A health check on marriage

rossco says:

04:40pm | 13/08/10

Where do you want to go I’ll pay As long as you promise not to come back..

Pericles says:

07:49pm | 15/08/10

NO Simmo.  Same sex marriage would firstly, destroy marraige in law and formally separate marriage from fertility - a disaster for families and therefore the nation.  Anyway the concept is inherently self contradictory.

The etymology of the word marriage itself, as Bishop Elliott of the Melbourne Archdiocese explained to the Senate Committee last year, tells much: “Marriage: from maritus and maritata—husband and wife in Latin. Matrimonio; matrimonium—matrimony; making of a mother. It already has the two sexes written in the whole entomology (sic) of the language.”

You put Gay or ‘same-sex’ in front of that and you render it an absurdity.  In fact it fails the basic test of rationality, Aristotle’s Principle of Non-Contradiction, in that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time.  Gay or same sex ‘marriage’ is therefore, in the very meaning of the words utterly irrational and absurd.

Observer says:

11:22pm | 15/08/10

“...formally separate marriage from fertility - a disaster for families and therefore the nation.”

Sorry? I missed the memo that said children were a compulsory outcome of marriage.

Pericles, are you now going to annul the marriages of people who are childfree by choice, childless by biology or those widows/divorcees who married later in life after completing their previous families? I am sure they’d appreciate you devaluing their love or stigmatising their relationship on the basis that that their union is infertile and a “disaster for the nation.”

The semantic distinction is irrelevant, Pericles. Words change meaning over time anyway. Example; gay.

Anyway, what we call marriage now was, in the past, often arranged and not about romantic love but a decision between two families for mercenary interests.

MD says:

10:28am | 13/08/10

People have also disregarded the ‘for better or worse, in richer or poorer’ part of the vows, it’s now ‘until you do something I don’t like or lose your job’

Muttley says:

10:52am | 13/08/10

then you had a bad marriage. It doesnt necessarily mean marriage is bad.

TrueOz says:

10:00pm | 13/08/10

I’m with you Sara. I read a book recently titled “Too soon old, too late smart”. It was worth the price of the book to read what this career counsellor and psychologist had to say about the defining personality characteristics of couples married for the long term - “...a high tolerance for boredom”. Being married sucks!

Reg says:

08:26am | 14/08/10

Marriage is inward-looking, the very concept is faulty.  A recipe for a spiral into boredom and self-satisfaction.

Sandra says:

10:30am | 14/08/10

Indeed Helen!

Writer Margaret Andrews has a strong association with the Australian Family Association (AFA). Andrews is simply echoing a report earlier this week from the AFA and like-minded vocal minorities who issued a press release calling on the government to award cash handout for people who are married—or a “marriage bonus”.

Despite their seemingly benign moniker, the AFA is only interested in one type of family; one that is Christian, preferably white and makes more nice white Christian babies. The AFA are an offshoot of the infamous National Civic Council, now run by the descendants of the deceased Bob Santamaria.

The AFA’s “marriage bonus” policy was clearly stated to be withheld from not for any relationship other than a marriage between men and women. A “bonus” for marriage—aside from being ludicrous—would be funded by the non-married; singles, the gays and lesbians, the divorced, the cohabiting and the widowed.  It does not take a genius to work out that it would amount to a penalty on those who fail to conform to these extremists’ views on how society should appear. It is social engineering, not social policy.  Emperor Augustus,  and dictators Stalin and Mussolini also imposed a bachelor penalty on their populations.  History demonstrates that penalising the unwed is not a part of a mature liberal democracy.

The reality is, when you get past the initial rhetoric, the subtext is that the NCC, the AFA and the newly established “RISE” are all obsessed with just one thing; people who are bumping uglies without making babies. These people assert sex is only for procreation and those who do it for fun are dodging the bullet. They will, in their insidious ways, seek to invade Australian bedrooms using the government policy as a tool to effect their quaint ideas.  They think that contraception is disrespectful to women’s bodies because “objectifies a woman as having to always be available for the man”. It does not even enter their minds that many women actually like sex and also enjoy being released from the tyranny of compulsory pregnancy.

