Dear Pericles,

As always, the voice of reason...

Pericles: "we are talking about an individual's choice here. "

Yes, we are and it appears that men are choosing not to marry. Apparently women are "choosing" not to have children, as well...

http://www.theage.com.au/national/specialist-women-top-list-of-childless-20080625-2wvi.html
A quote: "Report co-author Justine McNamara said it was interesting that among women in specialised occupations, childlessness had not increased nearly as much as it had for others."

"Certainly, although these women have very high rates of childlessness in comparison with other women, those rates of childlessness have grown at a smaller rate," she said."

I suspect the cause is that the partners of women in "specialist" fields are also themselves well-paid and hence a little more insulated from the effects of a failed marriage involving children.

Pericles: "If it is economic damage you are concerned about, get a pre-nup."

You could try, but it would have no weight whatever if you've had kids. At that point, if the marriage ends, the State steps in with full support for the woman who is now a "mother" and with no support whatever for the father, who is assumed to be a "deadbeat" unless he's prepared to pay for her to sit home doing very little.

Pericles: "The idea of any government, at any time, wanting to make it "easier" or "harder" to get married is of course abhorrent to any true libertarian.

Which probably explains why I can't take it seriously."

Do you pay taxes, drive a car, own a home, work? Do you also fail to "take seriously" Government efforts to control your behaviours in those endeavours? If so, you must spend a great deal of your time in Courts...

Govt policies can and do influence our behaviour as individuals. To try to argue otherwise is plainly stupid, whether you call yourself a "libertarian" or not.

Foxy: "
As always, the voice of reason..."

See above...

Well, this will probably sound like 'Pollyanna...'
But, - I'm happily married, and wouldn't change a thing.

Foxy

Thats because "you are" "Pollyanna"
Hes a lucky man!


Hey, Hehe - I was reading your comment on a farmer wants a wife when the thought stuck me it might be a good job for Nicky and her Veggie Libber mates:)

That ought to take Care of Farmers, Live exporters all in one fawl swipe.
Come on now You must admitt it would make for a funny show- Not to mention marriage. Wonder what our Yabbs would make of that idea.

Well fair Lady I had best head for the hills before she comes into this thread.

Just Couldnt resist Foxy
Keep Smiling:

Still not sure that I understand where you are coming from here Antiseptic. It is obviously a topic you feel strongly about, so I will apologize if some of my remarks may have sounded flippant to you.

But the fact remains, libertarianism aside, that any attempts by governments to encourage or discourage marriage - or even straightforward procreation - are never going to sit comfortably with personal freedoms.

>>Govt policies can and do influence our behaviour as individuals. To try to argue otherwise is plainly stupid, whether you call yourself a "libertarian" or not.<<

Yep, no question.

If a government decided that only "properly married" couples should earn a baby bonus, that might influence my decision to marry.

If the government determined that only "properly married" spouses could inherit their partner's goods and chattels, that might influence my decision.

If they decided that only the offspring of "properly married" couples could be recognized as citizens, and given an Australian passport, that might influence my decision.

If they decided that producing children without being "properly married" is a criminal offence, that could have a big impact on my decision.

So yes, at a simplistic level, government policies can and do influence our behaviour.

But ultimately, it is still a personal decision, based on factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the law. In fact, if I decided to make a commitment to a partner that we remain unmarried in the face of all the above factors, it would still be a personal decision for which we - not the government - would bear full responsibility.

But I still don't understand how this equates to a dysfunctional society.

Where exactly do you perceive the dysfunction? And what is the role of marriage - as opposed to, say living together and raising a family - in that dysfunction?

Pericles: "Where exactly do you perceive the dysfunction? And what is the role of marriage - as opposed to, say living together and raising a family - in that dysfunction?"

I may have confused you. I thought the article was clearly referring to both legal and de facto relationships and my comments were intended to encompass both types.

The dysfunction lies in the fact that the basic family unit of 2 parents and their offspring is being rejected by what seems to be an increasing number of men to the mutual detriment of themselves, the women they choose not to live with and the children they don't father, not to mention the society that has to find other ways of getting the future citizens that the children would have grown into. Why it concerns me especially is that the dysfunction is being fostered by a barely-questioned assault on men's freedom, on very shaky ideological grounds. As a libertarian, I find that completely unacceptable from the State that I was born into.

Good Morning PALE&IF,

Again, Thank You for your kind words,
and for always making me smile...

As for my husband being a lucky man?
I don't know, - he puts up with a lot
from me.

I try not to be selfish - and want too much.
I just wish that I will grow old with him.