# The Oblivion of Marriage and the Coming Demographic Crisis



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice has inspired me to speak against tyranny, and problems in general.

In the US we are facing one of the largest social/demographic shifts in history; the oblivion of marriage (in the lower socioeconomic classes).



> National Marriage Week USA kicks off today, and for many people, a national booster movement for marriage could not come any sooner. The recession did a number on American matrimony, as you've surely heard. The collapse in marriage rates is cited as one of the most important symptoms -- or is it a cause? -- of economic malaise for the middle class. But the statistics aren't always what they seem, and the reasons behind marriage's so-called decline aren't all negative.
> 
> At first blush, the institution of marriage is crumbling. In 1960, 72% of all adults over 18 were married. By 2010, the number fell to 51%. You can fault the increase in divorces that peaked in the 1970s. Or you could just blame the twentysomethings. The share of married adults 18-29 plunged from from 59% in 1960 to 20% in 2010. Twenty percent!











http://www.theatlantic.com/business...death-and-life-of-marriage-in-america/252640/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/kristof-the-decline-of-white-workers.html?_r=1&hp



> That's the backdrop for the uproar over Charles Murray's latest book, "Coming Apart." Murray critically examines family breakdown among working-class whites and the decline in what he sees as traditional values of diligence.
> 
> Liberals have mostly denounced the book, and I, too, disagree with important parts of it. But he's right to highlight social dimensions of the crisis among low-skilled white workers.
> 
> ...


Most of the blame in the mainstream media attributes the cause to 
1. Income inequality
2. The recession

But the economic bloggers I read refute this pretty conclusively.



> All of a sudden it is pulled out of the closest as a weapon against Charles Murray, such as by Paul Krugman (and here and here), Rortybomb, David Frum, and others. Bryan Caplan brings some sanity to the debate:
> 
> I'm baffled by people who blame declining marriage rates on poverty. Why? Because being single is more expensive than being married. Picture two singles living separately. If they marry, they sharply cut their total housing costs. They cut the total cost of furniture, appliances, fuel, and health insurance. Even groceries get cheaper: think CostCo.
> 
> ...


http://marginalrevolution.com/margi...arginal+Revolution)&utm_content=Google+Reader

All of this is, to me, symptomatic of a larger social crisis brewing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/



> In his book, Is Marriage for White People?, Ralph Richard Banks, a law professor at Stanford, argues that the black experience of the past half century is a harbinger for society at large. "When you're writing about black people, white people may assume it's unconnected to them," he told me when I got him on the phone. It might seem easy to dismiss Banks's theory that what holds for blacks may hold for nonblacks, if only because no other group has endured such a long history of racism, and racism begets singular ills. But the reality is that what's happened to the black family is already beginning to happen to the white family. In 1950, 64 percent of African American women were married-roughly the same percentage as white women. By 1965, African American marriage rates had declined precipitously, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan was famously declaring black families a "tangle of pathology." Black marriage rates have fallen drastically in the years since-but then, so have white marriage rates. In 1965, when Moynihan wrote with such concern about the African American family, fewer than 25 percent of black children were born out of wedlock; in 2011, considerably more than 25 percent of white children are.
> 
> This erosion of traditional marriage and family structure has played out most dramatically among low-income groups, both black and white. According to the sociologist William Julius Wilson, inner-city black men struggled badly in the 1970s, as manufacturing plants shut down or moved to distant suburbs. These men naturally resented their downward mobility, and had trouble making the switch to service jobs requiring a very different style of self-presentation. The joblessness and economic insecurity that resulted created a host of problems, and made many men altogether unmarriable. Today, as manufacturing jobs disappear nationwide (American manufacturing shed about a third of its jobs during the first decade of this century), the same phenomenon may be under way, but on a much larger scale.
> 
> ...


This WSJ OP-ED voices some of the same complaints.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html

*Now, before you say that this is all sensationalist tripe. * A paper from UPenn on female happiness shows that it is, in fact, in decline, and has declined sharply in the past 40 years.

