Missing The Point On Marriage!

Posted on | December 30, 2011 | 29 Comments

by Smitty

I’m sure that Roxanne de Luca can pick up any oversights here, but the social conservative in me can’t help but yell at this post.

We’re talking about marriage, not a game of chess. The conclusion:

Marriage is extremely important for societal stability and survival. But the current legal form of marriage is evil and is not only deleterious to society, but to men, women, and children alike.

Yeah? So? And? What other, less suck-tastic institution would you offer in place? Dare we, you know, return to first principles? In discussing Life, the Universe, and Everything with any young men where it comes up, I’m always quick to point out what life means, and how marriage has to be supporting that understanding.

If a young man doesn’t know what life means, then running through a marriage ceremony is an exercise in futility, with a side of sex. The surprising thing is that secular writers are surprised when, unexpectedly, rudderless relationships go off course.

Let’s just admit that the Progressives have been as wrong about marriage as they have been about Anthropogenic Global Warming (or whatever the label du jour is), economics, the sanctity of life, overpopulation, energy, you name it. Return to your traditions. Progressivism has (mostly) been a scam.

On this topic, Russell Brand has apparently discovered irreconcilable differences, and is divorcing Katy Perry. Russell, Russell, Russell: don’t do it. Be reconciled. Do not let the celebrity need to live your life on the cover of tabloids blind you to what matters in the bigger picture.

via Instapundit

Update: linked by Catholic Bandita, may God comfort that lady.

Category: Culture, Progressivism

Comments

29 Responses to “Missing The Point On Marriage!”

Neil
December 30th, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

“What other, less suck-tastic institution would you offer in place?”
Exactly! The immature foundation of liberal thinking is their naive belief in the possibility of a Utopian society and their complete ignorance of the doctrine of original sin. All their bad ideas flow from there.
Anonymous
December 30th, 2011 @ 7:52 pm

Smitty,

You’re assuming Brand knows there IS a bigger picture than magazine covers….
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

Reread what she said.
Her point is that the modern legal system screws over men.
Anonymous
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

Doctrine of Original Sin? There is only Good and the absence of Good. Good comes from Knowledge. Ignorance of Good, or Ignoring that which is Good is Sin. We can learn Good here and now or we will learn it in the next life (or lives). The Lessons will become more severe if we fail to learn each time. We cannot ignore Dharma.
BLBeamer
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:04 pm

The Brand/Perry marriage is ending in divorce? Wow, I never saw that one coming.
/sarc
BLBeamer
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

Further regarding the Brand/Perry irreconcilable differences:

She insisted he wash his hair occasionally and he insisted she stop being such a ditz.

Divorce was inevitable with demands like those.
Missing the Point on Marriage « Catholic Bandita
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:36 pm

[…] writes: Let’s just admit that the Progressives have been as wrong about marriage as they have been about […]
Rbirchtree
December 30th, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

I read that too.
gpaschetto
December 30th, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

The author believes men don’t want to marry because they risk their future. What good would any commitment to another person (in some other less suck-tastic institution) be without risk? How can you have commitment without giving up something? And how can you have family without commitment? What is she thinking?

And I don’t think it’s the “legal system” that is the problem, rather it’s how that legal system is used (or misused).
smitty
December 30th, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

I repeat: “Yeah? So? And? What other, less suck-tastic institution would you offer in place?”
smitty
December 30th, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

I’m trying to get at the problem deeper than the legal system.
Rbirchtree
December 30th, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

The legal system is slowly becoming more equitable to good fathers. However, the legal system benefits woman for the obvious reason that they are more likely to be responsible for their child. Hence, it is more common to hear single mother than single father.
Charles
December 30th, 2011 @ 10:52 pm

I am not convinced we have to be worried about a hollywood marriage that breaks down after a few months or a year. The idea of these celebrity marriages serving as any kind of model for others is a large part of the problem.
Anonymous
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:45 am

An interesting quote about non-marriage–i.e., cohabiting:

“…they weren’t going to yield to the hypocrites, and they’d live together….Marriage meant respectability. An outdated notion of respectability….And all of the girls, despite their declarations of independence, really wanted marriage. So, in defying tradition they actually sought it.” –Leon Uris, QBVII, 1970
EBL
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:46 am

Why marriage is in danger…
EBL
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:49 am

She is right.
BLBeamer
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:50 am

Why bother being good now, then?
EBL
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:51 am

How about treating men and women equally in the eyes of the law? It used to be years ago women got the short end of the stick. That does not justify going the other way against men now.
Dave
December 31st, 2011 @ 3:29 am

I’m a simple guy. Ask my wife, and she’ll tell you that I’m real simple, and I fart a lot, frequently in front of the kids. When it comes down to marriage, however, even a simple, stupid guy like myself understands what’s going on. I am married to my wife because I can’t conceive of NOT being married to her. It’s a hard, cold world out there, having someone you trust and love as much as (more than, really) you love and trust yourself makes it not just livable but enjoyable. To paraphrase Sarah Palin, herself paraphrasing the bible (Philippians 2:3-4″Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.), it takes a “servant’s heart” to make it work. I’m not subservient to my wife, she isn’t to me. It’s a partnership, and the sum of our parts is much greater than either of the individual pieces. Ego. Ego is the problem, but by letting ego go, you finally learn how to soar on the wings of eagles. Marriage is all about relegating the ego to immaterial status, and that’s something that a majority of people can’t do. It’s a pity, really, because once you do that, you find that the game is worth far more than the candle.
Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
December 31st, 2011 @ 4:50 am

1) How about treating men and women more equally in eyes of the law.

