Monogamy, A History

[Book of Jeremiah]

Monogamy.....no, that's not folding paper into swans and flowers.....
...but almost as complicated.
I though this might be appropriate for Mother's Day.





1. Monogamy, being committed to one person.

At one time, monogamy was the culture in America....seems no longer to be the case. It both represents, and has gone the way of, personal responsibility.
As have many other attitudes and values....

a. Envy has become a dominant feature of the culture...
“Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.”
Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

b. Since the 60s, Leftist political dogma has been based on the idea of a 'personal morality," an extension of which is envy, and could be reduced to this bumper-sticker: "if it feels good, do it."

2. The wave of vilification of bourgeois culture received impetus from “The Authoritarian Personality,” by Adorno, et. al. which identified antidemocratic indicia such as obedience, and respect for authority. Conservatism, of course, was another name for fascism, and represented personal pathology.

a. "...the ideal of a "patriarchal" family and middle-class respectability is something almost everyone is rebelling against....couples go ten years without tying the knot because they do not want to surrender to bourgeois values. Rebelling against "the establishment" is something that anyone can do.."
Tucker, "Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human," p. 215-216





3. And the explanation as to why marriage and the two-parent family has given way to a more atavistic scenario is that monogamy is, after all, a cultural construct, meaning that it is not one modeled in nature.

It is an artificial plan that advanced societies impose on themselves. Where did this idea come from? From the experience of mankind throughout history.

a. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles are worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience, and laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in what is taught in families.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."





4. But, it is a difficult code, not one that satisfies everyone's desires, and stigmatizes all manner of deviation:
a. homosexual inclinations,
b. the temptation for dalliance with another's spouse,
c. pre-marital intercourse
d. having children out of wedlock
e. ...and more.

5. Things have changed in many ways.
"Today, vulgar language knows no class, sex, age or place. As late as 1960, sleeping with one's boyfriend was mostly a lower-class thing. It was deemed sluttish and something to be kept secret; today it's open and assumed to be normal…. In some instances, unwed mothers proudly hold baby showers celebrating their illegitimate offspring. Homosexual marriages were unheard of; today, in some jurisdictions, homosexual marriages have legal sanction. Of course, to be judgmental about the new codes of conduct is to risk being labeled a prude and possibly a racist, sexist or a homophobe.” America's New Role Models

6. "Left to their natural state, almost all species end up practicing polygamy, since the strongest males will dominate the physically weaker males and females. Polygamous societies of Islam and tropical Africa and of pre-history are much more 'natural' in that they give vent to a wider range of the deepest human impulses....Monogamy is the end point of civilized behavior that recognizes, however unconsciously, that enforcing the rules creates advantages at the societal level."
Tucker, Op.Cit.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Children need "both" parents.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles are worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience, and laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in what is taught in families.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

Clearly David Mamet doesn't know jackshit about history.

Trying to pass off MONOGOMY as a Judeo-Christian invention is as ignorant as it is ethnocentric.

Unless of course you and he really ARE just that ignorant, PC. (in which case you are both merely ethnocentic)

The ancient Hebrews, as but one example, were NOT monogamous.

The early Christian Church did not believe in marriage as they though the end of the world was neigh.

Marriage is not remotely a Christian or Hebrew invention///neither is monogamy.

That is nonsense, Editec. Where did you get this from? Your source? Link?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. One would hope that Feminism is a marginal aberration....but their kind of thinking put the current occupant in the White House...the first pro-infanticide President....

Millions of Americans have subsumed their values to the immediate gratification championed by the Left.


But there are some on the other side: educated, competent women, who make a very different choice:

a." When Kelly Makino was a little girl, she loved to go orienteering—to explore the wilderness near her rural Pennsylvania home... She put herself through college at Georgia State working in bars and slinging burgers, planning that with her degree in social work, ... moving up the nonprofit ladder to finally “run a United Way chapter or be the CEO.”
Kelly graduated from college magna cum laude and got an M.S.W. from Penn, again with honors, receiving an award for her negotiating skills.



b. Now Kelly is 33, and if dreams were winds, you might say that hers have shifted. She believes that every household needs one primary caretaker, that women are, broadly speaking, better at that job than men, and that no amount of professional success could possibly console her if she felt her two young children—¬Connor, 5, and Lillie, 4—were not being looked after the right way.
The maternal instinct is a real thing, Kelly argues: Girls play with dolls from childhood, so “women are raised from the get-go to raise children successfully."
The Feminist Housewife: Can Women Have It All by Choosing to Stay Home? -- New York Magazine



11. Does this presage the future of monogamy...and of Western civilization?

"Demographic studies show that religious families consistently have more children. Parents invest enormous amount of time, money and emotional energy into raising their children, only to lose them to secular worldviews pounded into their minds through public education and the entertainment culture. A study in Britain found that non-religious parents have a near 100% chance of passing their views to their children, whereas religious parents have only about a 50/50 chance of passing on their views." Breeding for God

 

[September]

Why are you so upset at the criticism....
....you recognize a low-life in your behavior?
Good.

