[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Doolan

Now, this is just a theory, but I don't think the institutions of "family" and "marriage" are losing points in the ranking of hot stuff because of a multi-sided conspiracy.

"Short after WWI", national women's suffrage became a reality in the US. A bit later in the UK. This alone is probably the factor that changed reality the most, with women taking an officially-recognized publicly-active role in society and being put, at least on paper, on the same level as men.

You know what this leads to because we're seeing it today. Women work, often in the same positions as men and with the same responsibilities. Men undergo the difficult process of becoming "house animals" to compensate or keep working and wait until dinner cooks itself. Plus, if a woman is now tired of her husband she can just tell him to sod off and law will be on her side.

In fact, "no-fault divorce" didn't even exist as such in the US until the second decade of the 20th century.

All I'm saying is that, while I don't deny that certain political groups, or any other pressure groups, might be interested in undermining a traditional structure that is often held as a flag by other political (and religious) groups, I think the fact that divorce wasn't even allowed without charges and that women didn't have the option to access it might have something to do with it.

"Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all."

I suppose you don't believe that people instantly became reckless about marrying after WWI. Couples that weren't meant to be have always existed, and in fact they existed more before WWI than after. Just take a look at the average age for marriages and you'll see that most took place when the girls didn't have a clue, even less so a choice.

The difference is that today if a couple doesn't work you break it, you don't just pretend it works.

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer, even between the word wars. people simply stood together bad times, and did not talk of "you hinder me to unfold my personality", "I can'r rwlaise myself with you bein g so near", and all that other egopist stuff of today that for the most simply expresses a dramtically drop in stress tolerance - the kind of stress, or testing and crisis that probably inevitably becomes part of a partnership sooner or later. What couple do you knw, who never underwent a crisis, prbolems, challanges? I never met a single one, never. But today, the many selfish egoist our world and western lifestyle has created simply run away when the first such challenge shows up, plus today the social conventions are no longer doing their part of keeping people together. All this is being sold as "realisation of pernal freedom", but the more you claim for yourself, inevitably the more you reject to invest into the other - it simply is the other side of the medal. with the liberasation of such social conventions, women gained more freedoms, both sexes gained a greater degree of freedom in living and interpreting their sexual role, but it went at the cost of stress-tolerance of partnerships. Just 100 years ago, you had great bfamilies, several generation eventually lived under the same roof. That had pros and cons. then came the chnaged working environment, the dcemand of industry for mobile workers, the growing of the cities. families got reduced to core families: just parents and children anymore.

Today, political ideologists and 68er-revoluzzer and super-pedagogues want children being taken out of the traditional family environment as early as possible, and introduce them to other social relations and collectives, and get them under stronger influence from state-wanted (left-wanted) ideologies, I see that att he younger and younger ages at which they are being send to mkindergarten, and tzhe dramatic detoriation of the schools competence in Germany over that past 20 years. The woman not only hgas the right to work in an independant job anymore, today for many it is a must that she does, else the family is threateend on an existential level. the number of singles raising offsprings is climbing, more and more children are being born in a inter-human constealltion that is not strong enough to form and supoort a family constealltion : the partnership breaks, and the children are the loosers. That is again the other face of the medal of the secual revolution: you got rid of the prudence of the 50s and 60s, but you also saw the pendullum to the extreme of the other side of the swing.

It al has two faces, and nothing you gain ever comes for free. That's why it is so important to find a dynamic instead of a static balance.
but when I say the classical family constellation (deriving from a classical man-woman relation with future and perspective and enough investement by both to keep together even if the sea gets heavy) is constantly being pushed further back, and is declining, I am totally right, it is a selfish priority shift deriving from tyopical Wetsern consumer-mentality, it is a decline in stress resistance, an excess in sexual freedom, job and indust6ry demanding family to stay back, left idologies taking kids more towars the state and more away from the family home, and now - we are at the topic - it's specially protected status, in Germany guaranteed by the constitution ("The family stands under the special protection of the state) - is again being pushed back another bit more by relativising the importance of intact hetero-sexual relation within the frame of a family by allowing the same terms of social acceptance for non-hetero-relation outside the classical family-environment. families are not seen as something overly valuable and important anymore, in ourwestern culture, they are not hipp, and economy does not like the reduced flexibility of parents to, and the result of all these different trends and factos, from sociologicy of industrial developemednt to greater egocentrim of modern lifestyles is: wetsern population are in decline.

I leave it to this, becasue it is the core point of why I do not tolerate home-marriages. It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. Mammals know the pohenomenon of homosexuality. But that does not mean that it is the norm, it remains to be the deviation from the design, and only the original design is self-suppoorting and survivable in a natural (=designed by nature) way. there is nothing wrong in alolowing and tolerating homosexual people. but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are. As species and evolutionary design study, homo sapiens is not a homosexual but a heterosexual design, and more there is not to say.