Because "til death do us part" was a great idea when average life expectancy was around 40, but now we're living longer so the artificial nature of monogamy is becoming taxing?
"From what I've seen divorce has gone down because marriage has gone down. You can't have a lot of divorces if there are less and less people married."
Thats true but if you were looking at the divorce rate, that would still mean that those that get married are not divorcing as much as they used to.
i havnt seen many people get married for reasons i would call healthy.
insecurity in their relationships, pregnancy or both are the most common i have seen.
doesnt help that perception of what marriage is/does in a relationship seems based more in fantasy than reality.
-----
"When the government fears the people you have Liberty,
when the people fear the government yo have tyranny,
when injustice becomes law, Rebellion becomes Duty!"
~ Thomas Jefferson.
Because everyone wants to think they have to get married to be together their entire life.
That and a man can't just beat his wife into submission.
In fact, I'd say women's rights is probably directly correlated.
Woman can have an abortion? Don't need a man to help her take care of a kid that doesn't exist.
She can get a job? Don't need a man to provide for her.
Everybody's getting divorced? Female divorcee's are no longer looked at as useless garbage.
I think too many people get married.
That there are any divorces is clearly a sign of this.
I think if the divorce process were less costly you'd also see more divorces.
Marriage and divorce are first and foremost financial decisions.
Years ago, women had no rights really. Men could beat them up and get away with it. Since womens' rights came to the fore, women are having the strength to leave abusive men and as such, the divorce rate in domestic abuse cases is a lot higher than it was say, 30 years ago.
I like how someone was reactionary to my statement instead of setting their emotion aside and analyzing what it is I actually meant with the crystal clear words I used.
It was in no way offensive.
Are people really so simple as to believe that garbage statement that "men can't beat them in to submission any more"?
Seriously, that doesn't really seem based on anything other than your own misconceptions about the past, if you're going to demand people take you seriously on that and to provide reasons to disagree, I'd say that first you should show something...anything at all credible that would in any way back up that ridiculous statement.
Oh yeah, the threat of physical violence back in the fifties never kept the wife in line.
It was just that she kept tripping and falling face first into all those doorknobs, right?
Clumsy women!
Of course if her clumsiness didn't keep her docile they certainly started up the pharmacological restraints, didn't they? NO?
Oh right, when someone wants to offer a counterargument the best way to do that is just to pitifully say "Really? Is that all?" instead of actually make a point.
"Oh yeah, the threat of physical violence back in the fifties never kept the wife in line."
I suggest that your understanding of how the 50's actually were seems entirely based on pop culture references and tarted up internet jokes, rather than any real knowledge.
What do you base this on? Proof or it didn't happen.
As for your little jab, I don't see that you've made any point even close to being worthy of countering.
You certainly have not backed up your postulation with any facts, and since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof does in fact fall on to you.
"It's pretty common knowledge that spousal abuse was pretty rampant in the 50s."
Saying this, and what Vermin said, still does not do anything to in any way provide anything more than the thinnest of anecdotal...suggestions, not even evidence towards the theory I am questioning.
And as far as that goes, it's pretty common knowledge that in certain places in europe spousal abuse, rape, and attitudes towards women are still fairly awful.
It's a little hard to find official statistics on something that was considered so normal it wasn't even against the law to do, man.
Considering that that means that official statistics do not exist for that decade.
And yes, it is still pretty awful in areas of Europe.
But unless you're just arguing here because you're somehow offended someone said something negative about America's past, I don't see how that's in any way relevant to the current debate.
And as far as that goes, it's pretty common knowledge that in certain places in europe spousal abuse, rape, and attitudes towards women are still fairly awful.
Are you going to develop that into a coherent argument?
"It's a little hard to find official statistics on something that was considered so normal it wasn't even against the law to do, man.
Considering that that means that there official statistics do not exist for that decade."
Then it remains, at best a theory, also, it seems that you've ignored your own warning about correlation/causation.
"I don't see how that's in any way relevant to the current debate."
Typical, you cannot prove something, so I must just be arguing for the sake of it.
Why do you not instead try to prove your point rather than make such yawn worthy accusations of me?
I disagree with the theory, I do not think it based in fact, judging by first hand accounts I've heard, things I have read and I think the idea has no real basis in reality as to that being one of the leading causes of the higher divorce rate.
And unless you can sit there and show proof that it is... *shrugs*
"Are you going to develop that into a coherent argument? "
Shouldn't I need to be presented with a coherent argument first?
Yes, do you see any statistics presented, that link the divorce rate, with spousal abuse?
"Definition of ANECDOTAL
1
a : of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes b : anecdotic 2
2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers "
"Sure, if you absolutely want to stay completely oblivious to something everyone in their right mind in fully aware of."
Lots of people "in their right mind" believe that some magic man in the sky created everything in 7 days and that the earth is about 6k years old.
So yes, I do value empirical evidence above people just stating their opinions, it is the basis of scientific discovery after all.
"Yeah..
Pot, kettle, black, etc."
Not at all, the difference is that I did not make the claim that is being questioned, and until I see some proof I don't really see the need to go much further than disagreeing with it.
"That's your problem."
That I read scholarly studies based on objective facts over wild intrawebz claims, and take the word of women who were actually alive in the 50's? I'll try to keep that in mind.
"And until I prove that it is, you'll revel in ignorance. I know."
You seem awfully upset to personally attack me over this.