So... you would attempt to attack my character to avoid answering my honest questions, and to distract everyone from noticing your inability or unwillingness to respond?

Nobody is upset, I'm just wondering why you feel the need to protest against people's sexual behavior when you don't agree with it. No need to get hostile, we can discuss this all civilized like

Because I tell the truth.
You were 'honest' about your behaviors, and I was honest about my view of same.
Why are you so sensitive about your inclinations?
Hostile?
It seems you realize what the problem with your revelation is, and can't stand the criticism.
You should meditate on the reason for your hypersensitivity to criticism.....not used to honesty?

As an athlete and an artist I am completely used to constructive criticism, and welcome it. Its helps us improve ourselves in our pursuits. Except... you are making all sorts of false allegations. Hypersensitive? No. Curious as to why you are acting the way you are, or why you feel the way you do about those things? I... was. But I am not curious anymore. You are... a boring, unimpressive human with a very limited mind, and your method of discussing each other's differences was far too inadequate for my taste.

 

[dilloduck]

From a christian web site then, a little cockeyed but the essence is true
"It is remarkable that so many people are willing believe that Christianity has something in common with Judaism, even knowing that the Jews do not accept Christ as their personal savior. That fact alone should tell everyone that Christianity has nothing in common with Judaism."

Not mainstream Christian belief. Sorry. It isn't. Judaism and Christianity are step daughters of the Hebrew people and their beliefs. Yes. This is so.

Nope Christians may think and hope that. But Jews don't

Is that because they are ashamed that someone else holds some of the same scripture and prophets sacred ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So... you would attempt to attack my character to avoid answering my honest questions, and to distract everyone from noticing your inability or unwillingness to respond?

Nobody is upset, I'm just wondering why you feel the need to protest against people's sexual behavior when you don't agree with it. No need to get hostile, we can discuss this all civilized like

Because I tell the truth.
You were 'honest' about your behaviors, and I was honest about my view of same.
Why are you so sensitive about your inclinations?
Hostile?
It seems you realize what the problem with your revelation is, and can't stand the criticism.
You should meditate on the reason for your hypersensitivity to criticism.....not used to honesty?

As an athlete and an artist I am completely used to constructive criticism, and welcome it. Its helps us improve ourselves in our pursuits. Except... you are making all sorts of false allegations. Hypersensitive? No. Curious as to why you are acting the way you are, or why you feel the way you do about those things? I... was. But I am not curious anymore. You are... a boring, unimpressive human with a very limited mind, and your method of discussing each other's differences was far too inadequate for my taste.

I get such a kick out of this!


I post that I find you to be a low-life dirt-eating mouth-breathing half-head.....and you get so incensed, that you produce a post with an emoticon that proves what I said!


I hope no one thinks that I have you on retainer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles are worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience, and laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in what is taught in families.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

Clearly David Mamet doesn't know jackshit about history.

Trying to pass off MONOGOMY as a Judeo-Christian invention is as ignorant as it is ethnocentric.

Unless of course you and he really ARE just that ignorant, PC. (in which case you are both merely ethnocentic)

The ancient Hebrews, as but one example, were NOT monogamous.

The early Christian Church did not believe in marriage as they though the end of the world was neigh.

Marriage is not remotely a Christian or Hebrew invention///neither is monogamy.

Here's what they call a "tell" in poker.....a give-away that you thought was hidden.

In your case, your language tends toward the vulgar when you don't have a leg to stand on.


A teaching moment coming right up:


1. “Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

2. This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

3. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society….Among the consequences of the unchanneled sex drive is the sexualization of everything --- including religion. Unless the sex drive is appropriately harnessed (not squelched --- which leads to its own destructive consequences), higher religion could not have developed.

4. …the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history.

5. The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations. In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. In Greek beliefs, Zeus married Hera, chased women, abducted the beautiful young male, Ganymede, and masturbated at other times; Poseidon married Amphitrite, pursued Demeter, and raped Tantalus. In Rome, the gods sexually pursued both men and women.

6. Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. It could no longer dominate religion and social life. It was to be sanctified --- which in Hebrew means "separated" --- from the world and placed in the home, in the bed of husband and wife. Judaism's restricting of sexual behavior was one of the essential elements that enabled society to progress."
Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality




Don't hesitate to come back for more remediation.

