In Asia, marriage is about family, not the “nuclear” family but the extended family that cares for all it’s members. No social welfare in the good old days: The sick, the pregnant, the small children and the elderly were cared for by family members.
In America, the culture is insisting that marriage is about “ME ME ME”, i.e. romantic emotions, so anything goes.
Oh well. I guess when 40 percent of the population thinks marriage is out of date, what should we expect?
I saw the change, 20 years ago, when my female patients would say: I wanted the baby, so he doesn’t have to be responsible for it. Presumably that meant they went on welfare, which they saw as their right.
So today, an alternative opinion in the New York Times defended marriage, and their readers are aghast. Marriage is about children? Who wudda thot?
I don’t propose stricter government regulations: morality laws didn’t work for Augustus Caesar, whose daughter was stumpfing half of Rome, and it won’t work for today’s world.
I do think that the clergy in the US should bow their heads in shame for not pointing out that sex without responsibility of the consequences is sinful. They might even start teaching that sex outside of marriage is sinful, because of the problems it causes.
Nope, can’t say such things.Might hurt someone’s feelings to use such old fashioned words like adultery and promiscuity. In a state where “no fault” divorce makes the marriage contract meaningless, and where sex is promoted as a morality free zone, it is taboo to point out that an epidemic of STD’s, abortion, and fatherless children suggests that there is a moral side to the sexual act.
And so when the Pope pointed out that when a person made the moral choice to use a condom and lower his pleasure to protect his spouse or lover, this might be the first step into becoming a moral person, the result was twisting his words to say Catholics think promiscuity is okay and safe sex promotion, not a loving committed relationship such as marriage, is what needs to be promoted by government funding (at least this is how the population control elites are twisting his words in the Philippines).
Sex as expressing love, where couples self give and sacrifice for each other? Horrors. Fun, not self sacrifice is the thing. Live life to the max, and don’t let a pregnancy stand in the way of your jogging, your travel, or your career.
Yet one of the comments suggest that there just might be a reason for the government to regulate cohabitation, and this reason is financial fraud.
From a comment to the New York Times article.
I’m in a stable, committed relationship in which I can’t get married for financial reasons. My children’s financial aid would be greatly reduced if I had to declare my fiance’s income and assets.
I’m old enough to remember when this was called fraud.
It’s stealing the money of the government under the false pretenses that you don’t have another source of income.
In other words, once you make sex a “morality free” zone, you end up with all sorts of problems.
But that doesn’t stop US government organizations and rich US NGO’s from trying to persuade the Philippines to “modernize” our attitudes, pushing the morality free sex in our clinics and highschools.
We may rate high on the list of coutries with corruption, but here we have “family values”, (or as one wag put it: We Filipinos have family values: we support ALL of our families).
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines.