No answers to my questions;
Apparently, according to all these bitter divorcees, mothers are incapable is instilling morals into their children.

Either that, or this whole article is nothing but a shallow excuse to take advantage of a tragedy to make a rant about "Why my wife should have been forced to stay with me instead of freeing herself"

Either that, or they're just bitter that they didn't get custody of the kids instead of the wife; which would then make them a hypocrite.

In other words- the entire thing strikes me as the biggest, most childish entitlement complex I have ever seen.

-But that would be crazy, right?

Rather than crazy King Hazza your comment is probably the most accurate on this topic. Resentment must be one of the most underrated emotions in these arguments.

Some posters give the impression that men never do bad things and all the woes of the world are down to women. Is it unreasonable to consider that women might be single due to forces out of their control (abandonment) and that some women are better off without an abusive partner.

A happy marriage is a worthy goal but not everybody is lucky with their choices.

If homosexuality is such a positive lifestyle why does the evidence show the opposite?

For quite sometime now, we have been bombarded with messages telling us that homosexuality is just another lifestyle; equally as valid as any other in our society. Any opposition to this view, especially in public, is generally met with hostility, with the “offender” being branded as judgemental, homophobic or an extreme right wing fundamentalist.

No one is allowed to raise questions, such as:

1)Why are homosexuals not permitted to give blood through the
Red Cross?

2) Why do homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV
in Australia?

3) Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal damage
and anal reconstructions?

4) Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal cancers?

The reality is many people have been lulled into believing the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and that homosexual marriage has to be legalised.

Ammonite,
I suggest you get the facts right. Marriage is not just about two people declaring their love for each other. Mothers and fathers do that continually to their children.

Marriage has biological consequences of a male penetration of a consenting female to whom he is committed exclusively for life. Though you would trust that both love each other and they are mutually consenting. Though in some cultures marriage is not so consenting as young brides are purchased as property

King Hazza - Entitlement complex? That is what I call the GLBT lobby’s current determined attempt to usurp traditionally defined marriage.

Not all divorcees are bitter. Many just yearn for a better way, realising that the existence of traditional marriages that fail does not diminish the value of the institution of marriage. What society needs to do in response to failing marriages is to encourage good marriages; through more purposeful social values, more pro-active and determined effort and increased resources, all directed towards encouraging good marriages.

Incidentally marriage is not designed to be just a contract but a covenant (as in the sense of American-Indian blood covenant). There is a world of difference. Contracts are primarily defensive in nature and ‘selfish’ in that their main purpose is to protect the rights of the parties. They do this by focusing on how to clearly identify a breach of contract, providing escape clauses and clarifying the processes to be followed when these have been triggered. If we begin with this end in mind, then marriages are a doomed institution from the start.

A covenant on the other hand is a deliberate MUTUAL all-binding commitment to the welfare of the other person bound to, FOR THEIR BENEFIT. It is quite literally intended to be for life and unto death if necessary. Our society now only romanticises about such rarely occurring commitments, for example in the concept of ‘mateship’ immortalised in our Australian military narrative, and in correctly understood traditional marriage.

If as a society we returned to having this kind of selfless commitment in mind when creating family units and raising children, imagine how much more resilient to societal stresses and all of life’s other challenges, our children’s generation and their children’s generation would become.

Wawrick’s article does not suggest that single women are the cause of the UK riots or that women are incapable of raising good children. The point is that this burden should not be disproportionately forced upon women by society as it increasingly is, to the extent that traditional family is deliberately (or by default) being replaced.

For decades, in our society’s misguided pursuit of personal freedom above all else (read escape from moral and social responsibility above all else) we have encouraged insecure and dysfunctional family units to flourish; family units that are ‘divorced of’ the positive male role models necessary to produce a robust next generation of society.

I have heard it said in jest(but it belies a deeper truth) that ‘real’ men are now growing up to be real men just like Mum. Now even in some two ‘parent’ families children are sometimes growing up to be real men just like Mum and Mum and perhaps the sperm donor; or Dad and Dad and their surrogate; and with room for only two on the birth certificate.

Let’s proceed with the end in mind. This is not a dress rehearsal, it is not ground hog day and for too long the grand social experiment of our time has been using you and your children as guinea pigs.