2) Cutting the absurd power that family courts have.
Anonymous
December 31st, 2011 @ 8:07 am

Karma is a beyotch, that’s why. Acts have consequences here or later. Even your Bible says you reap what you sow so the concept of Karma is not foreign to you.
ThePaganTemple
December 31st, 2011 @ 8:52 am

When was this exactly? Go far enough back, and you’ll see women who divorced were far more likely to get custody of the kids, and almost always got alimony, something that is almost unheard of today other than on a temporary basis. Now, although it is still rare, there are cases where men gets custody of the kids, and even child support, which was practically unheard of three and more decades ago. Men still get the shaft today, but not as badly as they used to.
Pathfinder's wife
December 31st, 2011 @ 11:02 am

As good a summation as any Dave.

I’m sick and tired of hearing men and women talk about marriage as though it was only a total of its legal value. It causes us to think of the people involved as merely economic values. That is one of the big problems in western society today.

Afraid you’ll get “shafted” in marriage? Guess what? Of course you’re going to “get shafted”; you’re going to “get shafted” when you become a parent — IF the only thing you can think about is how your own life will have to lose some of itself; IF the only way you can look at the world is as some economic transaction. You won’t have the time, money, or energy (or freedom) to do the things you might do while single. And just wait until the kids get in the picture! You will not get your way, and you run the risk of losing everything that you thought you valued (usually this is considered in economic values only, which is a very debased and crass way of looking at the human condition: as though the sum of oneself and the sum of others was the condo, the house, vacation time, and ones’ bank account).
Of course, you get other things that are just as good, if not better, in return — things that will fill you with a joy and completeness that you would have never experienced otherwise, things that make you re-evaluate the notions of riches and poverty. You have to be willing to take the risk and give up what you thought was yourself. Maybe people have to start looking at the value of things that don’t stem from a dollar sign view of the world).

Marriage and parenthood are good for a person’s soul — they are also a long, hard pull frought with danger and heartache, and not at all what the tv, movies, and commercials present them as being — but a person’s soul is far more important and enduring a thing than money in the bank or vacation time, and you can never develop your soul without facing sacrifice, risk, bitterness, and loss along with the sweet.

We’ve become so selfish, so greedy, and most importantly, so risk averse, so anti-heroic that it is no wonder marriage and parenthood are faltering.
Edward
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

Legalized prostitution. Or if that isn’t acceptable then perhaps contract marriage. You marry for a set period of time with all of the end results spelled out. At the end of the contract if it isn’t renewed then the contract is closed out and all assets and liabilities are divided as per the contract.

Because there is about a zero percent chance that I’d ever get married simply because of the insane laws and penalties that apply.
herddog505
December 31st, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

Robert Heinlein, anyone?
New Year’s Eve Roundup 12/31/11 Palin Heating Up | Katy Pundit
December 31st, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

[…] Missing The Point On Marriage! […]
richard mcenroe
December 31st, 2011 @ 1:52 pm

While busy bemoaning the death of marriage can we at least get rid of the fiction that “half of all marriages end in divorce”? What they don’t tell you is that they count each marriage even if the participants have been divorced repeatedly in the past. So one Larry King cancels out eight young couples making a lifelong commitment and trying to make it stick. Half of all married couple do NOT divorce, but a lot of dysfunctional people do screw up the curve…
Charles
December 31st, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

Right, and the stat also needs to be weighted to the length of the marriage. I’ll bet when you start looking at 10 year marriages upwards of 90% stick.
In dry, science-laden terms, what is the proper control (group)? at Haemet
January 2nd, 2012 @ 12:51 am

[…] Smitty links to a rather depressing commentary about marriage – depressing, because a grown man can’t see the value in the institution, and also depressing because someone who saw the problems with second-wave feminism feels like committing them all over again, just for different reasons. Vox says, It is unconscionable to recommend marriage to any man under a legal regime in which he has no protection under the law and can be forced out of his own home by a single false charge. While this state of affairs is fair to neither individual men nor individual women, the lamentable fact is that very, very few women, even conservative, politically minded women who are correctly concerned about what low marriage rates will do to American society, are willing to speak out against Marriage 2.0 because they still wish to retain the legal benefits it affords married women in the event of divorce. […]