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Female_Happiness.pdf



> The lives of women in the United States have improved over the past
> 35 years by many objective measures, yet we show that measures of
> subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined
> both absolutely and relative to men. This decline in relative wellbeing is found across various datasets, measures of subjective wellbeing, demographic groups, and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness
> ...


How are things in old Europe?

I will share my theories on the cause of this later. I want to hear what you guys have to say first.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't see the end of marriage as a crisis. I see it as societal progress. Men are biologically not wired for marriage and women have now been given opportunities to be successful on their own so they don't need it. In addition, fewer and fewer people believe a mystical sky-god commands it.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Not a crisis at all and I dont think it can be looked at as an economic symptom either. Its entirely to do with progression of social standards and change in religious demographics.

In the Netherlands it is very common for couples to live together and have kids without getting married. I cant find the exact statistics anywhere unfortunately.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The simplistic idea that marriage is an indicator of family solidarity must go challenged as well. As emiellucifuge points out, many co-habitants have successful families, and many married couples raise severely dysfunctional ones. There's no direct connection between marriage and good family values. If anything, marriage can destroy healthy family life by forcing two people together who come to hate each other.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The practice of 'living together' without a marriage/civil union contract creates very little social tension in much of the US, including rural areas. Pooling resources while doing so is risky though. The marriage contract serves a civil purpose.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The major loss is to the world of comedy. The absurdity of trying the spend one's entire adult life under the same roof with one woman was a great comedic material source.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

starthrower said:


> The major loss is to the world of comedy. The absurdity of trying the spend one's entire adult life under the same roof with one woman was a great comedic material source.


Also a loss for De Beers. Why now will people buy shiny rocks they can't afford?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Also a loss for De Beers. Why now will people buy shiny rocks they can't afford?


And therefore a loss to a lot of African nations!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> All of this is, to me, symptomatic of a larger social crisis brewing.


What sort of a social crisis, exactly? It's not at all apparent to me what it might be.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I come out on the conservative side of this. There is a social problem in the US, and probably in other western nations. We've lost our moral values - not entirely of course, but essentially the quest for status via consumption has trumped about everything else. We are not as patriotic as we used to be, not as loyal, not as diligent, not as pious; the argument that living together without marriage is good enough is a good example. Maybe it is, but that says something about our culture. 

Of course there is a good side: we are not as naive either, and authority has lost a lot of its prestige (legitimacy) for good reasons - stupid wars, racial/ethnic/religious bigotry, creationism, hypocrisy. 

People want to be moral, but we no longer have mores that we can believe in. What we need is a revival of legitimate moral authority. Leadership. People were drawn to Obama because he promised that. As always, it will have to be religiously moderate and inclusive, demanding, but more demanding of the rich than of the poor (at least in appearance, but these days it will be fairly hard to deceive anyone for long), and inspiring. America's spiritual leader of the past 30 years has been Oprah. That's better than nothing, but it's not enough.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Couchie said:


> In addition, fewer and fewer people believe a mystical sky-god commands it.


Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can? I almost feel sorry for the poor myth.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can? I almost feel sorry for the poor myth.


I suppose to compensate for the undeserving amounts of credit he receives each day.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> I think I come out on the conservative side of this. There is a social problem in the US, and probably in other western nations. We've lost our moral values - not entirely of course, but essentially the quest for status via consumption has trumped about everything else. We are not as patriotic as we used to be, not as loyal, not as diligent, not as pious; the argument that living together without marriage is good enough is a good example. Maybe it is, but that says something about our culture.


Is that you, DrMike?! America's problem is too much piety.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can?











That's why.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

The breakdown began with *My Generation*, and I must accept some of the blame.

View attachment 3123


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Is that you, DrMike?! America's problem is too much piety.


Well, that's true too.

Basically we have too much fundamentalist-style piety, and not enough of the old "Establishment" mainline piety.

Essentially, that is synonymous with, decency is no longer a value that people take seriously.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> View attachment 3121
> 
> 
> That's why.


Well, I guess the confusion lies in the fact that people don't usually clarify whether they're referring to an organized religion type of personal God, or just the simple concept of the world having a creator who may or may not care about what we do with our genitals.

