Will anyone propose this Valentine's?
Items you are likely to receive this Valentine's Day:
• a scarlet heart-shaped balloon
• a pink furry gonk which winks
• an innuendo-laden card
Items you are unlikely to receive this Valentine's Day:
• an engagement ring
• the promise of life-long faithfulness
• a wedding invitation
Love may be in the air, but commitment is out of fashion. Figures released this week show that marriage in England and Wales is at its lowest ebb since records began in 1862.
The point at which tying the knot became "so last year" can be identified from marriage-rate data. It was 1985. Up to then, going right back to the time of the American Civil War, the marriage rate for men had hovered between about 50 and 80 in every 1,000 single blokes. After 1985, the rate never peaked above 50 again - now having fallen to just 21.8. It is the same story for women [76Kb PDF].
It is often assumed that this collapse in marriage has coincided with a high divorce rate. Actually, the reverse is true. The divorce rate is currently at its lowest level for 29 years.
Why? Well, a plausible explanation is that those that do get married these days - a dwindling proportion - are those most determined to make a go of it. The connubial ranks are an increasingly committed bunch.
If this is the case, it presents something of a paradox: encouraging more people to wed may actually push up the divorce rate. You might be able to use the tax system to promote marriage, but legislation is not particularly good at inspiring faithfulness.
When the balloon has sagged, the gonk has lost its wink and the genitalia gag has been dropped in the recycling, will those Valentine promises of love everlasting still survive?
Update 15 Feb: I thought it might be interesting to plot the male marriage-rate data going right back to the first statistics in 1862.
Quite a fascinating story is revealed, I think.
The first two peaks in 1915 and 1920 must reflect the fact that millions of unmarried young men were killed in World War I, pushing up the rate.
The next spike in the marriage rate comes just as World War II begins, perhaps reflecting young couples' desire to get hitched before servicemen headed off to fight.
It is interesting that the line then rises through the sixties to another peak in 1972. There was a more committed aspect to the sexual revolution than one might have assumed.
After that point it has been almost all downhill, as discussed above.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
We're a dying breed, and society is much the worse for it. There are so many positives for (successful!) marriages in society that one wonders why Govts don't actively promote it. But of course in today's throwaway 'society', we are moulded by the needs of the money men. Change is good. Change your phone, your computer, your car. People in their 20s that used to get married and settle down now spend money on clothes, adult computer games and booze. They change their partners, avoid commitment, and act like teenagers well into their 30s and beyond. The shared frugality of married life and kids is poison to the monetarist society we have created. Of course, men would always be that way if we could get away with it! The real trick was to get women to want to behave this way too. Well, we've done it! Thanks to good old monetarism, women are now 'free' to throw themselves about between partners in a way that men could never have dreamed about decades ago. Us men ought to cheer, really. But when you look at how poisonous this plethora of 'choices' is to our children, those cheers sound a little hollow. But how the money men are cheering! The death of marriage might destroy our children, but of course they don't care. Two single people means two houses instead of one. That means more stuff to fill them. (Look at the fall in average house occupancy rates). Two cars. More food (the supermarkets are now all-powerful). Constant dining out (witness the explosion in restaurants/take-aways etc in any town you could name, anywhere in the UK). Two single people use more of everything than a married couple. Single people spend more money, so they must be kept single to prop up our economy. Far from being a celebration of true love, Valentine's Day is just another excuse to spend like crazy on your newest fling. Anything that preaches restraint and monogamy must be destroyed. So let's get rid of religion - we don't want devotion to God to get in the way of our orgy of hedonism. Add in a feral media that feed the fires of consumption and Bingo! The horrid dystopia of 'Brave New World' is coming true.
Complain about this comment
When a average wedding costs £10-15k what do people expect.
A young person has to pay off student debts (now around £30k), save up for a deposit for a mortgage (£50k in my area) and start paying 10-25% of their income into a pension by 25 a wedding is just an expensive party you can afford to do without.
Of course if you can afford a wedding no bloke will want to because the divorce courts are so anti-male you risk losing everything if things go wrong no-matter whose fault it was.
Complain about this comment
Ironically, the best way of encouraging marriage would be completely counter-intuitive: make divorce quicker and easier (it is tough enough as it is without the law compounding this), and remove the fault element. The tabloid press do not help either with their obsession with the idea that we should 'help' all couples to stay together. The reality is that whilst some marriages are worth working at, not every marriage is worth saving. We all know people in miserable marriages who seem unable to get out and move on, and get little help to break up and start a new life.
The other issue is the outrageous divorce settlements that mean that no sane man should really risk marriage unless his new wife is wealthy or high earning or both: even after short marriages women are being given meal tickets for life. Clean break and percentage split of the assets based on actual contribution and length of marriage should be the rule, with divorcees being expected to stand on their own two feet as soon as possible afterwards.
Even a (female) divorce lawyer told me that wives were getting far more than they should because old (male) judges took pity on them, and wound them round their little fingers.
By all means support good marriages but make it clear that there is no shame in ending a bad one.
Marriage would then seem a less risky venture than now.
Complain about this comment
So what, if a couple decide to live together they should be given the same rights and responsibilities as gay couples and married couples. Why not create an opportunity for hetro 'living in sin' to have a civil service or register their relationship. The NHS pension agency does not recognise hetro partners outside marriage as potential surving spouses which is disgraceful in the 21st century.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo wrote:
"There are so many positives for (successful!) marriages in society that one wonders why Govts don't actively promote it."
You can't promote successful marriages so any attempt the government make to encourage marriage is going to result in as big an increase in unsuccessful marriages (and therefore an increase in divorces) as it would successful marriages.
As someone who never got to meet his father and was subsequently raised by a single mother I'd also question whether the benefits of marriage are a matter of causation or coincidence. Married couples tend to have more money and live in more affluent areas than single parents (and this has always been the case for the majority) so there's less chance that their children will grow up in poverty or end up going to a run down school in a deprived area.
A significant percentage of my school friends grew up without a father as so many of them were killed in the Great War yet most of them grew up to be happy, successful individuals who made a massive contribution to our society throughout WWII and beyond. Many of my children’s generation also grew up without fathers due to them being lost in WWII yet many of them contributed to the rebuilding of our nation in the post-war era as well as being the creative driving force behind the cultural and technological revolution of the 1960s.
"People in their 20s that used to get married and settle down now spend money on clothes, adult computer games and booze."
I think it's far more likely that many within this group are spending their money on tuition fees and student loans, especially since the vast increase in student numbers in the last few years. Not to mention the relatively huge amount of money they have to spend on rent, or if they're very lucky, a mortgage compared to people of their age range twenty years ago.
