Marriage discussion

[radamfi]

you miss the point - marriage IS recognised by the state and delivers significant taxation benefits, especially in the field of inheritance tax.

And I say it shouldn't be recognised. One party getting benefits means others lose out, so non-married people are being punished, simply because they chose not to participate in a ceremony or because they couldn't find a suitable partner.

 

[meridian2]

How about some facts or evidence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22820829
"The absence of fathers is linked to higher rates of teenage crime, pregnancy and disadvantage, the report says, warning that the UK is experiencing a "tsunami" of family breakdown".

I've edited the post with quotations as advised. If this is not what was meant, and I have misinterpreted the instruction regarding quotations, please show how I can correct matters, thanks.
edit2: re-edited, hope this fulfils the brief.

 

[najaB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22820829

That's evidence that there are a lot of single-parent families.

 

[EM2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22820829

The only sentence in that story that tallies with what you claim is: 'The absence of fathers is linked to higher rates of teenage crime, pregnancy and disadvantage, the report says'.
Now, while that may be true, there are no statistics to illustrate the fact, and it also fails to take into account single-parent families where the father is the parent.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm not and never have. I'm saying social conservatism (and let's cut that term loose from party politics once and for all), of which traditional family marriage is a part, offers a better societal model than the narcissistic, novelty obsessed, inequitable, faux social and monetary liberalism that currently dominates the political discourse.

The whole point of social structure is for society to be fairly stable and propagate itself. The means by which this occurs however needn't remain fixed. Most of humanity's existence has been in very small groups, trying to cope with issues which we now consider trivial (illnesses, resources), but with the rapid technological development seen recently we may well one day live in a post-scarcity society, which will cause our social models to change as well.

Even without a technological utopia, the concept of marriage has evolved with society. The current idea of a "classical" marriage in western society is one man and woman, but there are plenty of times in human history when men could take multiple wives, for example. I wouldn't say that society moving away from strict enforcement the "traditional" view of marriage is the result of political narcissism; to me this smacks of golden age syndrome (another fallacy for you ).

I do agree with you on the point of raising children properly in order for society to function well, although this needn't be done only inside marriage. I knew plenty of people in school who had difficult upbringings and as a result had real attitude problems, but this seemed to be more to do with a vicious circle of poverty, as most of these pupils' parents were in traditional marriages.

 

[najaB]

The only sentence in that story that tallies with what you claim is: 'The absence of fathers is linked to higher rates of teenage crime, pregnancy and disadvantage, the report says'.
Now, while that may be true, there are no statistics to illustrate the fact, and it also fails to take into account single-parent families where the father is the parent.

It also doesn't say that it's a causal relationship.

 

[meridian2]

The only sentence in that story that tallies with what you claim is: 'The absence of fathers is linked to higher rates of teenage crime, pregnancy and disadvantage, the report says'.
Now, while that may be true, there are no statistics to illustrate the fact, and it also fails to take into account single-parent families where the father is the parent.

Is this a I don't like your evidence bring me some I do like response? Or a they didn't specifically say what you said in the same words ten pages ago reply?

 

[EM2]

Is this a I don't like your evidence bring me some I do like response? Or a they didn't specifically say what you said in the same words ten pages ago reply?

It's neither.
It's not evidence for a start, it's a story that's possibly about some evidence. If you could link to the report itself, that might be something.
The sentence that I highlighted states that the absence of fathers is linked to these issues, not that it causes or leads to them (as you claim).

When sales of ice cream increase, more people get into trouble when swimming. But increased consumption of ice cream does not lead to or cause people getting into difficulty in the water.

 

[meridian2]

The whole point of social structure is for society to be fairly stable and propagate itself. The means by which this occurs however needn't remain fixed. Most of humanity's existence has been in very small groups, trying to cope with issues which we now consider trivial (illnesses, resources), but with the rapid technological development seen recently we may well one day live in a post-scarcity society, which will cause our social models to change as well.

Even without a technological utopia, the concept of marriage has evolved with society. The current idea of a "classical" marriage in western society is one man and woman, but there are plenty of times in human history when men could take multiple wives, for example. I wouldn't say that society moving away from strict enforcement the "traditional" view of marriage is the result of political narcissism; to me this smacks of golden age syndrome (another fallacy for you ).

I do agree with you on the point of raising children properly in order for society to function well, although this needn't be done only inside marriage. I knew plenty of people in school who had difficult upbringings and as a result had real attitude problems, but this seemed to be more to do with a vicious circle of poverty, as most of these pupils' parents were in traditional marriages.