By the way, the second part of my post, the part you didn't quote, was very important. My post looks much more serious without it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

In practice "god" or "the gods" are a projection of someone's values onto the cosmos and its mysteries. The question is, whose values? "God" has lost respect because the people whose values he reflected have lost respect. In Europe, that is the old aristocracies and elite bourgeois leaders. In the South, that is the old Segregationists, my grandfather's and great-grandfather's generation. In the north and west of the US it is the old "Establishment." Now the values we would project are status-via-consumption, tolerance, and leisure. New religious traditions are appearing in part to do so for us. 

I don't know; just guessing.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, I guess the confusion lies in the fact that people don't usually clarify whether they're referring to an organized religion type of personal God, or just the simple concept of the world having a creator who may or may not care about what we do with our genitals.
> 
> By the way, the second part of my post, the part you didn't quote, was very important. My post looks much more serious without it.


Yes, I admit that I quoted you out of context. And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.


Because of this:


science said:


> In practice "god" or "the gods" are a projection of someone's values onto the cosmos and its mysteries.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Yes, I admit that I quoted you out of context. And it's never been all that clear to me, either, why the Creator of a universe with roughly fifty billion galaxies, each with roughly fifty billion stars, is so fixedly obsessed with the affairs of the bedroom.


My analysis is that He didn't, and He isn't.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can? I almost feel sorry for the poor myth.


I'm more concerned by people attacking other people and cramming their views down other's throats because a magic man in the sky says it's the thing to do.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

science said:


> Well, that's true too.
> 
> Basically we have too much fundamentalist-style piety, and not enough of the old "Establishment" mainline piety.
> 
> Essentially, that is synonymous with, decency is no longer a value that people take seriously.


When exactly was this great era of decency?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Couchie said:


> When exactly was this great era of decency?


I don't think it's fair to interpret my post to mean that there was something like a "great era of decency," only that it used to be valued quite a bit more than it is today. You probably know this: talking about decency probably sounds old-fashioned and naive to you, like the Jimmy Stewart character in _It's a Wonderful Life_. Of course that's how it sounds to most people today. But in those old days, it sounded elevating/uplifting and challenging/inspiring.

So when was decency so valued? It would take research to find out, but I'd guess it came to prominence in the Enlightenment and was doing a lot of good until it was brushed aside in the 1960s in favor of alternatives like authenticity, tough-mindedness, and tolerance.

I don't mean that those aren't also values, but the complexity of life is that values often conflict, and pendulums swing.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

science said:


> So when was decency so valued? It would take research to find out, but I'd guess it came to prominence in the Enlightenment and was doing a lot of good until it was brushed aside in the 1960s in favor of alternatives like authenticity, tough-mindedness, and tolerance.


So back in the day of whorehouses, when men could beat their wives silly and there was nothing they could do about it, when materialistic capitalism got so bad people thought up communism? Oh and nobody had rights except for those who were white and "decent".


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Couchie said:


> So back in the day of whorehouses, when men could beat their wives silly and there was nothing they could do about it, when materialistic capitalism got so bad people thought up communism? Oh and nobody had rights except for those who were white and "decent".


"Back in the day of whorehouses"?

_Science_ is probably talking about 'decency' as an _ideal_, and that it may have been a more valued _ideal_ during the Enlightenment. As you probably know, _no_ ideal has common currency, if it did it wouldn't be an ideal.

Personally, 'decency' is too vague a term; I have to break it down some before I can handle it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's a weird time right now. There are so many laws and regulations in a time when the rule of law is being undermined and disregarded by those in government and business. How does this correlate to the rejection of the marriage contract by individuals, or doesn't it? Is there a general evasion of commitment and responsibility in society at large, or is it a personal liberty issue?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Back in the day of whorehouses"?
> 
> _Science_ is probably talking about 'decency' as an _ideal_, and that it may have been a more valued _ideal_ during the Enlightenment. As you probably know, _no_ ideal has common currency, if it did it wouldn't be an ideal.
> 
> Personally, 'decency' is too vague a term; I have to break it down some before I can handle it.


