I had always thought it alright but reading what you say I have to re think it, but I've already been re thinking it in a different way. My reasoning many years ago was: if two people don't want to be married then why not just end it, exempt it..
It has been occurring to me of late, in a slow consciousness way, that Marriage - any marriage - is really a contract when the State is involved and should still be a contract between two people when the State is not involved. Someone makes a will for example and that should be honoured - no matter what - and I was particularly alerted to the will of one person not being honoured when it came to same-sex-marriage.
When I read your words, I'm kind of shocked because 'heterosexual' marriages (also with same-sex) do not seem to have a proper Contract in place in regards to: divorce, child rearing, custody of children, money - etc. etc. and then when it breaks down - I think of what I read through Janice Fiamengo, Tom Golden and Bettina Arndt - that the State/Law doesn't take any of this into account and especially in regards to 'custody of children'.
So, in fact in my mind, today, I think that the State/Government DOES NOT honour the contract between two people in this case - two married people!!!
Without any experience in such things, I thought that when someone makes a Conrtact - normally in business - and one is at fault then there is a penalty to pay!!!??? So in this sense, I see now that 'no fault divorce' is a total sham actually..
If we (Stephen and I) sign a contact that I will do research on this subject for Stephen to write a book and then I fail to deliver - Stephen - might, let me off the hook or sue me for not delivering... It seems that with Marriage, the Government is letting one party off the hook when in fact 'both' parties signed a document... Thus, government is interfering to much in every day affairs and their only role 'should be' providing a Justice system to sort such things out and then if they become complicated then maybe that means the Contracts for marriages should be more specific!!!!!
I've had trouble reading the other Lectures, only because my buttons are pushed and lack of history to understand, but this one cemented some ideas.. thanks...
Edit: fixed up some spelling mistakes, grammar and tidiness..
Growing up (Australia) I had the thought when I heard of women that were pregnant and then got social assistance money (because the man was gone), 'where are the men in this and why aren't they paying for this child'? kind of thoughts and I'd have to re read your article to give a fuller comment but now it makes sense in a very strange way... and what I read here is, "because the governments don't want it that way, the feminists etc., don't want it that way, the socialists don't want it that way'.... wow, I was so naive then and still learning...
I know a woman who was a single mother who couldn't get on with the father of the child and didn't want to (despite her doing some good things she has ruffled many other adults feathers) and therefore received TaxPayer money and TaxPayer Funded Housing as well, while also doing some 'black money' work...
One day she and I talked about the planet is overpopulated stories, which I do not agree with, and she suggested some people should be killed; but she never mentioned once that She was going to volunteer to save the planet... a bit rude I thought!!
Thank you Stephen for putting the pieces together. i was aware of the many pieces but had not seen the seamless inter-relationships you expose. Helpful, depressing, and infuriating.
Dr. Baskerville, thank you for this series. When I first heard you say that "changing the culture" is a way of doing nothing and that we need legislative reforms, I asked myself, "What does the mean? How can we correct society if we do not change the culture?" This series on the Sexual Revolution cleared things up for me.
I forgot to address the 'no fault divorce'.
I had always thought it alright but reading what you say I have to re think it, but I've already been re thinking it in a different way. My reasoning many years ago was: if two people don't want to be married then why not just end it, exempt it..
It has been occurring to me of late, in a slow consciousness way, that Marriage - any marriage - is really a contract when the State is involved and should still be a contract between two people when the State is not involved. Someone makes a will for example and that should be honoured - no matter what - and I was particularly alerted to the will of one person not being honoured when it came to same-sex-marriage.
When I read your words, I'm kind of shocked because 'heterosexual' marriages (also with same-sex) do not seem to have a proper Contract in place in regards to: divorce, child rearing, custody of children, money - etc. etc. and then when it breaks down - I think of what I read through Janice Fiamengo, Tom Golden and Bettina Arndt - that the State/Law doesn't take any of this into account and especially in regards to 'custody of children'.
So, in fact in my mind, today, I think that the State/Government DOES NOT honour the contract between two people in this case - two married people!!!
Without any experience in such things, I thought that when someone makes a Conrtact - normally in business - and one is at fault then there is a penalty to pay!!!??? So in this sense, I see now that 'no fault divorce' is a total sham actually..
If we (Stephen and I) sign a contact that I will do research on this subject for Stephen to write a book and then I fail to deliver - Stephen - might, let me off the hook or sue me for not delivering... It seems that with Marriage, the Government is letting one party off the hook when in fact 'both' parties signed a document... Thus, government is interfering to much in every day affairs and their only role 'should be' providing a Justice system to sort such things out and then if they become complicated then maybe that means the Contracts for marriages should be more specific!!!!!
I've had trouble reading the other Lectures, only because my buttons are pushed and lack of history to understand, but this one cemented some ideas.. thanks...
Edit: fixed up some spelling mistakes, grammar and tidiness..
No-fault justice is a contradiction in terms. It would cause havoc anywhere in the legal system, but to apply it to marriage is utter madness.
100% agree.
This lecture is very, very enlightening Stephen.
Growing up (Australia) I had the thought when I heard of women that were pregnant and then got social assistance money (because the man was gone), 'where are the men in this and why aren't they paying for this child'? kind of thoughts and I'd have to re read your article to give a fuller comment but now it makes sense in a very strange way... and what I read here is, "because the governments don't want it that way, the feminists etc., don't want it that way, the socialists don't want it that way'.... wow, I was so naive then and still learning...
I know a woman who was a single mother who couldn't get on with the father of the child and didn't want to (despite her doing some good things she has ruffled many other adults feathers) and therefore received TaxPayer money and TaxPayer Funded Housing as well, while also doing some 'black money' work...
One day she and I talked about the planet is overpopulated stories, which I do not agree with, and she suggested some people should be killed; but she never mentioned once that She was going to volunteer to save the planet... a bit rude I thought!!
Thank you Stephen for putting the pieces together. i was aware of the many pieces but had not seen the seamless inter-relationships you expose. Helpful, depressing, and infuriating.
Dr. Baskerville, thank you for this series. When I first heard you say that "changing the culture" is a way of doing nothing and that we need legislative reforms, I asked myself, "What does the mean? How can we correct society if we do not change the culture?" This series on the Sexual Revolution cleared things up for me.
"the decisive innovation came from the feminists, who engineered the most staggering coup of all"
Yes. I've been making this argument for some time. It needs more publicity.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/11/14/death-blow/