Unfortunately this thread has become a "marriage discussion" which it wasn't in its former home. The marriage point was an important but not central one to a wider discussion on politics and social policy. As a recovering liberal (philosophically not party) I've become absolutely convinced British society, and not only British society, is going to hell in a handcart because it has lost any sense of what it's for. The atomised individual exercising his/her choices (mostly about which app to download) has lost any sense of the contribution they can make to it, leading to a sense of purposelessness and marginality.

Obviously there are still people pulling up trees to make society better on low or no pay, but the majority are concerned what's in it for them and only them. The original thread shows, at least to my satisfaction, that the debate has been polarised into right-on anything goes instant equality libs, versus fuddy duddy reactionary blimps. Politically, I envisage a permanent one party state if Labour doesn't get its act together to break that polarity, and that isn't hyperbole. The socially conservative Labour constituency used to be a massive one, capable of putting a government in place once mobilised. Now, you could be excused for not having a clue what it is, indeed most people on this thread think it's a branch of Toryism. While ever that obtains, UKIP will mop up any votes capable of unseating the Conservative party, while Labour puts marginalia centre stage.

The tactics that keep Labour from power are the ones employed here, pedantry, constructively missing the point and an inability to see which way the wind is blowing. My points re. marriage should be read in the above light.

 

[meridian2]

It's neither.
It's not evidence for a start, it's a story that's possibly about some evidence. If you could link to the report itself, that might be something.
The sentence that I highlighted states that the absence of fathers is linked to these issues, not that it causes or leads to them (as you claim).

When sales of ice cream increase, more people get into trouble when swimming. But increased consumption of ice cream does not lead to or cause people getting into difficulty in the water.

So it's the plural of anecdote is not data, reply, combined with causal gerrymandering. Sounds like the internet all over.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately this thread has become a "marriage discussion" which it wasn't in its former home. The marriage point was an important but not central one to a wider discussion on politics and social policy. As a recovering liberal (philosophically not party) I've become absolutely convinced British society, and not only British society, is going to hell in a handcart because it has lost any sense of what it's for. The atomised individual exercising his/her choices (mostly about which app to download) has lost any sense of the contribution they can make to it, leading to a sense of purposelessness and marginality.

Obviously there are still people pulling up trees to make society better on low or no pay, but the majority are concerned what's in it for them and only them. The original thread shows, at least to my satisfaction, that the debate has been polarised into right-on anything goes instant equality libs, versus fuddy duddy reactionary blimps. Politically, I envisage a permanent one party state if Labour doesn't get its act together to break that polarity, and that isn't hyperbole. The socially conservative Labour constituency used to be a massive one, capable of putting a government in place once mobilised. Now, you could be excused for not having a clue what it is, indeed most people on this thread think it's a branch of Toryism. While ever that obtains, UKIP will mop up any votes capable of unseating the Conservative party, while Labour puts marginalia centre stage.

The tactics that keep Labour from power are the ones employed here, pedantry, constructively missing the point and an inability to see which way the wind is blowing. My points re. marriage should be read in the above light.

but you are describing the issues created by the destruction of working class communities ( if not the entire concept of the working class) by Thatcherite policies. That policy agenda created the focus on the atomised individual and consumerism. Marriage and family life wont fix that

 

[meridian2]

but you are describing the issues created by the destruction of working class communities ( if not the entire concept of the working class) by Thatcherite policies. That policy agenda created the focus on the atomised individual and consumerism. Marriage and family life wont fix that

Thatcher was pushing on an open door. The traditionalism I'm promoting was in its death throes by '79, she just applied some social euthanasia. Although Thatcherism is seen as a political watershed, the ground had been prepared for her by successive governments since the 1960s.

 

[EM2]

So it's the plural of anecdote is not data, reply, combined with causal gerrymandering. Sounds like the internet all over.

If you say so. But when you make a point, and cannot substantiate it, you can't surely be surprised that it is viewed with some scepticism?

 

[meridian2]

If you say so. But when you make a point, and cannot substantiate it, you can't surely be surprised that it is viewed with some scepticism?

I did substantiate it, I offered a link supporting what I'd said by the national broadcaster. That it didn't conform to your idea of laboratory evidence isn't my problem.

