 

 

171 was using a very loaded term.  Misogyny is akin to racism.  It's accusing someone of a unjustified, immoral bias..  I've seen her use it in two threads in the span of only two days.  People shouldn't use terms like that so lightly, IMO, which is exactly what I said - almost literally.  So you are reading things into my response that weren't there.    

 

I thought your post calling it patronizing was funny, so I replied with my own joking response.  I got a kick out of both your response and mine ('patronizing' & 'condescending')... I'm sorry you can't say the same.

 

You are also reading things into my response to you... I'm saying you have a fair viewpoint, but that if you don't think there are positive incentives for marriage beyond love, that your opinion might change over time.  I didn't call your response disingenuous, or stupid, or annoying like I called all the others on this thread, so I'm not sure why you would see it as condescending.

[the171]

I save the term for two certain phorum-goers. The word is used when it is fitting.

[arfink]

Also, you are bringing Catholicism into it and then you sort of back out here and later in the thread and say "I'm interested in legal solutions", so catholicism doesn't really play a role at all in what you are looking for.  I'll be honest that I'm kind of upset with you because this is a really important topic and yet the it became incredibly derailed and stupid and the blame for that lies first with your confused post, so own it.

 

So make a new thread...

[polskieserce]

Here is what I have to say in response to the most recent posts.  I won’t bother multi-quoting just so this post doesn’t take up a page by itself.  I reread the entire thread from beginning to end just to get refreshed with the conversation again.

 

Notredame, I don’t think I started the thread poorly.  I did mention that I was looking to talk about legal and economic incentives for marriage, not religious incentives.  The purpose of the thread was not to talk about how to jumpstart a catholic revival.  The purpose of the thread was to state that the issue of marriage decline exists in the US (and many other western countries) and what can be done to change the incentives so that people want to get married again (including people who have rejected all forms of religion and don’t want to live their lives according to a moral code).  Those types of people will only accept marriage if it makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.  If anyone else saw the video link I posted with Dr. Helen Smith, then they would see the direction I was trying to steer the discussion in, but other people didn’t feel like talking about those things.  Legal and economic incentives are the only artificial incentives that we can easily manipulate as a society.  A few people did talk about that.  I recall people mentioning welfare and health benefits being curtailed after marriage, as well as the tax penalty.  Someone also mentioned the negative influence the media has on people, and that limiting such media could also be beneficial to the cause.  However, a lot of other people tried to steer the conversation in the direction of Catholic theology and that Catholics should not need any incentive outside of what the bible says to get married, when in reality I thought I made it pretty obvious that this isn’t that type of discussion.  The discussion really started to go off on a tangent when people started denying the inequities of the family law system, started focusing the discussion on my own personal life, and said that I was misogynistic for disagreeing with them.  I made it perfectly clear to those people that I would not be seeking a long term relationship with a woman if I was a misogynist.  Instead, I would just be looking solely for sex, which I’m not.  Yet, these same people said that there is a 70/30 difference on catholic dating sites, with females having a bigger presence in those types of venues.  If those numbers are not proof of what I’m saying, then I don’t know what is.

[NotreDame]

But Polkie, here's the problem...  You do state that the legal aspects (and resulting economic incentives of those) are what you wanted to discuss and what you advocate changing, but your understanding of the legal aspects is a bit skewed.

 

  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. 

That's not how marriage contracts work.  Divorce only divides up common assets, not assets that predated the marriage.

 

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.

And of course the courts feel differently because that's the way the law was written.  Marriage law goes back to British common law.  It was crafted this way precisely to incentivize men to stay in marriages and take care of their children.  Prior to 50 years ago that's where the risk was.  It was a lot easier for men to take off and start over than for women.  Also - as far as I know - most courts don't award alimony unless the marriage is ten years old.  What they award is child support.  The amount and manner of child support doesn't always seem fair, but the concept certainly is. 