 

[DGS49]

A consideration of male biology, if you please…

The human male is unalterably and irreversibly inclined to copulate with every female that he finds attractive. This reality remains the case from pre-puberty (when most males don’t even know what it means to copulate) virtually until death, as long as the male is healthy. Females don’t like to accept that fact, and choose to believe that if a man “loves” his “wife” or mate, he will lose the desire to copulate with others. Cynical females and all males know that this is nonsense. I guarantee you that if Scarlett Johanson had a personal, private audience with the Pope, the first thought coming into his head when she walked into the room would be how much he would like to ball her brains out. Then he would counsel her appropriately.

While this tendency seems to describe a prescription for outrageous immorality, the same can be said for the inclination to eat food that one finds tasty, to acquire possessions that one finds desirable, and the desire to engage in other activities that one finds fulfilling or enjoyable. It is an appetite, nothing more. It can be suppressed, but it never goes away.

But our ancestors recognized eons ago that allowing men to engage in this lustful behavior without restrictions led to chaos, especially when one considers that men are much stronger than women, and in a natural environment, they could often simply force a female to copulate, whether she wants to or not.

Further, it was recognized that nurturing of children was best facilitated by the more or less constant presence of both a single male and a female parent, and that it would simply not do for multiple males or females in a single household to be constantly fighting about who was going to copulate with whom. Hence, cultures generally grew to favor monogamous relationships, called “marriages.”

But still, most societies also recognized that males who had exceptional power (regardless of its form) would still be inclined to copulate with many women, especially young and nubile ones, and facilitated that possibility with social customs that supported it, if grudgingly (concubines, prostitutes, and so forth). Monogamous marriage was still held up as ideal, but its breach was common and accepted.

Today, we still struggle with the biological facts of life. Men never lose their lust. Sometimes they leave their wives and take up with someone else, sometimes they just fool around, sometimes they frequent prostitutes. Sometimes they will set up a younger woman with a job, and apartment, whatever, just so that she is available to satisfy his lust, when his wife - to be honest - is no longer sexually attractive.

Isn't the current NBA kerfuffle just another example of this perpetual drama? Some randy old bastard sets up a slut, gives her generous gifts, fucks up his marriage, and when the slut runs into problems with his wife...

Same old story.

Monogamy is necessary and is morally commendable, but natural? N.F.W.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A consideration of male biology, if you please…

The human male is unalterably and irreversibly inclined to copulate with every female that he finds attractive. This reality remains the case from pre-puberty (when most males don’t even know what it means to copulate) virtually until death, as long as the male is healthy. Females don’t like to accept that fact, and choose to believe that if a man “loves” his “wife” or mate, he will lose the desire to copulate with others. Cynical females and all males know that this is nonsense. I guarantee you that if Scarlett Johanson had a personal, private audience with the Pope, the first thought coming into his head when she walked into the room would be how much he would like to ball her brains out. Then he would counsel her appropriately.

While this tendency seems to describe a prescription for outrageous immorality, the same can be said for the inclination to eat food that one finds tasty, to acquire possessions that one finds desirable, and the desire to engage in other activities that one finds fulfilling or enjoyable. It is an appetite, nothing more. It can be suppressed, but it never goes away.

But our ancestors recognized eons ago that allowing men to engage in this lustful behavior without restrictions led to chaos, especially when one considers that men are much stronger than women, and in a natural environment, they could often simply force a female to copulate, whether she wants to or not.

Further, it was recognized that nurturing of children was best facilitated by the more or less constant presence of both a single male and a female parent, and that it would simply not do for multiple males or females in a single household to be constantly fighting about who was going to copulate with whom. Hence, cultures generally grew to favor monogamous relationships, called “marriages.”

But still, most societies also recognized that males who had exceptional power (regardless of its form) would still be inclined to copulate with many women, especially young and nubile ones, and facilitated that possibility with social customs that supported it, if grudgingly (concubines, prostitutes, and so forth). Monogamous marriage was still held up as ideal, but its breach was common and accepted.

Today, we still struggle with the biological facts of life. Men never lose their lust. Sometimes they leave their wives and take up with someone else, sometimes they just fool around, sometimes they frequent prostitutes. Sometimes they will set up a younger woman with a job, and apartment, whatever, just so that she is available to satisfy his lust, when his wife - to be honest - is no longer sexually attractive.

Isn't the current NBA kerfuffle just another example of this perpetual drama? Some randy old bastard sets up a slut, gives her generous gifts, fucks up his marriage, and when the slut runs into problems with his wife...

