...As stated in another post on the subject of marriage, it is patently offensive for gay rights activists to purge marriage and scuttle the dying vestiges of historical associations of the grand old lady of traditional marriage by demanding illegitimate inclusion of homosexual same sex unions.

I just don't know where to start with this one...

I don't think it's particularly healthy to imagine that a couple bound together by a contract would be the best option for improving the standards of parenting. It may be one way to enact the responsibilities of a society whose ultimate object is to care and provide for its children, but in so doing it would create a situation where parenting is no longer an act of free choice, but where the powers and expectations of the rest of society intrude into, and ultimately interrupt attachments between parent and child. And who's going to enforce these contracts anyway? Child protection services?

"As education levels have increased, the penny has finally dropped that nuclear families do not provide the safest and healthiest way of bringing up children. Far from providing a protective umbrella of care as in extended family or community systems, the nuclear family through the institution of marriage creates a narrow funnel of care; a funnel firmly fixed on mum and dad; a funnel of responsibility too great for any couple to realistically bear.

This toxic nuclear family ideal, and the myth of romantic marriage that gives birth to it, must accept some responsibility for the extent of child abuse in this country."

Every single element of this passage is so wrong that it's not funny. As a great man once said, life wasn't meant to be easy. If parenting were easy then that would mean you're simply not trying hard enough. Parenting is the most difficult thing a person can take on And yet, many parents do succeed. Mine did, and I spend my life surrounded by people whose parents did also - but not all of them stayed together, and not all of them didn't damage their kids in one way or another.

[cont]

Further, none of the parents I've ever heard of, with the possible exception of Joseph Fritzl, have created a "funnel" for their children; there is always some social engagement. Ok, I agree that life is getting more complex. But that doesn't mean it's overwhelming, and that doesn't mean the concept of marriage has failed, and that doesn't mean that divorce and failed parenting are synonymns. Instead, it means that it's harder now to do the best for your child. Here's the fundamental point: having children is a big responsibility, and must be done for the right reasons - ie with the child's best interests intrinsically tied in with your own. It's the people who don't put in enough thought, or who are blinded by passion, or who are powerless, who bring children into unhealthy or abusive circumstances. But do we give up on these people? Do we sterilise them? Absolutely not. We support them to the point where they are in a position to make this decision freely and responsibly, and where they don't need a contract to keep it together.

I want to live in a world where people can have faith in themselves and each other, where children are valued as the independent, thinking, feeling beings that they are, capable of making their own choices, but still vulnerable to the foibles and choices of adults, who recognising this would treat them in a way that's best for them - and that the way they would treat their children would be simultaneously, intrinsically, best for themselves as well, notwithstanding the fact that they have to put all of themselves into doing it right, and that despite this they'll still make mistakes sometimes.

I don't want to live in Phil Dye's world. The fact that an ostensibly free-thinking person, who feels he has something worth saying, would feel compelled to write and publish an article like this, makes me indescribably depressed.

And diver dan, oh..., forget it.

What a sad and frivolous article.

It seems to suggest that replacing marriage "vows" with an enforceable contract will somehow improve the lot of the children. I couldn't find a single for-instance in the article that might support this bizarre idea.

Much of the lead-up observation in the article appears quite accurate, speaking from my own experience. But the "solution" defies any logic known to man (excluding lawyers, for obvious reasons).

"The modern marriage contract will have an expiry date with an option to renew. This expiry date could be shorter should the couple remain childless or longer should children arrive."

Expiry date? What does the author have in mind here - a year? Seven, to get to the itchy part? Ten?

And the idea of "longer if there are children"... that is a horrendous concept. If you could enact one law that would be guaranteed to increase domestic violence, it would have to be the imposition of legal shackles on an already strained partnership.

Furthermore, this is not "modern", in any sense of the word.

It reeks of centuries-ago forms of bonded labour, of marriage-of-convenience and indentured servitude.

"Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture" (Wikipedia)

Fortunately, I am not part of Mr Dye's intended target audience for this article, which is clearly aimed at the "new dads" that he wishes to buy his new book..

But I do feel sorry for anyone who takes this cynical claptrap to heart.

men being lovers of self is the primary reason for breakdown of marriage. Selfishness fed by secular dogma says its all about ME. I doubt whether any of the new atheist High Priests would be able to keep their vowels. How then would we expect their followers to keep their word? The more secular we become the more immoral. Marriage is not the problem but the selfish heart is.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12677#218889

diver dan, spot on,

the clear purpose of this article is to damage marriage to the point where we give up on it all together which is what the closet communists have been working on for decades.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12677#218901

Sam, if i remember correctly you are in favour of "gay marriage", children will be better off with "fault divorce", it worked perfectly before the ANTI family law act of 1975.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12677#218918

Pericles, all left wing clap trap is cynical clap trap.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12677#218919

runner, true, but it is selfish women methinks as 80% of divorces, the selfish woman applies for.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm read ALL of this one, especially if you have not seen it before, but pay particular attention to #40 on the list.