Their view on female sexuality is that sexual desire is something women can control because a “good” woman is averse to pleasurable sex because of compulsory pregnancy but will begrudgingly comply with her husband’s needs and her obligation to make more babies. Therefore,  it is up to women to be the guardians of human sexual morality until marriage and only open their legs for a baby and never complain if they do not orgasm. (Besides, if she has not whored around, she should not know what an orgasm is anyway!) 

What always tickles me is how these people—who supposedly have abided by the Christian ideals of virginity and chastity—seem to be able to evaluate the whole experience human sexuality based on their own and, it follows, a very a limited sample size. If they have convinced themselves that men “use ” women for sex, it is a conclusion that can only be drawn from lousy lovemaking.

Perhaps the motivation for these busybodies is that “misery loves company”. In our liberal democratic society, these people are welcome to wallow in their own mire and follow the writings of some Bronze Age goat headers, but it is not acceptable that they use “religion” as an excuse to project their own sexual insecurity and inadequacy on everyone else who dares to have a good time.

Lisa says:

03:19pm | 15/08/10

What is wrong with you Sandra? Apart from the fact that babies are the natural outcome of sex, there are a whole bunch of hormonal cues that bring on partnering behaviour in sexually active couples. Regardless of whether you are basing your lifestyle on artificial contraceptives or not, marriage-like bonding still occurs, and unplanned pregnancies still occur. In this way, marriage is simply a reflection of what is already taking place, it has existed across cultures across eons.

You cannot simply announce that ‘modern’ sexuality is somehow different from the sexuality experienced by people since time began. Every generation likes to think that it has discovered sex, but of course this is not true.

Young women have a different set of sexual needs than older, divorced women, or women that have already had their kids. Older feminists (such as our mothers), in saying marriage is no longer relevant, have lumped all women, young and old, into a ‘one-size’ box that doesn’t fit with the romantic and sexual aspriations of young women.

I have lived in a cohabiting arrangement, and while it suited me to some extent when I was VERY young, although still closing me off from a great deal of social, work, study and travel opportunities, by virtue of my being available to goober, I have to say it did not set me up well for the enjoyment of my youth.

In my late 20s, I tried it again, as an apparently necessary step towards marriage. However, I felt the situation was not AT ALLl reflective of my needs. Additionally, I found it a very poor basis for my financial outlook. Living together can be very unproductive in many areas.

I was very lucky to be married, aged 32, and immediately got pregnant.

I very much resent my culture’s expectations that I would NOT want marriage until the last minute, and I suspect that late marriage and the rush to children affects many women in the experiences of actually raising their children.

Such is the wisdom of our age. Older generations had a clearer view that romance in the early stages of a marriage set a good background for the more down-to-earth work of bringing up children later. This social contract between men and women has been somewhat truncated.

Cohabitation tends to view women as de facto men in their sexual needs and future trajectory. A lack of respect for the sexual needs of women LONG TERM has affected the ability of people to mate and marry successfully.

Your petty complaints about the claim that men sometimes use women for sex can surely be dismissed as irrelevant drivel. As seen by the plethora of legal and illegal brothels, the sexual use of women by men is all around us, supported by our culture and is really only a side-issue to your complaint that marriage somehow makes your life more boring, or forces you to wash the dishes.

zoe says:

08:33pm | 15/08/10

get over yourself ladies, Sandra I read your comment when I was sober and I have since read it while I was intoxicated and it still sounds demented.

Gill says:

10:14pm | 15/08/10

Blankenhorn is a liberal Democrat. Your comment, Helen, is just an example how anybody who disagrees with the politically correct, left agenda has to be branded as right-wing. Bill Galston was Clinton’s Domestic Policy Advisor, and he advocates a return to (limited) fault divorce - that is, longer periods of separation before divorce where there are young children.

Sandra says:

11:12pm | 15/08/10

@ Lisa,

“Your petty complaints about the claim that men sometimes use women for sex can surely be dismissed as irrelevant drivel”

That quote about contraception making women available to be “used” by men was a QUOTE, Lisa. It is attributed to the religious right,  not something I made up.  See
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/decjan2005p16_2135.html

“You cannot simply announce that ‘modern’ sexuality is somehow different from the sexuality experienced by people since time began. ” and “your complaint that marriage somehow makes your life more boring, or forces you to wash the dishes.”

Strawman. Where did I say that? Are you sure you read what I wrote.