Same old story.

Monogamy is necessary and is morally commendable, but natural? N.F.W.

I love autobiographies!

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. How, without an end would a history of monogamy be without an understanding of the source of the assault.....the Frankfort School



"The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinarysocial theory,[1] associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University inFrankfurt, Germany. The school initially consisted of dissident Marxists....." Frankfurt School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Here, a brief synopsis of how we came to the brink of the destruction of our civilization:

"... the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy.


To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media

and

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family



One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:


• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml




"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."

T.S.Eliot

 

[DGS49]

For the record: 40+ years of monogamous, faithful marriage.

And I am still inclined to want to copulate with at least three females that I encounter every day. Even though I love my wife.

Deal with it. It is biology.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Many people are shopping for their next spouse while married to the present one. As previously noted, we're actually serially monogamous. Half of us stay with one mate until we don't. Then we marry someone else.

That's the punchline to the joke the phobes call The Sanctity Of Marriage.

 

[High_Gravity]

Monogamy.....no, that's not folding paper into swans and flowers.....
...but almost as complicated.
I though this might be appropriate for Mother's Day.





1. Monogamy, being committed to one person.

At one time, monogamy was the culture in America....seems no longer to be the case. It both represents, and has gone the way of, personal responsibility.
As have many other attitudes and values....

a. Envy has become a dominant feature of the culture...
“Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.”
Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

b. Since the 60s, Leftist political dogma has been based on the idea of a 'personal morality," an extension of which is envy, and could be reduced to this bumper-sticker: "if it feels good, do it."

2. The wave of vilification of bourgeois culture received impetus from “The Authoritarian Personality,” by Adorno, et. al. which identified antidemocratic indicia such as obedience, and respect for authority. Conservatism, of course, was another name for fascism, and represented personal pathology.

a. "...the ideal of a "patriarchal" family and middle-class respectability is something almost everyone is rebelling against....couples go ten years without tying the knot because they do not want to surrender to bourgeois values. Rebelling against "the establishment" is something that anyone can do.."
Tucker, "Marriage and Civilization: How Monogamy Made Us Human," p. 215-216





3. And the explanation as to why marriage and the two-parent family has given way to a more atavistic scenario is that monogamy is, after all, a cultural construct, meaning that it is not one modeled in nature.

It is an artificial plan that advanced societies impose on themselves. Where did this idea come from? From the experience of mankind throughout history.

a. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles are worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience, and laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in what is taught in families.
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."





4. But, it is a difficult code, not one that satisfies everyone's desires, and stigmatizes all manner of deviation:
a. homosexual inclinations,
b. the temptation for dalliance with another's spouse,
c. pre-marital intercourse
d. having children out of wedlock
e. ...and more.

5. Things have changed in many ways.
"Today, vulgar language knows no class, sex, age or place. As late as 1960, sleeping with one's boyfriend was mostly a lower-class thing. It was deemed sluttish and something to be kept secret; today it's open and assumed to be normal…. In some instances, unwed mothers proudly hold baby showers celebrating their illegitimate offspring. Homosexual marriages were unheard of; today, in some jurisdictions, homosexual marriages have legal sanction. Of course, to be judgmental about the new codes of conduct is to risk being labeled a prude and possibly a racist, sexist or a homophobe.” America's New Role Models

6. "Left to their natural state, almost all species end up practicing polygamy, since the strongest males will dominate the physically weaker males and females. Polygamous societies of Islam and tropical Africa and of pre-history are much more 'natural' in that they give vent to a wider range of the deepest human impulses....Monogamy is the end point of civilized behavior that recognizes, however unconsciously, that enforcing the rules creates advantages at the societal level."
Tucker, Op.Cit.

Managomy is a lost art.

 

[High_Gravity]

Many people are shopping for their next spouse while married to the present one. As previously noted, we're actually serially monogamous. Half of us stay with one mate until we don't. Then we marry someone else.

That's the punchline to the joke the phobes call The Sanctity Of Marriage.

This is true.

 

[dilloduck]

Many people are shopping for their next spouse while married to the present one. As previously noted, we're actually serially monogamous. Half of us stay with one mate until we don't. Then we marry someone else.

That's the punchline to the joke the phobes call The Sanctity Of Marriage.

The sanctity of marriage is a goal. It's not something that is always achieved. Do you have a problem with idealists who strive to achieve things ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Many people are shopping for their next spouse while married to the present one. As previously noted, we're actually serially monogamous. Half of us stay with one mate until we don't. Then we marry someone else.

That's the punchline to the joke the phobes call The Sanctity Of Marriage.