The idea seems to hinder on moral authorities, probably religious, to give us a barometer for what is decent and what is not. It was more articulately defined what is and isn't decent in the past so people knew what to strive for. With the diminishing importance of religion in society what is "decent" is becoming increasingly up to the individual to decide and live according to whatever standard of decency they see fit. So it's not that people value decency less, but people have very different standards of decency. Where these standards differ will be perceived as "indecency" by others (ie. two dudes doing it).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Couchie said:


> The idea seems to hinder on moral authorities, probably religious, to give us a barometer for what is decent and what is not. It was more articulately defined what is and isn't decent in the past so people knew what to strive for. With the diminishing importance of religion in society what is "decent" is becoming increasingly up to the individual to decide and live according to whatever standard of decency they see fit. So it's not that people value decency less, but people have very different standards of decency. Where these standards differ will be perceived as "indecency" by others (ie. two dudes doing it).


Looks like you are mixing up three or four different things there - which is why 'decency' is too ill-defined a concept. I think I have a handle on this stuff, but this isn't the forum for expounding on it, and you are probably not sufficiently awed by my wisdom. My cult following is not extensive.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> It's a weird time right now. There are so many laws and regulations in a time when the rule of law is being undermined and disregarded by those in government and business. How does this correlate to the rejection of the marriage contract by individuals, or doesn't it? Is there a general evasion of commitment and responsibility in society at large, or is it a personal liberty issue?


I think you and I have similar notions about what's going on in government and business. It's probably a stretch to tie the marriage contract situation to that, but for the rest of it, I dunno what the eff is going on.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The dissolution of marriage probably has a lot more to due with the financial independence of women today. They have that option that their mothers and grandmothers didn't have.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> The dissolution of marriage probably has a lot more to due with the financial independence of women today. They have that option that their mothers and grandmothers didn't have.


The option to make a living on their own? I think they had that anyway. That a woman can now raise a child without the father being around? That's been possible, though not easy, for a long time. There must be something else.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Less social pressure/stigma than in previous eras? I can't think of anything else?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Perhaps soppiness has a place in this discussion - the fact that, over the years, marriage has strangely become associated with _love_. Rather than being arranged by parents; rather than being necessary for financial support; rather than being important to have as early as possible in order to fulfil your role of starting a family (or as a quick measure if you've accidentally started a family already), marriages are more often viewed as consolidations of a relationship with The One. Given that, both men and women are now more patient, and more willing to hold out, dating lots of people over a number of years before settling down, reasonably certain that they've found the person they actually want to spend their lives with.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I didn't mean for the mention of decency to be taken so specifically - I was just reaching for a way to summarize the distinction between the mainline evangelical churches and the fundamentalist ones. Something about class, basically, I guess. Then, when it was challenged, in my mind, the discussion shifted to a different topic. 

I can't see how anyone could deny that a great deal of moral progress was made between about 1700 and 1970. What Couchie seems to regard with outrage about the values of, say, the 1950s was actually a big improvement over the 1690s. That's not to say (as I've evidently been taken to mean) that there was ever any kind of golden age of decency or of any other virtue. 

Also, I don't think we can deny that some kind of fragmentation has taken place in America over the past 50 or so years. I think it's best to locate it in the "ruling class" rather than in society as a whole, which was always fragmented. But the "ruling class" used to be almost homogeneously WASP, mainline Protestant, Ivy League, and so on: there were more shared values and more trust than now. 

I'm enormously distracted and annoyed right now so I can't think it all out or word it very carefully....


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> Also, I don't think we can deny that some kind of fragmentation has taken place in America over the past 50 or so years. I think it's best to locate it in the "ruling class" rather than in society as a whole, which was always fragmented. But the "ruling class" used to be almost homogeneously WASP, mainline Protestant, Ivy League, and so on: there were more shared values and more trust than now.


Then fragmentation is a good thing, right?

I didn't take your argument in quite the same way as couchie. I thought you were basically saying that, although we've never _achieved_ perfect decency, at least we used to _strive_ for it. Now, you argue, decency does not feature among people's priorities.

It's an interesting point (if that's the point you're making), but I would prefer an anarchy of indecency coupled with individual freedom rather than a mass striving for the wrong kind of decency which oppresses.

