| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
September 10th 05, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... K4YZ wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: In fact, it has become common for people to have multiple spouses, just not simultaneously. There was a time when divorce carried an enormous social stigma and was made legally difficult in most places. That's all changed. Yes, it has...and it shouldn't have, but then that's a trade-off to civility that we surrendered for the "Sexual Revolution" in the 60's. Please explain "tradeoff to civility"? As for the sexual revolution, I'd say the climb in divorce rates is/was much more connected to women's liberation and changing expectations. And here's a fun fact: The divorce rate in the USA tends to be *highest* in the "red/conservative/Bible Belt" states, and *lowest* in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" states. Perhaps that is because some of the conservatives push too hard on their children to "save themselves" for marriage so they rush into marriage without knowing their partner well enough? Of course this is just speculation, but an idea to consider. I'd say that's one factor. Expressed perfectly in the classic Meat Loaf hit, "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" Would you buy a car that you'd never driven, or a pair of shoes you'd never tried on? Particularly if they were supposed to last you for the rest of your life? Another possibility is that in the "blue/liberal/leftcoast/eastcoast" groups, it is OK simply to live together and when they break up, there is no need for divorce since they were never married in the first place. Sure. I think I remember reading that Margaret Meade had proposed a system where there would be a "trial marriage" for a period of time before having a regular marriage. If I remember correctly, the trial marriage would have an automatic expiration and one would have to go through the marriage ceremony or whatever to continue the marriage. The idea being that one could better determine if this was the person with whom they really wanted to spend the rest of their life. I've always thought the idea had some merit. Heck, go the whole route: Allow marriage licenses to expire every so many years, and both parties would have to agree to renew them. One way or another, marriage customs grow out the needs of the particular society. In times and places where the number of men and women is approximately equal and there is not a great discrepancy in the wealth of men in the society, monogamy tends to be the norm. Where there are significantly more women than men, polygamy becomes quite common. Or if there are a few very wealthy men, polygamy may develop as part of showing off their wealth or power. In some American Indian tribes, monogamy was the norm yet a man was required, if his brother died, to take his brother's wife as his own even if he had a wife already. I did not know that! IIRC there was a similar requirement in the Bible - if a man with a brother died with no male heir and left a wife of childbearing age, the brother was required to...ummm.... step in for his dead brother until a male heir was produced, so the dead brother's line would not be wiped out. After that the widow could marry again if desired. That practice was abandoned long ago. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| K8CPA Email | CB | |||
Hybrid Mode
