Today's trendy shack-up mentality is equated by some with total freedom, a lack of restrictive commitments, doing your own thing, even the modern, preferable solution to outdated marriage. If such fly-by-night arrangements are so good and modern, then why are such households more of a a hotbed of domestic violence, alcoholism, drugs, infidelity and confused, unhappy children than those of married couples?
There is a constant stream of such news reports coming out of Poland (probably other countries as well, but our focus on PF is Poland). Here is but one of them:
Besides, no-one was trying to deny anyone anything. It was a clear question as to what factors make shack-up arrangements so toxic? Please answer the question or hereafter hold your peace!
Where is the best place that reality is shown as acknowledged in society? Through the law, Pol3, through the law. It's been 11 years since I've studied it but the law on cohabitation is fairly extensive. It's a well-regulated phenomenon given peoples' natural hesitation before tying the knot.
Your focus should be on exposing the Catholic label as fraudulent and meaningless. Start there and start waking up to human nature!! Everyone would like healthy and happy kids but is that the case?
Why deny children the right to a warm, loving family?
You can't wrap your kids up in cotton wool,the school that they attend will have a big influence on them. Furthermore children are born out of wedlock, this does not disqualify the parents from being good parents. Warm loving family does not equate to parents being married in Church,Synagogue,Mosque etc. Some parents are good at it and some are not. I would put the stresses and expectations of modern life as the number one problem.
When you put it like that you make it next to impossible to agree with you.
I think a child is best off with a mother and father as a family unit, I am not an expert on this nor do I hold a degree in what makes the best environment for a child. This is just what I think.
Although it has become more accepted to come from a single parent family, I still think that the best environment for the child, is to be brought up in a secure family environment.
Marriage, as has been said on this thread, does not guarantee a happy family but I think there is at least a certain level of commitment that doesn't always exist when such a contract (marriage) is not agreed upon.
With the distancing from the church, marriage has become unpopular and other contractual methods have been devised, I know people who have had atheist marriages.
I am pro-marriage and bringing a child in to the world in a family unit but I would not be so judgemental to say that anyone who doesn't is diseased, that's just silly.
If such fly-by-night arrangements are so good and modern, then why are such households more of a a hotbed of domestic violence, alcoholism, drugs, infidelity and confused, unhappy children than those of married couples?
It's the same over here. Once again we see the toll on society that the 'do whatever you want' liberal mentality costs...
I presume you are interested in and have studied the problem. How do your findings correlate with those below?
Live-in relationships more prone to violence by Robert Haddocks Standard-Times staff writer A woman living with her boyfriend is twice as likely to become the victim of domestic violence as a married woman, an expert in field says.
According to a nationwide survey conducted by the University of Rhode Island, 35 out of 100 cohabiting couples experienced a physical assault in the previous 12 months. Richard J. Gelles, a nationally renowned researcher and director of the family violence research program at the university, said that rate is more than double the rate of violence in married couples, which was 15 out of 100 couples.
Several experts in the field agree unmarried couples living together face a greater danger of domestic violence than married couples. Mr. Gelles said the violence reported during the nationwide telephone survey ranged from pushing or slapping to using a gun or a knife. Edward Gondolf, a professor of sociology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, who has worked with Mr. Gelles, said live-in couples are more likely to experience incidents of domestic violence because of the uncertainty of the relationship.
``Because of the ambivalence about commitment, there's more likely to be conflict and dispute,'' said Mr. Gondolf. archive.southcoasttoday.com/projects/DomVio/livein.HTML
I think you are all missing the point here. The love and future of a child does not depend solely on being brought up in a family unit. Many kids are happy enough living within other "family" groups types. Some families that have parents which are not married provide perfectly normal lives for their children. Signing a piece of paper isn't going to change that. Moreover not signing it wouldn't change it much. If a child is loved, cared for and provided for then who would argue against that. There are plenty of parentless children who would love to be in a position to have at least one parent, let alone be in family where both parents are married to each other.
It would be great if all kids in the world could be raised within a married family unit, but to say that it is wrong to be otherwise would mean denying a child the right to life. Being married is great but being loved ect as a child is greater, despite the group you are being raised in.
A woman living with her boyfriend is twice as likely to become the victim of domestic violence as a married woman, an expert in field says.
This and the rest of the "facts" you state are BS, are you seriously trying to suggest if these couples suddenly get married they will stop fighting? and that all of these couples have children?
Pol3, emotional reactions to social phenomenon rarely work. You pull BS too often and are the master of excessive simplification. Now stop knocking those that cohabit.
Once again we see the toll on society that the 'do whatever you want' liberal mentality costs...
TZ, i am against liberalism, it is a disease, you only have to look at countries like the Netherlands to see its failure. But if a child is born out of wedlock, it should not be labelled as dysfunctional from the get go because the parents are not married. I echo SeanBm here in that I am pro marriage, but I know families were the parents are not married and they live very happily and function well as a unit, I also have friends that have been married with children and are now divorced, and they make better parents now than they did when they were married. So it is very individual.
Polonius3 I concur with your opinion. You and I should therefore support gay marriage to remedy the situation thus diminishing this pathology. Just a thought.
Exactly, divorce rates are a major pathologising factor in child development. Why should we glorify perjurers and oath-violators? Divorce means someone broke his oath of 'till death do we part' and was too weak or stupid to stick it out 'for better or worse'. Why try to find excuses for such people who in their own way are wrecking our society? If more such people felt stigmatised, they might think twice before breaking up a family for their own selfish motives. But the going thing is to make all human failings and misbehaviour 'acceptable', constantly lowering the standards of human interaction.
Davie, I see his point. Although it's more complicated than that, many divorces are betrayals. It shouldn't be a pick&mix thing, though people always have their choices. The standard is hard to meet but people are weak to that extent that they cannot make it work. Marriage shouldn't fall apart to the extent that it does. Fallibility shines through.
A few hundred years ago when the marriage act/service was introduced, the life expectancy for men/women was less than half of what it is now. Even the bible quotes that "the life of man, shall be four score years and ten", meaning 70. Not many people reached that age, due, to diseases, unsafe working conditions, poverty, wars etc. Large families were common as the infant mortality rate was very high ( the same principles apply to most of the 3rd world countries now, they have many children and hopefully, so that they will look after you in your old age). I cannot speak for what I have seen so far in Poland but in most of the Western countries, the UK in particular, you can walk into a pub or restaurant and see older couples sat side by side and if you watch carefully, they hardly speak to each other. The relationship has become more of a "habit" than love. They have spent so many Years together that communication has almost become "telepathic", they know what and when each other want to eat or drink, they have totally different interests, but, they are scared of trying to form a new relationship and they still enjoy each others company. So the irritating habits that they have formed over the years are ignored, the woman is houseproud and the man is a slob.
Do you honestly believe that men and women should spend 60-70years living togther?. Most get married in their 20's, their children (the ones you seem most concerned about) are married or left home by the time the parents are in their 40's. This age is the prime time of their lives, you have either made a good career/money by this age or you are going to have a very mediocore life. Why should a women/man be expected to carry on in an unhappy relationship for another 20, 30, 40 years, just to please public opinion?.
Why should two people remain living together, if, they are unhappy?. Surely, if all the responsibilities to the prodigeny of any relationship have been carried out, then, the parents should be allowed to seek/find happiness where they can. I am not condoning feckless fathers that breed whenever they get the opportunity and never even try to support thei wives or kids, but, I do object to so called "do-gooders" who cannot still "pull" even if they tried. You have one life, live it as fully as possible, but, do your damndest, not to hurt anyone else. you do not have enough experience to even broach this topic as it takes a lifetime to understand what was good and what was bad. Only the Pope is inffalible, the rest of us mortals have to learn from our mistakes.
NB. Blame this on the Sobieski and the fact I had to buy a dishwasher today. The one I've had for the last 5 years has refused to do it anymore. (selfish *****).
One thing to consider: who is it that is telling people that 'anything goes', that it's OK to misbehave, to lie, break your word, cheat on your spouse, steal (if you don't get caught), malign people behind their backs, that you are 'numero uno' and should do your thing, etc., etc. Who it is that is popularising the fallibility you mention rather than stigmatising it? Who is lowering our standards rather than urging people to be upright and decent?
You wish the State and the Church to dictate how you live your life. What happens to freedom of choice?. We have laws to enable a civilized society to function without anarchy. Would you like to see the Chinese system enforced so that families can only have one child?
Our way of life has been changing for the past few decades and we have enjoyed a freedom which was unknown to past generations. The size of families has been declining, to the state, where there will be no young workers to contribute to the pensions of the people who have paid into the system for years.
I cannot think of any religion or government that has not had its share of scandles which would be any sort of inspiration of how people should live their lives, yet these are the very people who are elected to lead and set an example. Recent cases have been the corruption/expenses scandles of the UK, Italian, French parliments. They cheat, steal, lie and yet they are supposed to set an example to us, the common people. We then see them taken to court and get away with it.
The accountants for the EU have refused to "sign off" the accounts for the past 15 years due to massive corruption and yet these "unelected" spongers dictate how we should live our lives.
Stop generalizing and realise that we all have make the best out of bad lot. The rule of "anything goes" only seems to apply to bankers and politicians. Most of the people I know seem to obey the simple rules of life.
Sure, sure, sure. Not every kid from a broken home ends up a disaster. But the science is pretty clear that the healthiest kids come from stable, two parent homes.
Do you honestly believe that men and women should spend 60-70years living togther?
If they get married, absolutely. Why? Cause they took an oath to do so. For richer or poorer, in sickness and health, till death do us part etc etc.... I have to admit the for richer or poorer part is the most difficult for most people today. Everything seems great when you are young and have no obligations but add a few kids, car payments, mortgage, and hell love seems to fly right out the window. I have been married to my wife for 20 years- half my life. We met freshman year of high school when we were 15. We have 4 children. We have arguements but we work it out. Marriage is a gift , a union of 2 souls to become one.
Why should two people remain living together, if, they are unhappy?.
If unmarried no reason to. If married because they chose to get married (freedom of choice is a ***** sometimes isn't it).The problem with most people today is they don't understand what marriage is and take it entirely too lightly.
We have laws to enable a civilized society to function without anarchy.
True but in some cases is also causes it. Divorce for example. If it wasn't so easy to get out of a marriage perhaps it wouldn't be treated by todays society as a joke.
You wish the State and the Church to dictate how you live your life. What happens to freedom of choice?.
Freedom of choice is a double edged sword. Too much freedom breeds selfishness.
personally, I think the institution of marriage should be outlawed. ;) Being legally bounded to another person? Really? Swearing that you'll love someone till the day you die? How can you? ;)
If more such people felt stigmatised, they might think twice before breaking up a family for their own selfish motives. But the going thing is to make all human failings and misbehaviour 'acceptable', constantly lowering the standards of human interaction.
In search of the perfect state...roots of Nazism.
It was no different from years past. All one needs to do is read a Dickens Novel. Men would take off in a sailing ship and never return. Women would die in child birth. Wars would devastate entire villages and communities. Yeah, there are and have been nuclear families but there always have been plenty of blended families throughout history. Nothing new.
Yes, marriage is a legal contract and your legal obligations develop whether you're married in Church or Court or live together. Sometimes love has nothing to do with it. It's to keep the rich from taking advantage of the poor or the strong from taking advantage of the weak.
I would put the stresses and expectations of modern life as the number one problem.
I disagree , all of these things were still happening, it just wasnt out in the open back then.
but alcohol, drugs and children born out of wedlock happened back then as it does now. the only difference is that it was hush hush.
and illegiamite children were born all the time and i have plenty of genealogy records that prove this.
I think there was more stress and expectations on the older generations not so much the younger ones maybe thats why they are so much more wild, because nothing is expected because now , they are not told what to be, but asked what they would like to be.
to be or not to be that is the question.. lol
I wouldnt blame modern life, because every new generation that is born is moving into a more modern life then the last.
that started when life started lol otherwise we all would still be wearing bearskins and clubbing each other..
