PandaJoe

yguy, you still haven't explained what "natural authority" is. You getting to that, or not?

fatherphil

i think marriage over non marriage offers tangible evidences of stability needed in child rearing both socially & legally. why would you forgo the benifits society offers through the contract of marriage which i think benifits all involved, especially the children. without kids the importance of the issue drops off to such a degree that i think it hardly warrants consideration. although i do wish my cohabiting relatives would marry in order to be a better example to their neices. but i guess that's not their job.

fatherphil

i think guys have been getting off pretty easy as far as their responsibility to society these days. its a man's world now more than ever.

fatherphil

ask me questions one at a time.

cheetah

I think marriage with children does offer benefits for those who do not have a problem with the institution of marriage. For those that do, however, there are avenues by which they can obtain most of those safeguards and protections without actually registering with big brother.

Why do you wish your cohabiting relatives would get married to set a better example, though? What kind of bad example is it to not be married? In other words, what will it encourage children to do, OTHER THAN cohabit themselves. I.e. you either have to show cohabiting is actually evil or that it causes something evil, otherwise they aren't setting a bad example, they are just an example...or maybe they are even a good example of how loving couples treat each other!

fatherphil

i believe that shacking up is wrong. i feel it cheapens the act of sex by reducing the level of commitment required to have it. so that is my conviction and the one i wish to pass on to my children. surely you can understand then, how i have a problem with my sibling's example.

yguy

We're talking about a traditional marriage. In some other kind of marriage, it very well might.

If I own a machine shop and one of my employees is sick, I may have to do something I'm not good at to get a job done on time. If the woman leaves because hubby won't buy her a Mercedes, she'll make a rotten mother anyway.

I have no empirical data to support it. However, families don't fall apart for no reason. The responsibility must fall on the head of the family, since it can't very well fall on the children. If the captain (husband) gets so drunk that an inexperienced helmsman (wife) runs the ship aground, it's the captain's fault, as he is in dereliction of his duty.

People who aren't good at taking orders aren't good at giving them either.

If that were the case, he'd be marrying an automaton. Why a man would do that other than to secure himself a good lay I don't know. Might as well marry a blowup doll.

Depends why she does it. If it's manipulative on her part, yes; in the case I'm talking about, she'd actually be supporting his natural authority at the expense of the selfishness she'd be rewarding if she slept with him.

This, of course, presupposes that sharing of decisions is a sign of maturity, a fact not in evidence.

Yes.

I don't understand the question. How does anybody ever know they're doing the right thing?

Can't resist letting this one stand as a monument to QOS's latent egoism.

No, it means that someone in authority grants a subordinate authority over a certain area of responsibility.

Is intelligence not a factor in the man you would have as a mate? If so, the answer is obvious, since you already know that some men are too stupid to mess with, and it would only be a matter of raising your standards. If not, it's irrelevant anyway.

Who is in authority, the teacher or the student?

A couple of years is good, I think.

By the way he conducts himself. Of course, he should make it clear verbally that he intends to be the boss, but he needs to show that by his conduct during the engagement.

Any couple intending to have a traditional marriage agrees that the man is where the buck stops. So I suppose if they verbally agree to that, the agreement is explicit as well as implicit. It should be both, I think.

Likewise should the wife require of a potential husband that he have sufficient training and capabilities for the job of heading the family.

That is for the wife to determine before they set a marriage date.

Let me just say that hugs and kisses are the shallowest form of love that a father can give.

If Moses could call God to account without getting burned to a crisp, I don't suppose it's too much to ask for a husband to take constructive criticism without pulling rank.

Most are - and most are woman dominated, though not overtly so.

I don't know about genetics, but it has nothing to do with memory - it has to do with knowing.

They start to the first time they witness a dispute between mom and dad. If dad wimps out, they lose respect for him. If mom wimps out because dad is tyrannical, they lose respect for him.

scigirl

And you are entitled to your opinion. I believe differently. I feel that having religion dictate which types of sex acts are moral or not (with no apparent basis in scientific validity or really any basis at all) cheapens sex. I also think that the sex is as valuable and meaningful as the couple makes it. I'm sure there are gay couples who have found higher levels of intimacy than some married folks. Why? Because they put the effort into reaching that level, and didn't just expect it to happen magically after they got married (because they couldn't get married).

Tell me fatherphil, when it comes to passing legislation on such things as marriage, and when there are two or more conflicting opinions, what should we do?

Since this thread is about the status of the American family, tell me: do you see any validity at all in studying different cultures or populations of married versus unmarried couples and looking at things such as breakup rates or infidelity? Or - how about whether the religious belief that marriages are "blessed by God" helps keep a marriage together? The data just might surprise you. It surprised me.

scigirl

alek0

Yguy could you answer the questions I posted earlier?

yguy

This was addressed in my last post to QOS.

Then one of them is either mistaken or lying.

They have it but don't use it.

The last few decades of seeing teenagers act like brainless lemmings is evidence enough for me.

Lack of respect for a wife's intelligence is hardly endemic to the idea of the man having the authority.

I would suggest she not marry.

Obviously not. That's what delegation of responsibility is about.

Where do you get the idea that the woman would have no authority? When the captain is asleep, does the first mate become powerless?

That's why the husband needs to be able to say no to his wife. If the roles are reversed, the husband becomes the manipulator.

If they can't, they need to start learning how.

If they had the kind of authority I'm talking about, they would either never make selfish decisions, or when they did, they'd realize it and do better next time.

I'm not talking about a tyrannical sort of power, but one justly derived from the wife's conscious consent, as opposed to her just being weak and submissive. A decent woman going into a marriage with her eyes open would never marry a tyrant.