 

[NSEFAN]

Unfortunately this thread has become a "marriage discussion" which it wasn't in its former home. The marriage point was an important but not central one to a wider discussion on politics and social policy. As a recovering liberal (philosophically not party) I've become absolutely convinced British society, and not only British society, is going to hell in a handcart because it has lost any sense of what it's for. The atomised individual exercising his/her choices (mostly about which app to download) has lost any sense of the contribution they can make to it, leading to a sense of purposelessness and marginality.

Obviously there are still people pulling up trees to make society better on low or no pay, but the majority are concerned what's in it for them and only them. The original thread shows, at least to my satisfaction, that the debate has been polarised into right-on anything goes instant equality libs, versus fuddy duddy reactionary blimps. Politically, I envisage a permanent one party state if Labour doesn't get its act together to break that polarity, and that isn't hyperbole. The socially conservative Labour constituency used to be a massive one, capable of putting a government in place once mobilised. Now, you could be excused for not having a clue what it is, indeed most people on this thread think it's a branch of Toryism. While ever that obtains, UKIP will mop up any votes capable of unseating the Conservative party, while Labour puts marginalia centre stage.

The tactics that keep Labour from power are the ones employed here, pedantry, constructively missing the point and an inability to see which way the wind is blowing. My points re. marriage should be read in the above light.

Are you saying that the decline of traditional marriage is a symptom of social decline, or that it is a cause?

I'm not sure what era you were born in, but I can imagine that there was perhaps more positivity and community spirit in the past that perhaps doesn't exist now, probably helped by WW2. It's quite British for a calamity to bring us all together.

 

[meridian2]

Are you saying that the decline of traditional marriage is a symptom of social decline, or that it is a cause?

I believe it to be one of the core values on which our society once rested, and the rise in general unhappiness, of which addiction, depression and suicide are key indicators, is consistent with the intentional unpicking of such values for political reasons.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can only repeat that homosexual partnerships are a red herring (sic) to the main problem of stable family relationships. I shouldn't have to prove my right-on credentials to express a view on what has served the nation well until recent decades. I am not anti-homosexual, I am pro permanent and stable families. If people could put aside their rights and fulfil their responsibilities, most of the issue disappears.

I'm simply promoting the idea the beliefs surrounding Christian marriage are still viable. If that paints me as a member of the fun police, or an old square, perhaps people haven't been directly or indirectly effected by its consequences. Most of these discussions aren't about the topic - the social problems are incontrovertible - they're peer pressure and fear of seeming uncool. As I'm not interested in coolness or liberalism I'm happy to call it as I see it.

But gay people getting married doesn't stop straight people like me from having stable marriages, bringing up children responsibly, and seeing my own family as a permanent fixture.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've no idea, what's the correct answer? Certainly wasn't my point. That's the problem with straw men, they breed faster than rabbits.

One hopes they're breeding within a straight marriage, then?

 

[meridian2]

But gay people getting married doesn't stop straight people like me from having stable marriages, bringing up children responsibly, and seeing my own family as a permanent fixture.

I would argue it is inconsistent with a traditional Christian view of marriage. I don't believe gay weddings cause bubonic plague or the world was created six thousand years ago. Just in case that's the next corollary of what I've said.

 

[EM2]

I did substantiate it, I offered a link supporting what I'd said by the national broadcaster. That it didn't conform to your idea of laboratory evidence isn't my problem.

You didn't. You offered a link to a story from the national broadcaster reporting on something which you say substantiates it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would argue it is inconsistent with a traditional Christian view of marriage. I don't believe gay weddings cause bubonic plague or the world was created six thousand years ago. Just in case that's the next corollary of what I've said.

So what's the link between society going down the pan and gay marriage? Why is gay marriage bad, and exactly what harm does it cause?

I have sympathy for the view society isn't developing terribly well - I just don't understand how the marriage discussion, and gay marriage, is linked to that.

 

[NSEFAN]

I believe it to be one of the core values on which our society once rested, and the rise in general unhappiness, of which addiction, depression and suicide are key indicators, is consistent with the intentional unpicking of such values for political reasons.

I see what you are saying, although mental health issues like suicide and depression were also taboo in the past (stiff upper lip and all that). As with learning disabilities, these may not necessarily have been any better in the past, rather they are better understood and more socially acceptable to talk about nowadays. Perhaps people in the past were simply brought up to accept the problems in society, and to accept their place in it rather than question why things can't be better?

 

[meridian2]

You didn't. You offered a link to a story from the national broadcaster reporting on something which you say substantiates it.

Ok, whatever makes you stop is fine by me.

 

[EM2]

As a recovering liberal (philosophically not party) I've become absolutely convinced British society, and not only British society, is going to hell in a handcart because it has lost any sense of what it's for. The atomised individual exercising his/her choices (mostly about which app to download) has lost any sense of the contribution they can make to it, leading to a sense of purposelessness and marginality.

What do you make of large mobilisations (for want of a better word) of people, often at short notice, to protest against what they see as unfairness in society?

 

[meridian2]

I see what you are saying, although mental health issues like suicide and depression were also taboo in the past (stiff upper lip and all that). As with learning disabilities, these may not necessarily have been any better in the past, rather they are better understood and more socially acceptable to talk about nowadays. Perhaps people in the past were simply brought up to accept the problems in society, and to accept their place in it rather than question why things can't be better?

I read somewhere (?) last year that stress and depression was rife at Cambridge university, and I believe it is high among university students as a whole. There are many ways to read this, high flyers think too deeply, competition, unrealistic expectations, whatever the reality I think there's something wrong if goal orientation is synonymous with mental health medicine. It's not a bright kid problem, is a societal one, and not one we should put up with. There's no necessity for life to require self medication or any other kind. I think large numbers of people have forgotten how to be happy, or that happiness can be a default position.

 

[NSEFAN]

I read somewhere (?) last year that stress and depression was rife at Cambridge university, and I believe it is high among university students as a whole. There are many ways to read this, high flyers think too deeply, competition, unrealistic expectations, whatever the reality I think there's something wrong if goal orientation is synonymous with mental health medicine. It's not a bright kid problem, is a societal one, and not one we should put up with. There's no necessity for life to require self medication or any other kind. I think large numbers of people have forgotten how to be happy, or that happiness can be a default position.

I think that many students, especially those in the top universities, are under more pressure to suceed now the cost of tuition is so high and so much debt is created. At first I didn't think this would be so bad, but given a political desire to start clawing back these tuition fees faster (and putting more pressure on graduates to earn high salaries), I can see why students are stressed. My £3000 a year tuition fee seems dirt cheap by comparison with the current rates!

 

[meridian2]

What do you make of large mobilisations (for want of a better word) of people, often at short notice, to protest against what they see as unfairness in society?

It's mostly a day out. Did the poll tax riots change minds? I can't remember, it was a while ago. I think people confuse Twitter with taking part in the political debate. I'd be happy to see a government I trusted voted in and hear nothing more about them for five years. Tweeting (or whatever it is people do now) won't displace a bad one, only events will do that.

Not sure what this has to do with marriage?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I did substantiate it, I offered a link supporting what I'd said by the national broadcaster. That it didn't conform to your idea of laboratory evidence isn't my problem.

You are confusing the two things discussed in that article.
The issue of fatherless kids, which is one issue itself. And the article does provide some figures for that.
But then the comment about crime etc, there is literally no evidence there. Just a quote from an opinion in the report.

 

[EM2]

It's mostly a day out. Did the poll tax riots change minds? I can't remember, it was a while ago. I think people confuse Twitter with taking part in the political debate. I'd be happy to see a government I trusted voted in and hear nothing more about them for five years. Tweeting (or whatever it is people do now) won't displace a bad one, only events will do that.

Not sure what this has to do with marriage?

More to do with society and 'atomised individual exercising his/her choices (mostly about which app to download) [have] lost any sense of the contribution they can make to it'.
It wasn't that long after the Poll Tax demo that it was a replaced with Council Tax. Whether the demo had anything to do with it, I can't say.
Do you feel that demonstrations such as the 2003 anti-war protests, and more recent demonstrations in favour of the EU, to support the NHS, to protest against the policies of Donald Trump, against fracking etc. are not individuals contributing to society?

 

[AY1975]

When I saw this discussion on marriage on the Rail Forums, before I clicked on it I half-expected it to be a discussion on whether being married and being a railway enthusiast go together.

As a single person who is open to the idea of marriage, but would also be quite happy to stay a bachelor forever, I would say it is perfectly possible to have a happy medium between spending time on your hobby and spending quality time with your spouse - indeed you can even sometimes combine the two, such as when visiting railway museums or heritage railways or going on railtours.

That said, I am sure there are some enthusiasts who feel that they would find it too restricting having to share their lives with someone who did not share their hobby, and who prefer being single for that reason. I guess this applies especially to those enthusiasts who want to be able to be 100% devoted to their hobby, and/or who don't have many other interests apart from railways.