“I very much resent my culture’s expectations that I would NOT want marriage until the last minute”

I equally resent my culture’s expectations that, as a woman, I am supposed to want to get married —in the big white stupid dress—and I am supposed to want kids and I am supposed to like sex just enough but not as much as a man does. If I do not want any of those things I am a whore and a bitch. But when a man does not want those things, he is just being a typical bloke. It is the double-standards that tick me off and writers like this one and her ilk would only enforce it.

Oh Zoe,  you can resort to petty insults, but the evidence that the writer, the Australian Family Association and the National Civic Council are really one and the same is no conspiracy or a “demented claim” . To anyone who has watched the movements of the far right, it is common knowledge.

Neo-libertarian and noted writer H G Wells once said, “moral indignation is really jealousy with a halo”. In that respect, nothing seems to have changed since his time.

zoe says:

01:32pm | 16/08/10

Sandra, sober again now and sorry still demented.  I as a woman grew up thinking I too had to despise the notion of marriage and children thinking as a modern post feminist that I had to embrace being an ambitious career driven person because of the ongoing fight for the sisterhood.  I resent the notion that I am meant to want that more than I wanted marriage and a family. 

Having a truly amazing marriage and children has given me more than I would have as that other person.  Where do you get the idea that Christian’s think women should not like sex?  I would argue that I enjoy it just as much as my husband which he is extremely grateful for.  The christian position is not that men should be able to do whatever and that women should hold onto their chastity and wait, but rather for both to wait and then enjoy it with the person that you marry.

On another note are you othello cat by another name

Sully says:

01:52pm | 16/08/10

Sandra,
So don’t get married. Or get married if you like. In latex, if you prefer, or a big black dress. No one cares.

MD says:

10:33am | 13/08/10

Hang on, I read romance romace novels, mainly historical ones so I agree with you about the chattel etc, I do not however think you should marry or stay married for children’s sake.

YM says:

01:36pm | 13/08/10

The “what’s in it for me” attitude that has become so prevalent clearly shows that rather than thinking for themselves, too many people are allowing themselves to be carried along by the self-interest themes of popular culture. It takes a much deeper level of understanding to appreciate the causes of happiness and fulfilment and it saddens me that so many young people will probably never know it.

The insidious success of advertising, which exists only to influence thoughts and desires to induce people into buying something they don’t need or want, is the perfect indicator of how incapable people have become of actually “thinking for themselves”.

And before jumping to the predictable conclusion, no I’m not a christian and I don’t believe in imaginary friends. But I do believe that anyone capable of rational independent thought would recognise and appreciate that stable long-term relationships were integral to evolving humans into a successful, civilised and long-lived species. Although that evolutionary process may be going into reverse.

Marriage (or its equivalent) is a fundamentally worthwhile objective.

Observer says:

10:33am | 14/08/10

” stable long-term relationships were integral to evolving humans into a successful, civilised and long-lived species.”

I think you will find agriculture, sanitation, refrigeration, antibiotics, anti-virals, literacy and reliable contraception have contributed, proportionally,  much more to human longevity than marriage.

YM says:

02:07pm | 14/08/10

Observer your analysis is ridiculous. Humans have been around for about 100,000 years. Agriculture has been around for about 5000 years. Humans would never have achieved the ability to invent ploughs, irrigation, refrigerators and condoms without having first become civilised. Stable long term relationships were integral to becoming civilised in the first place.

You go ahead and have the last unintelligent word. I won’t be bothering to check back.

Zara says:

10:26pm | 15/08/10

Andrews is probably the best know marriage educator in Australia. Suggesting that she is a front for the AFA is dumb. Sandra’s comment is just an attempt to dismiss by association. If her observations after years of work with couples can just be dismissed without any discussion of the social science evidence, then we are in deep trouble. What is significant, Sandra, is that you do not contest the social science. Instead, you attempt to dismiss it by association. What is significant is this discussion is how so many people refer to their own circumstances as a basis for dismissing the overall situation.

Observer says:

11:31pm | 15/08/10

*sigh* I was referring to longevity. Read again before hammering your anger on the keyboard.