The sanctity of marriage is a goal. It's not something that is always achieved. Do you have a problem with idealists who strive to achieve things ?

Nope.

But I do have a problem with those who post opinions but call it fact and then use that opinion as "proof" that there should be no marriage equality.

Fact is, there is no "sanctity of marriage" as long as half of them are ending in divorce and many are screwing around.

 

[DGS49]

"...half of marriages end in divorce..."

This commonly-repeated “factoid” is statistically preposterous. Nobody knows what percentage of marriages will end in divorce until at least one of the spouses in every considered marriage is dead.

To illustrate: I got married in 1973 and am still married. And yet statistically it is NOT YET DETERMINED whether my marriage will end in divorce, or the death or my wife or me. It will not be possible to determine what percentage of 1973 marriages ended in divorce until, basically, everyone who got married in 1973 is dead. As for all marriages, it is difficult to even propose a statistic that would be valid. If some percentage of the total adult population that was EVER married is STILL married to the same person that might have some validity.

Or one could look at the population of people who got married in, say 1980, and see what percentage of them is not still married to the same spouse. Whatever that statistic is – say it’s 50% - it would be accurate to say that the ultimate percentage of 1980 marriages ending in divorce will be MORE THAN 50%.

But to speak of “all marriages,” is problematic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...half of marriages end in divorce..."

This commonly-repeated “factoid” is statistically preposterous. Nobody knows what percentage of marriages will end in divorce until at least one of the spouses in every considered marriage is dead.

To illustrate: I got married in 1973 and am still married. And yet statistically it is NOT YET DETERMINED whether my marriage will end in divorce, or the death or my wife or me. It will not be possible to determine what percentage of 1973 marriages ended in divorce until, basically, everyone who got married in 1973 is dead. As for all marriages, it is difficult to even propose a statistic that would be valid. If some percentage of the total adult population that was EVER married is STILL married to the same person that might have some validity.

Or one could look at the population of people who got married in, say 1980, and see what percentage of them is not still married to the same spouse. Whatever that statistic is – say it’s 50% - it would be accurate to say that the ultimate percentage of 1980 marriages ending in divorce will be MORE THAN 50%.

But to speak of “all marriages,” is problematic.

I posted this earlier....

1. "Contradicting the endless New York Times articles celebrating "the new American family," "blended families" and "quasi marriages," a recent census report says that only 12 percent of Americans will be married as many as two times in their entire lives. Only 3 percent will be married three or more times.

(The "one of every two marriages will end in divorce" canard comes from comparing the number of marriages in a given year to the number of divorces that same year -- but the divorces could be from any of the millions of marriages consummated in the prior several decades. Serial divorcers also bring the "average" divorce rate way up.)"
Why Larry King Will Never Be President | Human Events




2. "Fifty percent of American marriages are not ending in divorce. It's fiction. A myth. A tragically discouraging urban legend.
If there's no credible evidence that half of American marriages will end up in divorce court, where did that belief originate?

In his book Inside America in 1984, pollster Louis Harris said that only about 11 or 12 percent of people who had ever been married had ever been divorced. Researcher George Barna's most recent survey of Americans in 2001 estimates that 34 percent of those who have ever been married have ever been divorced. \

One of the latest reports about divorce was released this year by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It is based on a 1995 federal study of nearly 11,000 women ages 15-44. It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years."
Fifty Percent of American Marriages End in Divorce-Fiction!




The fabrication about half of all marriages ending in divorce is hardly an accident....it coincides with the aims of the Leftists who have a need to destroy traditional values.

It was advocated by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

"As a result of the ascension of the Nazis, the Frankfurt School moved to Geneva, and then to New York City. The openness, freedom and liberty of the United States is all they needed to infect this society and its cultural institutions. Too many simply ignored the onslaught…”And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is ignore it!”
Breitbart, “Righteous Indignation,” p. 114.

 

[DGS49]

Clearly, there is a pattern.

There is a constant, insidious campaign to "normalize" behavior that was once considered (and is still considered by people who care about morals) unacceptable.

To divorce is to breach what is probably the most profound promise that anyone makes in life. It is a solemn promise witnessed by the couples' best friends, and observed - usually - by all of their respective friends and families. To pretend that this is not a SERIOUS matter, to be avoided at all costs, is an insult to our culture and to everyone who has honored it (and their solemn promises ) for eons.

The 50% myth is the part of our culture that says, "No big deal," when a couple divorces. And don't even look at the studies that show divorce is BAD FOR EVERYONE involved, generally, and mainly the kids, who are significantly more likely to have problems of all sorts than kids of intact marriages.