If you want a mass sense of decency _and_ complete individual freedom without oppression, you may have to wait for another sentient species to evolve because this one is too broken to get there.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

That fragmentation was not, in this instance, a good thing. You seem to have a rather esoteric understanding of 'decency'. Care to elucidate?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing...

In my mind, over the past 40 or so years of American history, the diversity at the top has increased very much - the traditional Northeastern WASP elite have lost a huge amount of power to Southern and Western conservatives, and of course African-Americans and other minorities have gained influence as well. And women. 

Is it good news? 

Well, in some ways, certainly. Hopefully we can pull off this diversity project. 

But perhaps it came at the expense of some things that I'll call "decency" (inertia is a deity) and "trust." I think - of course I don't actually know, but this is my impression - that in the era from about 1932 to about 1968 most of the super-elite leaders of the USA shared a common identity and culture. There were a few Jews, Catholics, women, and so on in power, but they were the minority and the Establishment WAS(mainline)P males were not threatened by them. There were some really bad apples as well - which reminds me to ask whether anyone has seen the J. Edgar Hoover movie. That's the case in any ruling class of course, and abundantly so among the current rulers. Still, the common culture and identity were there, and they may have permitted a level of trust and encouraged a level of decency that we can no longer maintain. 

Perhaps race and religion, though they are just modern categories, get near the heart of something deep in human psychology regarding who we will feel we can trust. If so, then a racially and religiously homogenous society (or at least a homogenous ruling class) will have more trust and demand more decency from itself than a diverse one can. 

It's not a pretty thought, but humans are not pretty beasts. 

And if all of this is true, it doesn't mean that we should abandon diversity or promote homogeneity, since a pro-diversity education has at the very least a significant effect on things. And we may be forging a new identity and culture; or if we're not, we might be able to in the future. I'd actually guess that we will: some new tradition along the lines of Unitarian Universalism or Religious Naturalism or Secular Humanism will emerge to command the loyalty of our ruling class: something cosmopolitan and intellectual, not excessively supernatural, but probably with more impressive music and liturgy than we associate with those traditions, probably a little less hostile to traditional religion than those groups are, and probably a little more ethically demanding. It might even deny it's a religion, as the secular "religion" of the USA has long done. And when that happens, it could foster the kind of trust (and thus decency) that we need. So even if my suspicion about ethnic/religious diversity and trust is correct, our inner angels don't need to surrender to our inner apes. 

Anyway, I have another excuse for the poor thought and writing that this post may contain: it's 5 am, and I've been up all night listening to Enescu. Do be careful with that guy. His music is a bit too interesting.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The option to make a living on their own? I think they had that anyway. That a woman can now raise a child without the father being around? That's been possible, though not easy, for a long time. There must be something else.


I think that "something" might be the oral contraceptive pill, in which case Carl Djerassi and his fellow researchers either get the credit, or are to blame.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

When my wife and I were young, we expected to never get married. We knew (strongly felt) we would always be together, but marriage seemed ridiculous with so many people marrying and divorcing for what we believed were poor reasons. The whole institution seemed vulgar. We did eventually get married mostly for legal reasons (for us and our future children). 

My daughter (age 19) now believes she will never marry and won't have children. She saw so much misery both on the part of children and parents that she abhors the institution. She'd be happy to adopt, but feels bringing more children into today's world risks adding to the overall unhappiness. Obviously she's still quite young and hasn't met someone that she truly loves. Things may change like they did for my wife and I. 

I'm still not certain how I feel about marriage. Overall I believe it can be a good institution, but there should be less pressure and expectation for marriage.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

_the oblivion of marriage (in the lower socioeconomic classes). [/I

Marriage was not the preserve of the "lower economic classes" before.The timeframe of the report only covers 1960 onwards and to espouse something as a declining "tradition" over a relatively short a period 50 years seems somewhat shortsighted.