Yes humans have been around for a while.  200 000 years, actually. But human lifespan—longevity—has only been significantly increased by agriculture, sanitation, refrigeration, antibiotics, anti-virals, literacy and reliable contraception. And, on a *proportional* basis, these factors have contributed more than marriage. Besides, who is to know how pre-historic humans organised their relationships? The assumption that they lived like modern day hunter-gatherers is not a reliable one.

“You go ahead and have the last unintelligent word.” Amusing retort especially coming from someone who lamented a “what’s in it for me society”.

Sandra says:

10:46am | 14/08/10

“Marriage is ,like the study shows, great.”

If you are a child or a woman looking to be raped, beaten or murdered, you are more likely to find it at the hands of a family member or spouse than a total stranger. Marriage is not great for everyone.

” ...lifestyles that have been forced on us over the past decades”

Ripa, these are OPTIONS, they are not “forced” on anyone. If you wish to   be married to an uncomplaining virgin who is happy to have buns in the oven literally and metaphorically, no-one is stopping you.

Yet the invisible sky-fairy believers would rather impose their “ideals” on everyone; take away birth control and return to the “good ol’ days” when women stayed home and made babies. Ripa, is it possible you have chosen your one path and you’re secretly envious of those who are following the “try before you buy” trajectory? Or are you just so insecure about your decisions and values that you need everyone to make the same narrow choices for your self-affirmation?

And it is not “nutty”’; choosing to be childfree is a sound environmental choice. No one has said that having children is compulsory—oh, except the loons from the New Reich—er I mean, New Right.

Alison says:

09:54pm | 15/08/10

Sandra, your comment on crime rates in families is misleading.
Actually, the majority of assault (sexual or otherwise) and homicides occur between people KNOWN to one other..not necessarily within families. Of course, since the most common interpersonal relationships occur within family units, this is an at-risk population. However to suggest that marriage is in some way CAUSAL of violence is incorrect. Thats statistics 101.
The risk of you being subject to a violent act is the same whether you are living in a casual, defacto or marriage relationship.
A comment such as yours is a reflection of an out-dated stereotype that only married women are victims of domestic violence…..so who’s purporting out-dated views on marriage now?!

Star says:

02:17pm | 16/08/10

Sandra -

Godwin’s law! You lose, you lose!

MD says:

12:16pm | 13/08/10

The wedding IS all about the woman.

call me crazy says:

01:22pm | 13/08/10

Completely agree MD. I would have been quite happy not doing it because as @ Marnie says below we’d have the same rights as married couples do anyway… 

Wifey wanted the big day so call it a comprimise… or a win to her lol

MD says:

01:38pm | 13/08/10

Yeah the honeymoon is all about the male lol

xyz says:

07:43pm | 13/08/10

Maudie, the majority of Indians are Hindu… so they do have a church… they call them temples.

Justine says:

02:45pm | 13/08/10

TheRealDave- you should read the research. The author is correct, the connection between marriage and life outcomes is probably to most compelling in social science research.

Kasy says:

05:57pm | 13/08/10

Not so, interloper - the proportion of happily married has also fallen. Are you saying that happy people get divorced? It is understandable that people refer to their anecdotal experiences, but this is a case where the overall evidence about the decline in a marriage culture is strong. What is more significant is why these changes have occurred and what are the consequences for society overall.

Jimmy says:

01:58pm | 15/08/10

Seriously Andrew? I will look after myself and to hell with the rest! Don’t you think the community in which we live is influenced by our actions - and vice versa?

Alison says:

10:01pm | 15/08/10

Andrew,
dont you have any sense of community??
You go ahead living in your little self-created bubble. Meanwhile, the rest of us will consider how not only our actions, but the actions of our community at large, are going to affect our children, and our children’s children’s.
You question Margaret sense of security? Freud would have something to say about that!

Hercules says:

11:27pm | 15/08/10

Just caught up with Punch tonight after a weekend looking after grandkids! Bizarre commentary. Most people have not responded to the article at all. As I understand it, Margaret was outlining the trends. She added, without much commentary, that social science research associated less marriage/marriage dissatisfaction/marriage instability with negative outcomes. Does anybody really question this?

If not, the real question is about what, if anything, we should do. I am not sure what the answer is, but I am disappointed about the number of commentators on this site who have tried to dismiss the issue by denouncing the author, or going off on a tangent. If marriage is such a problem, present your arguments, not just some reference to your personal circumstances, which may or may not reflect a broadwe view.