Read on Twitter
WARNING: I got triggered by the “Why do I need to marry” reasoning, as opposed to cohabitation.
There are many reasons why marriage should be a fundamental goal.
I love the Dutch, but as a perfect example, in their society cohabitation has reached such acceptance...
There are many reasons why marriage should be a fundamental goal.
I love the Dutch, but as a perfect example, in their society cohabitation has reached such acceptance...
... that many couples consciously have kids without getting married.
Statistically, more than half of Dutch women getting their first child are not married.
Beyond religious and moral arguments, where is the logic:
Statistically, more than half of Dutch women getting their first child are not married.
Beyond religious and moral arguments, where is the logic:
If you’re not committed enough to marry each other, why are you having kids together?
Unlike marriage, you’re actually tied to the parent of your child forever.
Unlike marriage, you’re actually tied to the parent of your child forever.
The argument is usually “I don’t need some paper or the government to be involved to be committed.”
Right. So if it’s “just a paper” and it doesn’t matter, why don’t you just do it?
Right. So if it’s “just a paper” and it doesn’t matter, why don’t you just do it?
It’s really not a hassle to get married and no one expects an expensive 3-day wedding celebration these days.
So what’s the problem? “But why do I need a piece of paper?” And so it becomes a circular argument.
But we all know the truth.
So what’s the problem? “But why do I need a piece of paper?” And so it becomes a circular argument.
But we all know the truth.
The Dutch gov has accommodated (and simultaneously encouraged) this trend to the extent that all sorts of legal arrangements exist that are called anything but marriage and convey the same rights and responsibilities as the other “outdated” option called “marriage”.
This leads to all sorts of comfortable yet awkward situations where mature people who spent their whole lives together and have adult kids still call each other girlfriend/boyfriend, or little kids celebrating their parents’ belated weddings. Strange and intuitively wrong.
At first glance divorce statistics seem to be not much worse in the Netherlands than in other Western countries: almost 40% of marriages fail, but these statistics don’t include separations on basis of registered partnerships, which are statistically higher.
I spent an hour looking for “registered partnership” separation statistics and I couldn’t find them, except statements that they are “higher” than divorce.
But I did get the narrative of “almost half of all marriages fail!” from every source - further discouraging marriage.
But I did get the narrative of “almost half of all marriages fail!” from every source - further discouraging marriage.
And before you ask “Ms Porkchop, why do you care what others do with their lives?”, it’s simple:
The nuclear family is the foundational basis of a healthy society. You mess with that - you mess up the whole society.
The nuclear family is the foundational basis of a healthy society. You mess with that - you mess up the whole society.
This shift from marriage to cohabitation is a relatively recent phenomenon, maybe a few decades old, so we haven’t yet seen the long-term intergenerational effects of this seemingly innocuous development.
When they get married, people make a public commitment to each other, their families and community. They put skin in the game.
They know if they f—k it up, the separation - the divorce - will be visible to the public and their community.
They can’t just quietly walk away.
They know if they f—k it up, the separation - the divorce - will be visible to the public and their community.
They can’t just quietly walk away.
A divorce is therefore a personal and a public failure - sometimes necessary- but one nonetheless.
It’s not a bad thing it is such - it’s a lindy safety mechanism to ensure couples do their best to stay together, and that divorce remains the last resort.
It’s not a bad thing it is such - it’s a lindy safety mechanism to ensure couples do their best to stay together, and that divorce remains the last resort.
This is why all cultures and societies, regardless of religion, have formal and public celebratory arrangements clearly delineating commitment thought marriage.
There are no in-between options. There shouldn’t be. If they were viable, we would have figured them out by now.
There are no in-between options. There shouldn’t be. If they were viable, we would have figured them out by now.
Again, this is not an ethical or a religious issue.
The few examples of atheist communist societies we have seen all encouraged marriage.
Even in communist Soviet Union or China marriage was the only option and cohabitation was severely frowned upon.
The few examples of atheist communist societies we have seen all encouraged marriage.
Even in communist Soviet Union or China marriage was the only option and cohabitation was severely frowned upon.
Legal arrangements allowing to eschew divorce are attractive to frail humans, but enabling the potential separation of couples.
I’m not even dwelling on the long-term implications of being in a relationship where in the back of your mind you know you avoided true commitment.
I’m not even dwelling on the long-term implications of being in a relationship where in the back of your mind you know you avoided true commitment.
Therefore, there is no way the normalization of long-term cohabitation or “registered partnerships” doesn’t lead to a decay in stability of relationships, since the partners explicitly *chose* to avoid official commitment, because they are legally allowed and encouraged to do so.
What you have as result is increasingly more children living in single-parent households or splitting their lives over two households.
I’ve even heard anecdotes of children complaining they “only have one home” unlike the majority of their peers who have “double everything”.
I’ve even heard anecdotes of children complaining they “only have one home” unlike the majority of their peers who have “double everything”.
The Dutch government is encouraging this experiment through its liberal policies:
Seems just like a small legal adjustment here and there, all with good intentions and fairness - need to protect the interests of children in cohabitation, need to extend tax and financial privileges to long-term couples etc. de facto creating incentives to not bother marrying.
While the often-quoted negative socioeconomic effects of out-of-wedlock parenting are mostly based on American reality and are not generally applicable or observable in the highly prosperous and stable Dutch society, we’re nevertheless in uncharted territory here.
This normalization of broken families and homes will have lasting effects that will materialize in a few generations‘ time only.
And who can predict what values and norms a society with no collective experience of normal nuclear family life will have?
And who can predict what values and norms a society with no collective experience of normal nuclear family life will have?
Official marriage is good for couples and good for society. It’s lindy.
When cohabitation is normalized, official marriage is inevitably indirectly disincentivized.
A prosperous society obsessed with liberal “progress” always has a blind spot for its own long-term survival.
When cohabitation is normalized, official marriage is inevitably indirectly disincentivized.
A prosperous society obsessed with liberal “progress” always has a blind spot for its own long-term survival.