Certainly in England there was a lot of common law this and that among the poor which did not always feature a wedding. Most commoners didn't have surnames in England until 1830 odd. Marriage was the preserve of the propertied classes because there was something of value of marriage and bloodlines was how the system worked. Marriage was an unsentimental business transaction to keep a particular social order - morality didn't really enter into it as the number of mistresses and famous prostitutes which now adorn gallery walls the world over attest to. It's a funny old world isn't it?

As for now - marriage is something people aspire to in Britain. In the sixties it was quite common for folk to marry in their teens, now it is more common for folk to marry in their late twenties/thirties. This is mostly economic factors - property prices are still high in the UK and most people have a few partners before deciding to settle down. Social factors also come into play as women are not dependent upon men for money so they do not have to hitch their wagon to the first man that comes along.

Although I must admit, I don't know what the paper you quote from is trying to prove. When it says; trends in happiness in the *United States* and *Britain* noting that, while women report being happier than men over the period that they examine, the trend in white women's happiness in the *United States* is negative over the period. the conclusion rather ignores the trends in Britian - perhaps because it doesn't support the conclusion?_


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

_I can't see how anyone could deny that a great deal of moral progress was made between about 1700 and 1970._

1914-18 We sent out young men abroad to blow other young men to bits with new ways of killing each other.

1939-45 We did the same - perhaps for justifiable reasons, but the rise of facism and the atrocities it permitted can hardly be regarded as decency.

1945 The world now has bombs powerful enough to wipe out whole cities. These weapons still exit and have been made even more terrible over the decades. Is this a siggn of progress?

Then we have more trouble in the Balkans - which the rest of the world didn't fully commit to - so perhaps we have learnt something - but still thousands died.

Rawanda happened.

Now we have Syria descending into bloody chaos, Afganistan teetering on the brink and the jury is still out on Egypt and Libya.

The only moral progress seems to have been that since 1945 the populations of Europe and America are more reluctant to go to war, however that doesn't seem to stop leaders from starting them and then it seems very difficult to stop them from escelating - Vietnam got bigger, Afganistan lead to Iraq and peacekeeping never seems to just keep the peace.

Everyone talks about "going back to when things were decent" but that is a chimera, a myth. The only certainty in the past is that it is finished and whilst we can maybe see the choices that were made, we cannot see the confusion which resulted in those choices being made and the ones that were not made that lead to our present future.

The present is uncomfortable because we have to make choices - tea or coffee - yesterday was great because I had a nice cup of tea, but that doe snot make the present choices any easier. I could have tea, like I did yesterday, but that does not guarantee the same cup of tea as yesterday - the circumstances are different.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

AlexD said:


> _the oblivion of marriage (in the lower socioeconomic classes). [/I
> 
> Marriage was not the preserve of the "lower economic classes" before.The timeframe of the report only covers 1960 onwards and to espouse something as a declining "tradition" over a relatively short a period 50 years seems somewhat shortsighted.
> 
> ...


_

This post is a great perspective on the question, and really makes it seem that marriage has been getting better, not worse. The statement "I can't see how anyone could deny that a great deal of moral progress was made between about 1700 and 1970" is so clearly filled with prejudice, and a desire to return to a 70s or 50s-esque U.S. moral system. Yes, morals did progress between 1700 and 1970, but so they have kept progressing between 1970 and 2012, they don't seem to be stopping, and that's a wonderful thing._


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Dodecaplex said:


> Why are people so intent on attacking God in every way they can? I almost feel sorry for the poor myth.


I don't think 'the Deity(s)' are being attacked as much as the socially retarded slugs who run the institutions built up around the accretion of man-mad Dogma held up as authoritarian and from the Deity(s).

To me, every major "holy man's" words and concepts were immediately corrupted by their well-meaning but far less advanced followers who first wrote down 'what the holy men said' and in so doing already began to miss the point  Centuries later, you have 'documents' and 'dogma' which I can imagine that Deity reading through, and saying, "I didn't say any such thing(s) and I am not signing any such document."


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

The insane divorce laws and the inability to make pre-nup agreements stick greatly add to the unwillingness to enter into the state of wedded bliss. God or religion does not enter into the equation. Religions in this era are corporations in disguise. If a relationship lasts a lifetime then you are witness to two lucky people. As an institution marriage is unfit for purpose.


----------