"Thanks to good old monetarism, women are now 'free' to throw themselves about between partners in a way that men could never have dreamed about decades ago."
Oh yes, it's all the fault of the economic system, it has nothing to do with the Suffragette movement gaining (near) equality for women or the sexual revolution that came with the invention of mass produced contraceptives in the 1960s.
And since when have men not "thrown themselves about" ?
When I was in my late teens - early twenties almost all of my male friends where trying their best to sleep with as many women as possible and a fair few women were after the same, from what I can tell not much has changed since other than the fact that those sorts of things weren’t spoken about back then whereas now it is all some people ever seem to talk about.
Some people seem to have a very refined view of the past, in my experience it is a totally imagined view that bears little or no resemblance to the reality of what life was like back then. I can remember several single girls from our area getting pregnant in their late teens/early twenties, everyone knew about it but it was seen as impolite to mention such things in public and it would never be mentioned in the press, obviously the women would all still gossip about it in the privacy of their homes but it wasn’t something for public discussion. The children would normally be raised by the girl’s parents, more often than not without the knowledge that their sister was actually their mother and their mother was really their grandmother, or they would be sent to live with family in a different area or to an orphanage.
Extra-marital affairs were just as common back then as they are today, the biggest difference between then and now is that most women will no longer accept that sort of behaviour from their husbands, women are no longer routinely subject to domestic subservience (and often physical and mental abuse) and the legal system no longer favours the man in this situation.
"So let's get rid of religion"
If only we could then at least we wouldn't have to listen to all of the whinging from pious hypocrites who are quite happy to protect the vast horde of predatory paedophiles, rapists and thieves within their ranks while bemoaning the lack of morals in our society.
Complain about this comment
Any relationship is only as successful as you want it to be. It needs to be worked at wether you are married or just living together. It's about give and take, empathy, commitment, friendship and of course love, whatever that is. The stresses of modern living make the process far more difficult than it should be.
Complain about this comment
5. General_Jack_Ripper 'A significant percentage of my school friends grew up without a father as so many of them were killed in the Great War yet most of them grew up to be happy, successful individuals who made a massive contribution to our society throughout WWII and beyond.'
The figures actually tell a different story, and whilst you do appear to have lived through more productive times, that's no longer the case alas. That's why we have had such high immigration, and why we have in fact made life harder for ourselves, despite all the technological improvements.
The really important figures are not publicised enough, why this is so I'm unsure, perhaps because they are so upsetting and liberal-democratic governments can't do anything about it because it's inherent to liberal-democracy? The truth is, that good people like yourself are in fact slowly dying out - not just here, but throughout Europe. That's the real cost of our late 19th Century and early 20th Century hailed freedom having filtered down the generations. There's no arguing the case, the figures show we are dying out. That's why pensions are now such a problem, and I suggest, why the economies of the liberal-democracies are in such dire straights. It isn't so much the demise of marriage that's the problem, it's birth rates, and what's more, it's differential birth rates.
I understand this has been said before by others, but it tends to fall on unreceptive ears, rather understandably. The really sad thing is that in recent times we have been encouraged, by some, to make the only group who buck this trend unwelcome, i.e. Muslims (and in times past, Catholics).
In my view, FWIW, LippyLippo, in post 1, accurately describes the zeitgest/predicament - and he won't be popular for doing so, that doesn't make what he says false. Look at the figures.
Complain about this comment
Watched Silent Witness last night: we clearly as a society have a major problem with some parts at least of our youth: teenage gangs, drugs etc.
One real issue here is the lack of respected male role models for these young men. Why? They don't have loving caring fathers; the fathers have all fled the coop and society is left to pick up the consequences.
This is just one of the reasons why as a society we should be supporting marriage. Not discriminating against it as the current Labour tax system does. This bias against marriage in the tax system is something the Tories want to redress.
By the way. look forward to your next blog on Labour's immigration 'social objectives.' Can you please explain what this (still) means?
Complain about this comment
#2. HardWorkingHobbes wrote:
"When a average wedding costs £10-15k what do people expect."
It doesn't have to. Though (financial) inflation has taken its toll obviously, my wife and I turned up at the Registrar's office with a few friends, tied the knot then had dinner in a London Steak house followed by a few drinks. I doubt it cost more than £200 including the rings. In today's money that's probably about £2000. Still expensive for a party because that's what it is. But amortised over our 30 year marriage, that's £6.67 per year. Excellent value. But it isn't down to money. It's a lifetime commitment and if you get it right, your wife/husband will be your best friend and all the support you'll need in times of real trouble in spite of the ups and downs. Remember that a wedding is a celebratory party - marriage is for life (at least that's the intent). It needs honesty, willingness to compromise and share; respect... trouble is, in today's muddled world these qualities can be difficult to comprehend: sex and materialism don't make lifetime commitment.
Complain about this comment
9. doctor bob 'It's a lifetime commitment and if you get it right, your wife/husband will be your best friend and all the support you'll need in times of real trouble in spite of the ups and downs...
.. trouble is, in today's muddled world these qualities can be difficult to comprehend: sex and materialism don't make lifetime commitment.'
Excellent. Sadly, all too few can afford to grasp the concept of duty anymore - that's neo-liberalism and its rights at work. Instability is very good for the markets, stabilitty isn't.
Complain about this comment
"When a average wedding costs £10-15k what do people expect."
Why, Hard-Working Hobbes? The marriage certificatee from teh Registry office costs a few quid. If you decide to throw a £10-£15K party then that's up to you - but it isn't compulsory.
Complain about this comment
I agree very much with the message from post #1 LippyLippo. It has become a seriously material world, almost as if the aim in life is transferring as much of the local mall into one's house, then throwing away the oldest stuff to make room for more. As Gordon Brown has pleaded recently: SPEND! BUY MORE STUFF! to set the economy right.
Ironically, as Mark Easton's figures show, marriages took a dive around the time that Thatcher came to power. Thatcher changed the culture at a stroke. Until then it had been "Work in order to live." After, it became "you live to work." The workplace took on a greater importance than family.
Until Thatcher most people had reasonably secure jobs if they behaved themselves. A 35-hour week was an aim (and realised in many salaried occupations), employers recognised a balance between work and family; sick schemes were norms, compassionate and conventional absence were norms; many employers offered decent pension schemes. For most, stress was unusual. You could take out a 20 year mortgage assured of having a job for 20 years if you wanted it. The whole idea was to give people a purposeful existence striking a balance between work and family.
Now, work has become all-important. The push to get women to work "to give them independence" only succeeded in making them, like men, slaves to corporations - FAR from independent especially when, also like men, they developed a thirst for debt. All this under the corporate con of "career". Rises in unemployment brought presenteeism and made the workplace competitive. More Americanisms materialised in the shape of Management by objectives and the like.
Most "couples" spend more time at work than with each other. They are given funny money (credit cards) to organise their escapes and "family", if at all, is more of a nuisance. All in all, marriage and family are too much of a hassle when you can go out and buy stuff, get drunk, or do whatever allows a get-out from the stress of today's workplace.
Trouble is, what d'you end up with? You've spent your life as a puppet of whichever puppetmaster pulls the strings. You have a mausoleum full of fashionable stuff and...you've invested your memories in fleeting people and stages in a career. How many times have I heard retired people claim "I've given everything to this office/firm/job and what have I got for myself? Nothing, except this stuff around me." You're on your own.
Marriage gave most people a purpose together, a family. Work was something you did to pay your way. It ain't like that any more.
Complain about this comment
And, I might add, even after 30 years of marriage my wife and I still slip a St Valentine's Day card under the pillow, decide to go out for an evening close by. Those 30 years haven't been without problems; communication hasn't been perfect. Children have been a trial at times but they really have brought value to our lives - they did a lot to make us the people we are today. There have been times I wish I'd stayed single but in balance I really wouldn't have it any other way.
Complain about this comment
12. doctor bob 'Ironically, as Mark Easton's figures show, marriages took a dive around the time that Thatcher came to power.'
To me it was predictable. She and Keith Joseph were (if one looks closely) anarchists. They pulled down the welfare state. That's how libertarians release money, it's like oil, locked away in the state, laid down by previous generations. Only spin prevents more people from seeing this. Our history is one of how an individualistic, 'free', self-centred, generation was induced to benefit in the short-term, not seeing the longer term cost - and at the expense of an earlier generation which had toiled and sacrificed to build for their futures too.
This is the Satanic/Faustian nature of libertarianism - but few see it - that's its lure.
Complain about this comment
RuariJM - The marriage certificate from the Registry office costs a few quid.
A few quid is subjective, having recently had a civil wedding myself I can reliably inform that it costs approximately £300 to do this. The registrar himself cost most of this, but without them you cant legally be classed as married. Not a lot I grant you but, if you are on a low income, i imagine £300 is a lot of money to pay someone for 30 mins work.
Complain about this comment
I'm 27, living with my partner of over 10 years in our first house that we bought early 2009. We have worked hard, going through BSc and MSc degrees each, and I am building up to a PhD, whilst working and being self-employed all at once. So, work seems to be the focus, but we are just trying to build solid foundations, and marriage doesn't need to be a part of those. We intend to start a family in our 30s, but we am aiming higher than our current states first; academic, financial, housing, and personal attainment.
Why? Because I grew up in a household with an abusive alcoholic father, with no money, little hope, and on the at-risk register. A vicar, amongst others, ultimately advised my mother to leave him. So not only am I determined to rise above previous poverty and anguish, I am rather bemused by the concept of marriage being the answer to social ills. Both coming from divorced parents, we really fail to see the point.
I have had my own journey exploring the reasons for and against. For a period, I entered competitions to win weddings (education, living costs, house deposit, and paying my student loan back is expensive). It was a frivolity, but I figured the family might like it. Don't you think that the fact that you can win one trivialises them?. But I realised that I don't really want it or need it. We are not religious and don't need a piece of paper. A sense of relief came over us; we felt that we had freed ourselves from what was rather a burden.
We do not see what difference marriage, as it is today, truly makes. Maybe we would get a certificate if the financial benefits prove worthwhile, but it would just be a piece of paper; just like the wills, life insurance policies, pension policies and so on. It won't be changing our reasons or beliefs, just our tax bills. I wouldn't change my name or wear a ring. Marriage in its traditional sense would make me feel caged rather than giving me a sense of belonging and purpose. We have decided that we live together and that our lives are together. Our relationship has lasted longer than any of our peers and we are in a far stronger position due to our hard work and forward thinking. I wish to retain my identity, and my sense of belonging as it is.
As part of my research I have been tracking adverts in Picture Post during the war years to the 70s. Housewife after housewife beams up at me in scenes of domestic bliss, whilst being advised to drink egg-flips in the mid morning to "boost" themselves (it would appear that there has always been a crutch-culture (drinking/smoking)). Marriage is not a part of my life. I have chosen, and considered my choice. Does that make it a bad one? I would argue the opposite.
Complain about this comment
People have more opportunities than ever before, in particular women. Getting married and having children is still an important goal for many, but its not the only goal. Improved access to education and career opportunities, means more money and more freedom to live independently, without rushing into marriage with the first bloke that comes along because it seems like the only option.
Marriage shouldn’t be about tax benefits, or pressure from society. Maybe I’m just naive, but isn’t it about love? People may be marrying later in life, or not at all, but isn’t that better than marrying for the wrong reasons and ending up either divorced or staying in an unhappy marriage? I'm all for marriage, but with the right person at the right time.
LippyLippo - you are right, women are 'free' to throw themselves between partners. But how do you know you have met the right person for you until you have met a few wrong ones? Life experience moulds people and helps them make choices in the future - having independance and freedom and being single isn't a bad thing. It can put you in a better position to deal with things that life throws at you.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I have to contest the way your article appears to align 'faithfulness' and 'commitment' with marriage. While the institution of marriage certainly embodies those 2 concepts (whether via it's ancient monogamist, or modern monoamourist forms) it has never had a valid claim to a monopoly on these. Without evidence to hand, I'm not going to claim that there has been zero reduction in commitment and faithfulness, but I think the massive decline in marriage is not as you insinuate predominantly due to similar declines in commitment and faithfulness, but can be far more likely explained by Marriage being a fundamentally archaic malformed instrument that has been illfittingly forced onto the population, by firstly the Church, and then the State, and thusly an increasing number of the populus are resisting the coercions to submit to what is to all intents and purposes, today, State regulation of relationships.
While we are still a minority, a growing number of our younger generations are re-learning that commitment and faithfulness, whether monoamourous, or non-monogamous, is not in a stamped piece of paperwork, but in our hearts, actions and thoughts.
Also, if government (and society) wishes to nurture faithfulness and commitment, maybe, ....and yes what a crazy loopy thought this is!! ....maybe a chance should be given to some genuine open-minded teaching of skills for interpersonal relationships and co-housing (for all ages!), rather than simply resorting to the trusty blunt instrument of bias in the tax-benefits system.