 

Now I don't think your ignorance in this area is evidence of misogyny, nor do I think it warranted the irrational responses that followed, but it's probably these statements that set people off. 

[WillT]

http://youtu.be/kHvIcHbEHSU
polskieserce's theme song?

[Norseman82]

Again, Norse you make this very clear on not only Phatmass, but on other boards (i suspect by the similarity in posting) how very bitter you are about your lack of spouse.

 

In some respects I find it strange that you even remain Catholic and dedicated to it's teachings when you so blatantly seem to not be open to either the understanding of God's will and aligning yourself with that or making whatever physical, psychological and emotional changes need to happen.

 

Before I met my fi, I was somewhat bitter, especially since I'd been played like a fiddle by an abusive man who managed to hide the fact he was married.  I went on several bad dates and had given up.  But I really shouldn't say I "gave up" I gave it to God's will.

 

I know plenty of people, both men and women, who are Catholic and yearn to  be married or have at one point.  Some have grave psychological issues that probably prevent them from ever entering in a valid marriage (or again in one woman's case).

Some didn't understand God's will because God somehow wanted them to wait until they were in their 50's.

Some in their 20's and 30's were overwhelmed with the desire for a spouse and family but then received the call.  In fact one of the most holy priests I knew tried to date for many years before in his 50's realizing that his desire was not Gods will and things weren't "working" because God wanted him to Himself.

 

My closest friend is in her mid-30's with a daughter.  She was invalidly married to a jerk, in the eyes of the church she's free to marry.  But both her physical appearance and the fact she has a daughter keeps good, holy men away. She has learned SO much about God and works to be holy every day. Yet that is the desire of her heart to truly have a spouse that God gives.

 

Yet, she is not bitter.  She waits on the Lord.

 

Her first marriage, on paper, ended in a divorce.  But the church doesn't even recognize her as having been married at all.    When counting the "divorce rate" I don't think it's fair to count her.  If she had been educated in the faith, been given the proper resources when her dad walked out in her childhood, she never would of made the decisions she did.

 

The decline of marriage is generational.  I think the single greatest way to reverse the trend is for single men to step back into the church and be men for all the children who are suffering now.  Single woman, especially older women seem to run the church.  Men need to get involved.

 

Oh, so you have your own private little 1-800 line to God where you are privy to some private will of His and qualifies you to judge my Catholicism?  I must have been in a coma on the day the white smoke came out of your chimney. 

 

For the record, I don't have a family.  I lost my immediate family before getting into HS, and don't know how long my extended one is going to stick together.  So, getting married and having kids is the only way I'm ever going to have a family.  Only a monster would give someone a hard time for wanting to restore his family. 

 

So, if you are so concerned about "God's will": 

 

-read Genesis 2 where God said it is not good for the man to be alone; 

 

-read what Christ said about what kind of father would give his son a snake when he asked for a fish;

 

-read what Christ said regarding the eunuchs for the kingdom and how not everyone can handle that teaching; 

 

-read what Christ said about the sheep and the goats at the final judgment, how He said "when I was hungry you did not give me to eat", and extrapolate how the attitudes expressed by some people here would be judged in that light; 

 

-read the story in Acts of the the establishment of the diaconate and how Peter and the apostles, when the Greek widows spoke out about being neglected, did not get snarky with the widows, did not try to con them by saying "you are not aligning yourself to God's will", nor tell them they are bitter and poisoning their hearts and relationships, nor say "I find it strange you are still Christian"; 

 

None of this is private revelation, it is public record in the Bible

 

Be very careful about your next response, because it could very well determine whether you stand with the sheep or the goats on judgment day (and that goes for everyone else as well).

[the171]

 Be very careful about your next response, because it could very well determine whether you stand with the sheep or the goats on judgment day (and that goes for everyone else as well).

 

Are you God?

 

[southern california guy]

Are you God?

 

 

The goddess of love?  :priest: