This is actually very interesting, and an important topic for those who have to advise our younger generation about their life choices.

So what information is there about it that is more reliable than a book by Kevin Andrews, of all people?

For those with short memories Kevin Andrews is the Minister of Immigration who cancelled the immigration visa of Mohammed Haneef, apparently on the grounds that he had been under investigation by the police regarding a terrorist plot. This was quickly resolved, but the visa remained cancelled, on grounds which were not stated - I suppose just to save the Minister's face.

And this is the person Bill M. hopes will convince us of some no doubt contentious assertions!

All good arguments to support gay marriage. Where were you Kevin?

Indeed this is very interesting. Not having read the book, I find it hard to see how researchers can accurately differentiate the effects of marriage per se from the impact of the personal traits that enable individuals to make a marriage work - values, patience, persistence, negotiating and listening skills, resilience, etc.

But the more important question is: If marriage is indeed so valuable, both individually and socially, why is Kevin Andrews intent on excluding gay couples from this institution, thereby denying their children its benefits.

...In a life-full of diminishing alternatives, marriage remains the most difficult of alternatives to maintain. Most “progressive” households I am aware of, where marriage is the key glue of the family; demands on time energy and resources of the family are stretched so thinly as to leave the observer bewildered when they do stay "glued".

...The enormous effort required by working parents to resist the inuring influences of family needs infixed as housing, transport and employment, as a small sample of the burden, leaves one totally unsuprised when such commitments finally “fall in a heap”.

...Once was a time long long ago, when the sole job of the wife was tendering the needs of the “brood”, while the husband rose to the occasion of sole bread winner: In those days divorce was almost entirely an unnecessary resort.

...And...once was a time when the connection of homosexual and marriage were so distant that chalk and "moon" cheese would be served with the "SAO" without a wink.

Any essay or whatever on the state of the family that does not refer to the function of TV as the primary causative factor in the disintegration of the family, is seriously deficient.

Years ago Jules Henry pointed that TV had become the major influence on children's "education" and socialization. And that THAT fact alone signified and facilitated a profound shift in human culture.

Furthermore another primary determining factor on the structure of families and communities is technology and the economic changes that each technological revolution inevitably causes.

Meanwhile exactly what was the truth of the old-time nuclear family that Bill promotes? What kind of dreadfully-sane individual, and culture altogether did it produce. What sins and abuses were beaten into the bodies of children generation after generation by the stern patriarchal fathers.
These references provide a more truthful perspective.
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html
http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php?page=2
Bill of course would absolutely loathe the above author.
Plus a related book by Philip Greven titled: Spare The Child- The Religious Roots of Punishment.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/JCP98.html
In his first book (Magical Child) the author of the above reference describes the usual "normal" mis-understanding of child-rearing as a MONSTRPUS MISUNDERSTANDING

Plus this USA reference on the myth of the happy self-reliant family
http://stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere

Furthermore it seems to me that the individual and collective psychosis pointed to and described above is the root emotional driving force of right-wing religion - particularly as it is now being dramatized by the GOP in the USA. Of which Bill is a more than enthusiastic supporter.

I just love Christians ignore the fact that humans have been around for over 100,000 years. In that time we have developed many different cultures with many different family units. Yet this fact is ignored and only the version of the family unit that the Christian church has been pushing for the last couple of hundred years is now the only one that can make a stable family.

Christian groups needs to focus on cleaning up the mess the kiddy fiddling priest have hurt rather than moralise over us.

Kenny wrote:
"and only the version of the family unit that the Christian church has been pushing for the last couple of hundred years"

The fact that Jesus 'pushed' that "family unit" around 2000 years ago (Mt 19/ Mk 10) based upon even an even older paradigm gives lie to your assertion. Honestly, why bother with your two cents worth if it is not even worth one cent? And it is not just about the existence of different units, but upon the historical success of each of those. Are you really trying to claim that any other model works *better* - or even just as good - than one man/one woman and their children for generation after generation? Serious?

What mindless drivel you spout, Kenny. First of all, it makes an assertion that is not even true, second, it equates mere existence of a paradigm with its legitimacy. Yours is an argument about a micron deep. Pathetic counterarguments like yours just affirm that Bill has your measure on the issue by a country mile, because what you write isn't even reason, it's irrational noise.

If humankind is going to even survive, let alone prosper in the years and decades yet to come, then it has to be informed by a comprehensive Real Intelligence re every aspect of human endeavor.

That having being said the "world"-view promoted by Bill on his blog and his writings (rantings) altogether provides absolutely nothing re the necessary concepts, tools and actions re how to do that.
Indeed the "world"-view that he promotes on his blog is entirely ignorant, culturally illiterate and essentially bigoted re/towards any other possibility other than his own narrow-minded unexamined self-righteousness.

Alright Stephan, if Jesus was so clever then what did he have to say about the chicken and the egg dilemma? Because essentially that's the kind of argument we're dealing with here.

Marriage doesn't lead to happiness any more than homosexuality leads to bestiality. It's merely an effect of a particular type of society where a lack of suitable alternative options exist.

Religous extremists believe in the Adam and Eve concept, therefore they must support incest.

Does the author truly believe that God is a government employee?

- Just pay a fee, receive a slip of paper with the word "Married", thence all blessings flow?

(and then pay a second fee, receive another slip of paper with the word "Divorced" thence the blessings-tap will be turned off)

Marriage is made in heaven, not on paper, which makes it practically impossible to tell who is married and who is not, thereby practically impossible to scientifically research the advantages and disadvantages of marriage.

On a different issue, the author, playing the sorcerer's apprentice, should be condemned for his obsession with bringing more children into this already way overcrowded planet. The world nowadays being so divorced from nature makes it a disservice to bring a child into, both for the world and for the child.

Bill Muehlenberg is no armchair expert. He actually knows his stuff, even if he is a Christian.

All you commenters on here - you do realize that Bill M. wrote a BOOK REVIEW, not the book - right?! And a fine job of it too. He gave a clear synopsis of the books content, purpose and major points. As a traditional marriage advocate this topic is of interest to me. Because of this excellent review I will get the book for the deeper detail.

So why the attacks? You don't like the review? Simple, don't get the book. Why snipe at the reviewer because he agrees with the author? People won't want to review books, (for readers benefit by the way) and post it here, if jackals come out.

A few ideas from an 'old fogy':

Marriage has some association with religion - across a broad sweep of religions - but its principal underlying role and objective is optimal societal structure and stability, largely but not solely aimed at provision of a stable and secure family environment for the raising of children - since it is also a sought-after safe harbour for childless couples. Essentially it is the ultimate monogamous ideal - though some stable long-term de-facto relationships can and do represent a reasonable equivalent (probably including some same-sex couples).

I would contend that marriage has fallen out of favour because of individual selfishness and self-interest, engendered largely by 'brave new world' expectations, mobility and opportunity and by mass media generated corruption of individual responsibilities and life-role. (As an example, in my day movies would hesitate to show a couple kissing, and there was much emphasis on respect and restraint - no sex outside of marriage - but now everyone's readily portrayed ripping each other's clothes off, and so much of the oral acrobatics (kissing) verges on comedy or sickening debauchery.)

Sex and particularly pregnancy outside marriage was severely frowned upon, and unwed mothers were rare. In our more 'equitable' and 'fair' society we have a proliferation of single parents, most of whom are totally reliant on welfare, and hence on the working tax payer. Such liberties come with a price - on society, on family stability and environment, and on the long-term prospects for many of the children involved.

Many men are happy to take advantage of these laissez-faire societal attitudes, but essentially in their own, and no-one else's interest. (Quite a lot of men in our society have children by a number of partners, and many single mothers have children from multiple male partners. Is this a healthy scenario?)

There are many contributing factors to the downfall of marriage as the pinnacle of the human life-role, but it is not due to any deficiency in religious aspirations of association.

Experiment, but leave children out of it until really ready to commit.

"cohabiting couples are less likely to stay together;
cohabiting couples are more like to have extra affairs;
cohabiting couples offer less stability for children;
marriages following cohabitation are 50 per cent more likely to break up; and
marriages following cohabitation report less happiness and compatibility."

Yes; and perhaps that's why they choose to cohabit instead of getting married. The population who choose to cohabit -- of whom I am one -- are different in many ways from the population who choose to marry -- less religiosity, for one thing, and probably more freedom from parental pressure. You -- or Andrews -- can't simply assume that if the same people had chosen to marry rather than cohabit, all their issues would magically disappear. If they choose to cohabit, presumably they have valid reasons for doing so.

Children who wear pants generally score higher on maths tests than children who wear skirts, but that doesn't mean you can improve maths scores by making all children wear pants.

Welfare is destroying marriage, in one way or another.

The taxes paid to maintain the welfare state are probably the difference between a stay at home mum, & a working mum. This after the often huge cost involved in earning the second income is deducted from hers. It also makes it much easier to separate at those times when the going gets a bit rough.

When I was a kid it was very much a case of "us against the world" where it required the effort of a couple to survive. In the 40s & 50s, single life was not on.

Housekeeping was no bed of roses either. I remember gathering the wood to boil the copper on wash day. I also remember how much I hated those rough unbleached calico sheets my mother made. They were better I suppose, than the used flower bags their predecessors were made from, although they were smooth, if you could avoid the seams.

The rewards were greater. I remember our first house. What an achievement, built by dad, mum & me, [aged 10], & really ours, even if most of the internal walls were just framework for years.

They were so proud of the old lounge they reupholstered. It was sharing those things that was the bond much tighter.

Today, signing the mortgage papers, & skimping to pay it does not offer the same cement, but often more pain.

Of course the fact that the legal system today, financially rewards the lady who walks does not do much to keep couples together. In fact with everything against it, I can't imagine why any young bloke even considers it today.

Businesses would never succeed if based on LOVE. Neither will marriges. 3 year marriage contracts are essential for social stability in an era where individual freedoms demand more information about all the dirty details of what marriage really is.
To expect marriages to last based on LOVE and not HARD fine detail business law is an anachronism from an age where wars and life and death were always on a knife edge and governments needed children not just for future taxation revenues but for their VERY SURVIVAL.
Today we have men who need sex at least 3 times a day every day being deceived by mass marketeered scantily clad, highly perfumed environmet destroying women who need sex about once a month, an oestrous cycle that demands at least 3 children and a mind that demands a house a car and slave to put out garbage.
This is what the church expects of marriage. It is why priests and religious leaders are generally single. The fact that mothers raise their sons knowing this inequity is in fact a crime. They fail to educate them properly and it shows a lack of real LOVE. This should be a central theme in famaily courts when deciding divorce outcomes. It is not.

It is wrong to blame me for their sexual urges or their frequency. It is equally wrong to blame women for their complementary oestrous urges.
3 year marriage contracts would enshrine who we each are and our true needs.

And yes their would be far fewer marriages if the truths were known.

continued ..

Continuing /.

But with 3 year contracts that stipulate all eventualities including children. And stipulate them up front. The chances of true love entering the frame, if indeed anyone today believes in it, are enhanced. Knowledge is power. Equally the arcane hiding of this knowledge in religiosity and LOVE is WEAKNESS. 40% + divorce rates are a testament. The unseen unhappiness in the other 60% is an outrage when modern governments legislate all business & other contracts be tightly regulated whilst allowing marriage contract based on antiquated knowledge of human needs to infect our society with fake respectability underwritten by carnality and selfishness.

Here endeth the sermon .. now rollout the 3 year marriage contracts and the TRUTH.
Even if there is no LOVE , at least everyone will be on the same page and a certain amount of mutual respect will be present and accounted.

'cohabiting couples are less likely to stay together'

That's the funniest part to me. I've heard this one many times.

It just so amazingly misses the point.

Anyone who sees it as at all relevant obviously is so closed minded as to believe every cohabiting couple would be striving towards a life long commitment.

For some reason I just find it particularly hilarious.

BTW:
' it should support, encourage and utilise family and community organisations, rather than supplant them'
ie. Give the Churches more money? Hey?... Hey? Wink.

Marriage, the single worst thing I've ever been part of.

I should have chosen more carefully but I was a timer and wish I'd done some co-habiting first to learn a little more.

R0bert

'cohabiting couples are less likely to stay together'

I see "cohabitating couples" as including two subsets:
1. those married
2. those not married

* How many in group 2 start cohabitating with a view to moving to group 1;
* What proportion do make it to group 1
* what proportion that make it to group 1 stay married "til death do them part"?

Hi RObert! I guess you'd be one who would agree with a mates description of marriage as the worst hire purchaser agreement in history.

Everything you have as deposit, everything you earn as monthly payments for the rest of your life, & you can't trade the old one in on a new model, when it starts to break down too often.

Hasbeen I don't tend to like the parallels that imply some kind of ownership. Too many ways they can be twisted by those with an agenda.

I'd envisaged a partnership with both of us working to the best of our abilities to benefit our family. Instead I found myself bound to someone who treated our marriage as a means to the end of her own wants with no regard for mine. Marriage became a constant demand for more by someone who would not give.

The marriage has been over for a long time now, the ex has married someone else and I now find the government taking far more than what it cost me to care for my son here to give to a couple who chose not to contribute anything to the normal costs of his care when he was here. I don't see anything to indicate that they are spending more than I did.

After my experience of marriage I'd suggest a few things
- Co-habit before investing in the emotional and financial baggage of marriage to get some idea of what the person is like to live with day to day.
- As soon as a male pill becomes available men who don't already know the real character of a partner should start using it until they are confident that they want to share parenting with that person.
- Lobby for changes to family law and child support that protect the responsible parents rather than the scoundrels. A history of not working should not absolve someone from responsibility for their kids and a history of working (especially when they have also done the care part) should not turn them into an unsupervised money source for the other parent. Both parents should have responsibility and be allowed to get on with their lives once a sane version of that responsibility is met.

R0bert