Oh, and as for St. Valentine's day - the majority of my circle won't be recognising it (except possibly in ironastic mocking). When we try to celebrate our love and companionship in every day we have together, a corporately-sanctioned 'express-love-through-the-losing-of-money day' is the very anathema of what we want our relationships or partnerships to be about.
Complain about this comment
I got married 18 months ago at the local registry office.
The actually wedding cost ~£100, and we had a do after in a local pub which, including DJ, cost ~1K, most of which was all paid by relatives.
Anybody who claims it is too expensive to get married is talking pure hot air.
Complain about this comment
23 years and counting. :D
£200 ish :D
Complain about this comment
It really irritates me that to some people not being married somehow equates to a lack of commitment and faithfulness. I am a happily 'partnered' man with two children. I am committed and faithful to my partner and my family, so why should I have to get married to prove it to others?
More importantly why should government force me into it by offering tax breaks and the like to married couples. I have been living with my girlfriend for 7 years which is longer that a lot of married couples I know have managed to stay together.
To me marriage is just an outdated concept based on religious ideology which I do not believe in.
Complain about this comment
21. Boswell 'I have been living with my girlfriend for 7 years which is longer that a lot of married couples I know have managed to stay together.'
You have a prima facie point, it's partnership and fidelity which matter for stability, but do you really think the decline in marriage per se is not paralleled by an increase in short duration, serial partnerships and resultant social/familial instability? The UK is being taken apart via devolution, and the family is going with it. That suits the people who make money out of individuals, especially out of women - who shop more, and whose vanity is much easier to prey upon.
Complain about this comment
@ no. 16
"..but it would just be a piece of paper; just like the wills, life insurance policies, pension policies and so on. It won't be changing our reasons or beliefs, just our tax bills."
-Fair enough, so if it is such a minor detail, why not just nip down to the registry office, get married and file the paper away? If it's no big deal for you, and you know you are going to stay together, why not make a legal declaration to wider society that this is your intention? Without the bit of paper we have no 'prrof' of intention - like it or not, a formal marriage is a formal and legal declaration of intent.
For you as individuals you may stay together the rest of your lives without marriage, but the broad sweep of experience shows that people who don't marry are *generally* not in as stable relationships. For many, a reluctance to get married is because of a feeling of needing to have a quick and easy escape route if it goes wrong, and marriage complicates this (as it should). That's a perfectly fine way to live, but couples should be honest with themselves and admit this. If couples *are* so certain they will stay together, then why not just get a quick registry office marriage and have done with it.
I'm not saying this applies to your particular circumstances, E Valentine, but it's a general point.
Complain about this comment
@21
"I am a happily 'partnered' man with two children. I am committed and faithful to my partner and my family, so why should I have to get married to prove it to others?"
-Well, why not? Why is it so important that you *don't* get married? You tell me...! It doesn't have to be expensive or time consuming or religious, as outlined above.
"To me marriage is just an outdated concept based on religious ideology which I do not believe in."
-Most cultures have or had, some form of marriage.
Complain about this comment
Blame government! After all the example they set for us all is corruption and theft.
sports men....well what do we expect of 20 year olds with 100000 per week?
and the rest of us with little or no work to pay for , well food in my case
Time for more cheap drink, thank god for that eh?
Complain about this comment
21. Boswell 'I am committed and faithful to my partner and my family, so why should I have to get married to prove it to others?'
One of the reasons people got married was to flag to interested others that they were no longer available. With women now working they are fair game in the workplace, even more if not officially 'married'. This makes staying together even harder than it used to be. Up to the 60s women would have to give up work once married. In the Islamic world, they know of these risks to family life. Yet we are now trying to secularise them, suggesting that they're the ones who have problems. But their birth rates are above replacement level, and ours are way below, dangerously so. Our public services, as a consequence are being sold off, i.e because we can no longer afford them. We have rising crime, and we're now at war with the very people who put family life first!
Go figure! As a species we are not that viable, especially in the liberal-democracies - not if you take biological fitness as the criterion. I suggest we are blindly self-destructing.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Boswell,
Most women feel that marriage offers some protection so that you won't skip out after a few years and leave her with three kids to raise in relative poverty. I think most women might question your commitment eventhough as you say, you are totally committed. The piece of paper is important to most women just like the $20,000 wedding party. It's just one of the things men will never be able to understand or grasp but it's important.
Complain about this comment
Dear Statist,
It may be true that birth rates are up in Muslim families but life can also be hell for Muslim women. They have to give up so much to live with men that don't respect them.
Complain about this comment
#5 GJR
Great post, absolutely spot on.
Statist, let's cut to the chase, are the 'facilities' for the the intelligent predators or for the not-so intelligent victims, the trucks are waiting.
Complain about this comment
#7statist
your logic fails me, 'The truth is, that good people like yourself are in fact slowly dying out - not just here, but throughout Europe. That's the real cost of our late 19th Century and early 20th Century hailed freedom having filtered down the generations. There's no arguing the case, the figures show we are dying out. That's why pensions are now such a problem, '
What because people are dying ? Surely the actuarial tables will show a surplus, intelligent high earners, high contributers dying out early leaving only low contributer, low beneficiary recipients in there place, is this not a good thing.
Get a grip, we've had this 'Jewish Conspiriacy'/'Eugenics'/'Holocaust Denial' in your last incarnation, you argue from a point of false logic and when challenged cannot put up a logistic argument against the most simplistic of originators.
I will not 'complain about this comment' with regard to anything you may post on any of these blogs but do ask that you come clean as to your real agenda (and that includes your postings under your alter-egos pseudonyms)
Complain about this comment
The hypocrisy of the government on these sorts of issues is staggering. On the one hand we are constantly told to buy fuel efficient cars, to recycle, to pay more tax to offset are carbon footprints.
Yet on the other side they encourage us through the tax system to get maried and have children.
Yet a women who has a child increases her lifetime carbon footprint by 40 times! We are not the ones destroying the planet for our children, our children are destroying the planet!
Can nobody see this? It makes no difference how green you are, how much you recycle, how efficent your car is, how little you fly. What does make a difference is the number of people who require these things.
By 2050 we could have 10 billion people on this planet, food, oil and minerals will become scarce and this won't be because we weren't 'green enough' it will be because all these idiotic people spent their time being 'green' but hypercritically pumping out babies all the time.
As a great man said recently 'abortion is green'.
Complain about this comment
28. clamdip lobster claws 'It may be true that birth rates are up in Muslim families but life can also be hell for Muslim women. They have to give up so much to live with men that don't respect them.'
Some men don't rspect their partners the world over (some women don't treat their men properly either). Islam has rules of behaviour, and a devout Muslim, like a devout Christian, Jew, etc will comply with those rules of behaviour. You will find many Muslim women (some converting from Western religions) who like the Muslim way of life. My point was just that their birth rates are at least above replacement level, ours are not. This means 'liberals' are dying out and they are not. Marriage and pairing is for reproduction, the rest is secondary.
Complain about this comment
marriage has less commitment than mortgage's people are no longer committed to each other just to the money they can earn. If this wasn't the case marriage would be as common as a mortgage's :)
Complain about this comment
30. BobRocket I'm not sure why your post is so hostile, or why you are talking of 'incarnations' etc. what i say is just factual and it is said by many. I hope my following further explanation helps to clarify matters for you.
Most people would accept that pairings/marriages are for the legitimate, state/legally recognised production (and nurturing) of children. Yet it is a fact that birth rates across the liberal-democracies (not just Europe) are now below replacement level (which is 2.1). The further East one goes in Europe, the lower the birth rates (as low as 1.1-1.3), but they are low in Italy, Spain etc too. This is a major factor of economic geography today, and is obviously be contribyuting substantially to our economic problems. As demograpohers will appreciate, a birth rate of 1.1 or 1.3 means a halving of a population in one or two generations (30 or 60 years) respectively. This has dire consequences for economies, not just pensions and welfare servives, especially if the birth rate decline is even higher amongst the higher skilled/ability members of a population (and the evidence is that this is so). One can try to address this by increasing immigration from countries which have high birth rates (mainly Muslim for the UK), but the problem is that if one then secularises, 'liberates', i.e liberalises them too, the problem just persists.
Arguing about this, or getting upset about the figures, won't reverse the trend, it will probably just mean that people won't talk about the problem becaus eof bad feelings, and probably blindly persist in their behaviour (which is effectively 'me me me' - i.e. short-term self-interested hedonism as poster 1 said).
Modern life is Faustian - see predatory lending and debt -> insecurity.
Complain about this comment
another thing.
Who do you get married for ?
Yourself and your partner
or
To install in your children that life is important? and that some things will stand the test? that a relationship with someone you love is worth true commitment? and not a get out of jail free card to be issued if things are a bit tight in the wallet? or when one reaches an academic freedom from the partner and outgrows the monetary relationship.
I don't believe in marriage = there is always something better around the corner and I'm not tying into a contract that will make change hard for me.
Complain about this comment
Here's what start to happen: The population ages and there are not enough births to provide taxes to support public services. Furthermore, if there are not enough births in the more able section of society (high differential fertility because smarter people are too scared to have kids as they can't plan ahead), and there are lots more births in the so-called 'underclass', as time goes on, the ratio of technically able people to those requiring health, education and other essential services becomes stretched to breaking point (see Africa and some South Asian countries re doctor:patient ratios etc). Buildings don't get made or maintained properly, disese increases, and crime rockets etc. It's a slow process, very slow, but it starts from neo-liberalism. It's how past civilizations have slowly deteriorated (cf. Rome).
Eroding basic family/marital values has very dire long term consequences.
Complain about this comment
Marriage (also living together) is a business arrangement. If the financial books don't balance it quite often goes bust. No matter what the emotional situation.
If we as a society want the population to remain at present levels we need to ensure financial stability in the organisations that breed the next generation. This is obviously not the case as even to get a roof over your head you need at least two full-time incomes and further help from the previous generation - this is no longer a viable situation. (This is why 3.5 times income is the critical loan to income ratio.) The bankers have decided to destroy society with the help of the Regulators - we must resist.
Complain about this comment
John_From_Hendon,
I agree. It was I in previous posts that brought up the whole notion of selling two households of stuff, two washing machines, two vacuum cleaners etc. Statist may be right about population levels for Muslims and probably Orthodox Jews who tend to have very large families. He seems to link his argument to Eugenics. If there has been a planned degradation of institutions like marriage, education, culture then having large families would fit with the whole conspiracy idea.
Complain about this comment
Community Criminal,
You're spot on about the whole "I don't believe in marriage=There is something better around the corner". I'm not sure why any woman would put up with that situation. At least a marriage contract is legally binding. Men often seem afraid of emotional attachments. The marriage contract is just another layer of security for her in case things go South.
Complain about this comment
38. clamdip lobster claws 'He seems to link his argument to Eugenics'.
Steady on, doesn't the word just mean 'good breeding'? Wasn't it an Edwardian notion designed to help improve the lot of everyone? I fpeople looked into how many people were behind it they might be surprised. This was all about family-planning etc wasn't it? I don't know why it's got such a bad reputation - subversion I expect?
Might this selfishness at least in part account for the sorry state of so many relationships and family life these days? Personally, I think the Chinese have got the right idea with their 'One Child (plus) Policy' where people have to a) get married, b) get a licence and c) are supervised. At least that way, more kids have a chance of being a) wanted and b) looked after.
What we allow to happen in the liberal-democracies comes close to criminal negligence in many cases. I don't think enough people see just how awful it is for many kids.
Complain about this comment
In fact, think of New Labour's 'supernannies' project mooted a few years back. Just how far from this was it in principle? At least the Chinese have made something work since the 70s! Just how many Baby P etc cases does the UK public need? One can look at the Chinese system as a good illustration of social care and duty can one not, with the vocal detractors as socially irresponsible people?
Complain about this comment
I agree about the negligence part but the whole Eugenics, good breeding
argument doen't make sense in an unjust, limited opportunities world. In your argument the Royal Family might be a good example of exemplary breeding but they're not, at least the offspring don't seem to be particularly gifted in intelligence. It's the interbreeding that creates the most intelligent offspring. It's just that most clever kids don't have money to buy into positions of power.
Complain about this comment
42. clamdip lobster claws 'It's the interbreeding that creates the most intelligent offspring.'
Don't believe all that you hear/see on TV! You need to look into that carefully asking 'between which groups?' If one group has low mean abiliy and another higher, from the perspective of the lower ability group, sure, there may be an advantage in terms of their progeny, but for the higher ability member, their progeny would seem to be disadvantaged (via regesssion to the mean). So it depends which one you're tacitly referring to.
As you may have noticed, people tend to mate with people who are similar in abiliy (and other characteristics) to themselves.
Complain about this comment
LippyLippo wrote
" People in their 20s that used to get married and settle down now spend money on clothes, adult computer games and booze. They change their partners, avoid commitment, and act like teenagers well into their 30s and beyond."
I am in my mid 20s, have a BA degree, an MA degree and have spent the better part of the last 2 years trying to find a permanent job. I save my money, and spend it on housekeeping, as I cannot afford to move out of my parents house. I am single, but that does not mean I would not like to meet a nice man, form a steady relationship and maybe settle down one day, but that doesn't automatically mean marriage. I have several friends who are married and several more have recently become engaged. Lots of people in their 20s get married.
"Single people spend more money, so they must be kept single to prop up our economy."
I find this incredibly offensive and insulting. Why are you blaming the economy on the demise of marriage? Hardly fair to have a go at a socio-grouping because they have not yet found someone, or choose to remain single? Why does living alone, eating alone, and spending money as a single person have to be a bad thing?
" orgy of hedonism"
Have you spoken to ANYONE in their 20s in the last year? Most people are looking for a job. We're just trying to pay the bills and live our lives. We're spending a greater part of our actual wages on simply living...taxes have gone up, housing costs have gone up, heating costs have gone up, taxes have gone up, the only thing that's gone down is the level and quality of public services. If people spend some of their money on clothes, booze or computer games, how is that any different to golf holidays, expensive cars, hair cuts in a nice salon? They are all basically luxury items we buy to make life a little more enjoyable.
The only dystopia I can see, is if this country is taken over by small minded, pig headed idiots like you, criticising other people's choices and talking about lifestyles you probably won't even understand. Your argument is weak, unfounded, and not even backed up with any evidence - it sounds like the rantings of an over excitable teenager. Go have a lie down, and think about what you've said.
Complain about this comment
Statist,
If, as you say that people tend to mate with people of similiar ability then making a distinction between two different groups seems a sort of a mute point, n'est-ce pas? The point being that the whole breeding down argument doesn't fly when you factor in that people can buy into privilege. Oil and water don't mix. High breeding doesn't beget high intelligence.
Complain about this comment
Statist,
There are also cultural factors. A Chinese family tends to have one child compared to a Durham coal miner with five. Also, as boys are highly prized in Chinese society,all of the families resources would be spent on the one child. There are subtle forms of child abuse that Chinese offspring suffer from and its usually mental, such as ridiculously high academic and achievement expectations. I understand your point. I believe there have been strong political/institutional forces that have created this social mayhem and a lot of it is due to pushing people towards the state. A Bolshevik conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@44 jd83
If it helps, I am 30 (so just out of my twenties myself), and I pretty much agree with what LippyLippo said - I certainly have friends who behave just like the description.
As for the economy - I think his/her point was that single people are encouraged to stay single in order to prop up the economy (after all couples can live as cheaply as a single person, you share household items etc). Therefore it's not that single people are the cause of the economic crisis as you suggest, but rather the victims.
Complain about this comment
45. clamdip lobster claws - Just telling you the facts. I try not to think too much without them. You should do the same. Exceptions do not invalidate the statistical rule.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
#36 Statist
You talk as though that is somthing new? As far back as biblical times the wealthy have had less children than the poor, its how it works.
In modern society affluent people have less children but they also live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate. And in fact if you look at African countries compared to european ones they have far smaller populations than we do.
What i find slightly distasteful about your comments is its leanings towards eugenics. You seem to be under the impression that intelligence is going to somehow die out? Yet thousands of years of evidence proves this isn't the case because the 'underclas' as you put it are not genetically so and even if they were variation in the gene pool creates just as many clever people form poor areas as it does wealthy ones.
From a international point of view as i said previously there are too many children peroid.
Its irrelevant who is having children whats important is they are having children at all. These children are what is destroying the planet.
Even if tommorow we cracked nuclear fusion and created a star on earth meaning we had infiniate clean power and the monetary system became redundandant we would STILL eventually die out because of overpopulation, they would be no room to grow enough food, no more metals nothing.
Energy alone cannot feed a infinatley growing population. For the sake of humanity we need to find a way to stop people having so many children.
Complain about this comment
#44. jd83 wrote: "orgy of hedonism"
Wasn't that at university. Not bothered about the future, just there to have fun - and certainly not bothered at all about jobs. Endless days of doing what one found fun - interspersed by scraping over academic hurdles.
I remember being dismayed by finding that the next group younger than mine (of the late 1960s, 'swinging' etc... etc..) was showing signs of worrying about jobs actually 'during' their time at university - something that my group didn't bother about at all! Very depressing - I am sure that we were not the last of the hedonists, but it felt like that.
Mostly this was about economics - full grants that you could live on (no student loans at all!) and the recent introduction of 'the pill' (Aids had not been 'invented') what more could a group of about 2000 of equal numbers of young men and young women want! (My old university now has 12000 students - not the same at all.)
OK less then 10 percent went to university, but it was more fun! And there were jobs for the vast majority with or without university 'education'!
Complain about this comment
#50. johnwilkes
I'm really shocked that this comment was published. He is clearly a troll and as such is total hypercrit given the comment itself.
Complain about this comment
51. bigsammyb No offence - have a look at UN or World Bank figures for world birth rates. You're right about Africans in the sense that they do tend to have shorter lives through greater disease (e.g. AIDS) and higher low doctor:patient ratios, but they do have larger families. The over-population problem does vary greatly by country/continent/group so it can be misleading to generalise (as Jeffrey Sachs etc have in the not too distant past), as Europeans are going to slowly die out if the current trends continue, but will be massively burdened with elderly care etc before-hand as the populations age before falling.
Complain about this comment
#54
Your right, its a bit of a problem don't you think? On the one hand we need young people to pay for the old on the other if we don't reduce population levels in the world as a whole we are going to all die out.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but this is the question people should be asking.
Complain about this comment
55. bigsammyb 'if we don't reduce population levels in the world as a whole we are going to all die out.'
The truth is that people have always had children who have then tended to look after them when they got older. In many cultures that's a duty. It's still there in the 1990s (post USSR), Russian constitution too! What many don't fully appreciate is just how dire the situation now is becoming in Europe (and the other liberal-democracies further afield).
One can't just look at the few here, one has to look very carefully at the bigger statistical picture, as that's where our societal problems are growing, especially in support of the elderly and pensions. The East and South Asians (British and abroad) are an example to us all on this score (and many others if the truth be spoken).
Complain about this comment
Valentine's doesn't have to be about spending money or proposing marriage. Since when did people actually propose on Valentine's??? I don't understand how there are people out there who rave about how Valentine's is a "Hallmark Day" ... just don't get a card! It's THAT easy. Why can't Valentine's be about just telling your loved one how lucky you are that you are with her/him? Or how much you love her/him? Nothing has to happen on Valentine's. We are still individuals who can make up our own minds. We don't have to let ourselves be pressured into doing things. Honestly, I wish people would just cheer up and enjoy the day. Valentine's or not.
Complain about this comment
57. Franziska 'Honestly, I wish people would just cheer up and enjoy the day. Valentine's or not.'
On the other hand, if more people spent less of their times wishing this that and the other, and looked instead into what is and is not (and why), there might be a lot less frustration and unhappiness around than there is.
The poverty of 'positive thinking' - a sign of our vacuous times? Just as telling depressed people to 'cheer up' doesn't work, loving someone isn't a feeling either, it's a set of overt behaviours which one has little or no control over.
Complain about this comment
58. Statin: Positive thinking indeed. My thoughts were along the lines that a lot of people seem to be taken over by the whole Valentine's hype and I'm talking about both groups, single and in a relationship. There is no need to be pressured into doing any of the "expected" things. Just be nice, enjoy the day. You don't need a reason to do that, do you?
Complain about this comment
59. Franziska - Statins are good for cholesterol (which incidentally is the basis of the sex hormones), and are best taken last thing at night.
Complain about this comment
Mark
This is certainly an interesting one and you've set off a firestorm here!
I have been married for 8 years.
We still haven't had children and we are not sure if we want to have them or not.
As many other people have commented, it seems that you have to work a lot harder to have some kind of a decent lifestyle these days.
Our doubts about having children come from 2 things:
Are we going to have enough time to actually spend with them and bring them up properly? We get up at 0530 in the morning to catch the 0700 bus so that we can get to work by about 0830.
On a good day, we finish work at 1730 and if we are lucky will make it home by 1900.
Having kids would mean that one parent would have to stop working (at least full time) which would reduce our incomes just as the expenses increase!
The 2nd reason is the money. Education used to be free, it is starting to cost money. I went to University in 1982, when there were no student loans and no tuition fees. Now there are both.
Increasingly, the quality of school education provided by the state is going to suffer as budget cuts will increase class sizes and lead to situations where teachers are require to multi skill to a ridiculous extent. I know of one deputy head who was teaching Religious Education, Biology and PE! An interesting combination.
This means, to assure your child's future, you will need to pay for his education, starting at an increasingly younger age.
This is at the time when many people have their own student loans to pay off, they have to commit themselves to a mortgage to obtain decent accommodation and they are fully aware that when they eventually retire, their pensions will be worth nothing because the pension system will have collapsed.
You're asking why people aren't getting married?
I have seen the logical consequence of these trends, and it isn't pretty. Go to the former Soviet Union.
The people who emigrate from these countries to the West are going to discover that the world really is round, and although they've travelled far, they've ended up right back where they started.
Complain about this comment
61. Liam 'I have seen the logical consequence of these trends, and it isn't pretty. Go to the former Soviet Union.'
Ah...the 'collapsed' USSR. What about China instead then? China fell out with the USSR after 1953 because it thought the latter revisionist, i.e giving up on Stalinism. Within 30 years (a generation) the USSR was on its way to liberal-democratic delight/ruin (comlete in the latish 90s).. Now China on the other hand, she's now a beacon to the world many would say. With 8% GDP and so much of the USA's debt in her pockets who will be taking leaves out of whose books throughout the world do you reckon?
Remember 'Lord of the Flies' - what we have had here for a couple of generations is that in slo mo..... and people keep voting for more because of bogeymen like the 'collapsed' USSR.
Complain about this comment
I've noticed a lot of these comments are about the cost of a wedding, and students having debts, etc.
I'm 20 and was 19 when I got married, my husband was 20 at the time. We waited until I had finished university, we had a large wedding with over 100 guests, a 3 course sit down meal, and a DJ for £5000 - we didn't scrimp, it is all about looking in the right places and asking favours,and haggling. You don't need to spend £20K on a huge party - when you can have one for a lot less, the bits I found cost the most was the church.
The problem came afterwards for us, we moved into a beautiful house - married quaters, and I started looking for a job so I signed up for jobseekers allowence thinking I would of only needed it for a month or 2 - I ended up needing it for 8months except I wasn't allowed it because my husband was in the armed forces!!
I'm glad I got married and will work on it, I think people have to go in without all the high expectations - you will argue, there will be little habbits that annoy you, you will have bills to pay, some months you will be scraping the bottom of the barrel. As long as you remember that you come home to someone who loves you, you can cuddle up and watch tv, a protective arm around you at night. Love is an amazing thing and I think a lot of people especially young people are scared that if they get married it will ruin it.
Complain about this comment
Love is hardly superficial (although lust certainly qualifies), and the deeper connotations of St Valentine's Day have been lost in its commercialisation. So the image of a "lasting relationship" fades ever so rapidly into the fog of a "better than nothing" fest.
Discernment and discretion disappear when you create a "must have it today" society, when we are tempted to believe that you can have your dreams today. Just like winning a lottery can be the nemesis of so many, so can winning love inappropriately.
Pleasure and pain travel in the same boat and you cannot have one without the other. It is not marriage and commitment that is at fault, it is the problem of loving ourselves that needs fixing - it can't be done via substitutes.
Complain about this comment
64. Angel_in_Transit 'Discernment and discretion disappear when you create a "must have it today" society, when we are tempted to believe that you can have your dreams today.'
Yes.
What many still will not accept (or will find 'offensive') is that this is child-like behaviour. One can see this in other, 'Third World', nations too. In fact, it's probably best to look there for examples of what's to come.
I fear that so long as our population keeps growing in this direction, matters will not get any better. It's very hard to see how matters can get better so long as liberal-democracy prevails, as populism just seems to reinforce the problem once it's reached a critical mass.
Complain about this comment
#65 Statist
"What many still will not accept (or will find 'offensive') is that this is child-like behaviour."
Indeed it is, as is the selfishness that pervades our "child oriented" belief mechanisms. Children are very important to us but only if we maintain perspective, the failure of which is something that has endangered many civilisations before us.
I also fear for our "black and white" view of "success" and of "happiness" as if they are consumerist items to be purchased simply by ratcheting up on our spending. Nations must go through many, many changes before the balance between income and contentedness is reached, and even then it is but a moment in time, and the balance must be constantly redressed.
There are many things that are free and give almost effortless satisfaction it is mystery to me why we spend so much time "spending money in shops".
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb wrote:
"I don't pretend to have the answer, but this is the question people should be asking."
Check out the Venus Project:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Complain about this comment
66. Angel_in_Transit 'There are many things that are free and give almost effortless satisfaction it is mystery to me why we spend so much time "spending money in shops".'
I suspect that may have all begun with the glorious liberation of 1688......after which the 'Dutch' settlement went into decline in favour of London.
Complain about this comment
#67 General_Jack_Ripper
Yes i am familier with the venus project, the problem is it essentially requires nuclear fusion to be a reality. Don't believe the assertion that 'green energy' would be pheasable.
I think its important to stick with reality here, it would be impossible to create such a system without extreme facism involved to get people to comply. Only with a total natural break down of the monetary system would this work and that requires infinate clean energy.
Its like most things, if you stick to a pure ideaology you will never achieve anything and those people you assert to help will never progress in any way.
Complain about this comment
Statist,
Why was that? Was shopping better in London in 1688?
Complain about this comment
#69
Perhaps General_Jack was more interested in the "idea" than the "method", as many so called "dreamers" have in the past. Of course the "dreamers" get no further than the cynical controlling forces will allow, clutching at every last straw to prevent the status quo from disappearing or even show glimpses of losing its gloss.
We already have "perpetual energy" via the Sun, the Oceans, the Seas, the Rivers, the Earth, and the Wind. No, the problem remains "the needs of the some" to control energy, and not allow mere mortals the chance to make and choose their own destinies and fates.
The great mockery of liberty that has been foisted upon us through generations is nothing of the kind. Valentine's Day is but one reminder of that. We have always been free, it is just that someone thought it would be good idea to make us pay for it. Is freedom free?
Complain about this comment
I did...
but I think I got away with it ...
Complain about this comment
Dear 'Mark',
Ahem. A friend of mine received a condom inside the Valentine card. The card wasn't signed and all the written letters were printed in Capitals form. The only clue I got of the person's identity was the three initials....H.M.P.
Do you think this could lead to a lasting relationship ?
Yours in anticipation,
SSnotbanned.
P.S.I received a similar 'proposal' some years ago(overseas.maybe France) but I thought because of my small income, the postage at the time would be prohibitive. My, ahem, 'friend' does not have this problem to date.
Complain about this comment
@ 61
Crikey! Why are you working so hard? Just get a smaller house, buy less stuff and take fewer holidays and you won't have to get up at 0530 to get in for work at 0830 - if you don't have kids you don't have to be slaving away like that...
Complain about this comment
It seems, from reading the posts here, that marriage, is seen as a financial thing. Surely not? Or maybe that is how 'they' want us to feel, whoever, 'they' are.
For me, marriage is a non-starter, in the traditional sense. I'm not religious, and so it has no bearing for me. Also, as a gay man, it's not allowed (in a religious sense) and so why should I conform to that doctrine? I'm sure many men and women feel that way, today, whether it be from a religious standpoint, or on a purely sexual-orientation point of view.
Yes, we have civil ceremonies, whether they be 'marriages' in a Godly sense or partnership confirmations in a 'same-sex-unclean in Gods eyes' sense, but in my eyes, the point of all of this is 'sharing'.
I've had long relationships - one for 11 years, ending when my partner at that time died of Cancer. My ethic in any relationship is 'sharing'. I want to share my lot with my significant other. To me, it's life-long, it's my committment and it's permanent. My committment is to that person, not to any God.
The world and its opinions are changing. In the past, God-less has been used to illustrate things that are wrong, but in reality, that is what has happened. I was raised properly, with good parents, with good morality, and that is the grounding for my thinking today. I'm in my 40s now, my parents are still together. If I ever find the right person again, sharing my world is all and everything that is on offer, nothing more, and nothing less.
Complain about this comment
What articles such as the above, based on statistics, seem to miss, is that increasingly other options have become avaliable. I live with my boyfriend. We rent jointly and have a joint bank account. This would not have been socially acceptable say 30 years ago given that we are not married. Were this option not avaliable than presumably many young couples in the same position as myself would get married. I certainly would not want to give up what I have. If you are looking at marriage figures as a reflection of commitment then this is a flawed analysis as it does not take into account those living in stable, committed if unmarried relationships.
Complain about this comment
Lippy lippo and Doctor Bob are spot on!I would have written a longer post but instead I need only recommend all to read their posts,numbers one and twelve.Nothing to say myself except,I wont be proposing any time soon,or even sending a card,its a huge commitment which I'd love to experience but which my circumstances at the moment,make impossible.I just remembered,two of my best friends split up about two months ago after 16 years together.They have a little girl and he found out after she left and took the little girl to live with her,that,because they never married,he does not even have the legal right to authorise emergency medical treatment for his child.As things stand,if anything fatal or equivalently serious happens to his ex-girlfriend,he is not legally entitled to be her legal guardian,even though she has his surname on her birth certificate and he can prove that he is her father.He does not have a criminal record and has never been aggressive or violent,he's just a normal dad...So,marriage would obviate any of these potential heartaches and problems..He is going to have to take his ex to court to get her to sign a "parental rights" form..Sad.
Complain about this comment
1st law of survivial for the male is do not get married!
Any sane man has to think long and hard, the man generally brings more cash to the marriage in the form of income. Yet the divorce courts split everything down the middle and as a rule its the man that gets reamed!
It takes ten minutes to get married and three years and the best part of 5k in legal costs to unravel it all.
Only a lunatic would get married and this no blame thing is a joke, just means the guilty party walks with half of the assets even if there income is the lowest! Marriage is finished period, if you live together as common law man and wife in the eyes of the law you are married and they still have claim to half your assets, hence all the single apartments being built and people living seperate lives!
Self preservation means individuals will live apart and just have a distant relationship to protect there wealth.One word of caution keep your bank accounts seperate to stop them being raided, its your cash keep it that way!
Sad but the divorce laws favour the woman so men have stopped getting married period.
Complain about this comment
@76 - so if you are living for all attempts and purposes as a married couple - why not actually get married? Few minutes down the Registry Office - boom.
Not sure what you meant by 'I certainly would not want to give up what I have.' Of course non-married people can be in stable and committed relationships, but a marriage is a legal, public and very official way of declaring your intentions to stay together permenently, to Society. It's a contract with Society almost. If you don't want that, fine, but many in Society will always assume that's because you want to make it easier for yourself if the relationship goes wrong. That's OK, but that's the message wider society gets from any refusal to get married.
Complain about this comment
i propose that the cons and libs
will destroy england via uneducated
bad decisions at the expense of england
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS