FAMILY IS INDISSOLUBLE and inevitably connected with reproduction.
"What is the purpose of life?"
Asked me a missionary with intent of converting me to his ways;
I improvised: "Reproduction"!, from the depth of my guts, where truth needs neither intelligence nor evidence.
It happens that dolphins could have a better a answer, since tery are described as the only known animals with a larger brain than humans'.
In other words: father, mother and progeny, where community, love and devotion should have been converging and evolving since at least 3 or more millennia ago, the relative percentage of crimes, murders, violence, moral turpitude's, all kinds of crimes and moral turpitude have not diminished, in spite of our technologic advances, beyond all our dreams or nightmares, from the wheel to nuclear energy...
Moreover, life still needs to kill other life (from animals to plants), not just to survive, but to thrive on the death of those we kill and devour.
The difference between us and predators like the wolf or the shark is that, whereas the wolf and the shark must find, pursue and kill the prey and then dismember and devour it, most humans only eat what others specialized people have chased or raised and prepared what most of us eat. The sane (without chase.. .) happens with the plants we eat.
By separating and distributing the vital, survival and progressing separately to diverse persons, we have created a community that pivots around the family and irradiated from it.
A civilization that fails to connect the tasks and developing purposes together can perish.
We must recreate the FAMILY:
FATHER, MOTHER and PROGENY.
as a permanent entity, no matter how changeable.
Perhaps we should be inspired by the... dolphins, whom scientists describe as the most intelligent on Earth because their brains are the largest...
Probably they developed super solutions like "telepathy" and/or other means for other capabilities we ccan not even inagine...., beyond swimming for thousands of miles and days..., (dolphins may have much worthier and smarter ideas/goals, naked truth without hypocrisy... and penalty...
Yes, and much more...
On Friday evening, June 23., 2006, a server came to my home and delivered me a "court order". I asked him to tell me what it was, because I am blind. He said "You must appear in court on July 3.... You have plenty of time" . I faxed a copy to my lawyer immediately. The server and I did not see or understand that it was a "constraining order" tp; leave my corporation premises and my 23-room house with over 3,500 books in my 3-roorm office full of customized computers, printers, cybernetic and other eqipments, where I worked day and night....
The judge also added her decision that MW alone was in total, uncontrolled charge of my corporation and family: in all financial and operations and all decisions and
activities. Therefore all Abatron executives left, except the one who remained as new "plant manager", or whatever, under MW. despite the agreement that the measure was "temporary"
, it remained unchanged (20 MONTHS) as of now, February 2008, and still on...
I HAD UP TO 23 employees under my direction before June 27 2006. nOW WE HAVE 11... nO LAWYER INFORMED THE JUDGE ABOUT THE TRUE SITUATION, IN SPITE OF MY CONTINUOUS WARNGS.....
Now 1 am 84 ( AS OF jANUARY 1, 2008, a chemical scientist. still completely paralized founder (since 1959), presieent, and sole owner of 100%shares ) of a chemical manufacturing Illinois corporation.
==================== +++=========
For the records:
In 1979, I married MW, an underemployed lawyer, who therefore immediately moved from her 2-room apartment to my 16-room brick Tudor house I had buit years before on top of the most scenic hill in Sleepy Hollow, IL.
In 1984-5, she gradually joined my corporation full time, so that I could train her to take over within about 10 years or so upon my retirement.
In 1980 she bore a beauriful and healthy son, MR.
As both she and I have strong and "dominating" personalities, we faced comppatibility problems.
Psychologists defined me a "genius" on a level above 99% of our American poulation, and her scores as an incurable level, on the theory tnat "people cannot change"...., "unless they want to".
B
ut that suggests that the solution implies MOTIVATING the suffering recalcitrants to change or impruvement. In a marital impasse handled in court rather than by psychotherapy or other counseling, the loser may be crushed (consciously or not) and the winner may develop a nightmarish guilt comlex to hide or torment others with...
So, she was suborned by sadistic friends toward a cisputed "no-fault divorce" which becomes a nightmare in court.
Both lawyers will win no matter what...
If such problems are resolved, our march forward higher yet will continue....
J.J.P.C.
*************
*************
-- TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL
-- LET MY FAMILY GO
--
WHO IS THE BOSS -- THE DIVORCE CANCER
--
DODO PSYCHO COPULATION CONSULTANTS
--
THE EGG-CHICK-EGG
--
LOVE COMES NEXT
-- SALVATION IN MULTIPLICATION
-- THE INDISPUTABLE
------------------------------------------------------------
TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL
2003 A. D. comments:
A plump, middle-aged, "minority" woman (in contrast with the traditional slender, young "Caucasian" girl with long flowingS straight blond hair and white gown), acting as a heavenly angel in a nationally telecast show, proclaimed with unshakeable authority:
"FAMILY IS A DEMOCRACY".
Now, consider:
In any of its variations, "democracy" is a political, economic, legal form of society governed by elected officials and groups periodically elected and/or changed or deposed by a voting majority of citizens who enjoy equal rights and independence from each other.
Children's parents are not elected, but determined by the ovum/sperm copulation. Nor can they be deposed or changed by the children. Parents cannot do the same to their children. Nor would they want to.
On the other hand, relentless social, political, legal and educational pressures are continuously brought to marginalize and eventually disintegrate the family and parental authority.
Divorce by simple request (even divorce of children from parents), sex degenerated to simple gratification like food or drink, homosexual "rights" imposed as equal to heterosexual status, children provided with condoms and sexual intercourse instructions and even condoms in elementary public schools without parental consent (suggesting abstinence or premarital virginity is considered "irresponsibly unrealistic"), crass ultra-feminist and gay propaganda against heterosexual man and family.
Child murder by govern-supported abortion is considered a "free choice" right, without parental knowledge and consent of a pregnant minor...
Wild hetero- and homo-sexual orgies are a "civil right".
It looks like a mutation toward the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, whose citizens were the most depraved society on Biblical record.
Like today's degenerates, however, they thought that their way of life was desirable and logical....
They were and are the human maggots who take over when the social body has decayed.
The sliding toward decay has been facilitated by a negative reproduction rate, as it is now in Italy (the dictator Benito Mussolini (1883-1945 a. d.) reversed it only when he was in power (1922-1943 a. d.), by decreeing tax-free any family with 6 or more children. The rest of Europe has now a zero or negative birth rate. The concomitant economic decay, heavy Moslem and undesirable (illiterates) immigrants contribute a probably irreversible d epression...
.
(to be continued)
=================================================================== ======================================================================
LET MY FAMILY GO0
1972 A. D.
Our sanctioned TV plots and commercials show:
A spineless clumsy father, a wise and defensive mother ("role model" emanded by the feared ultra-feminists), and an unreachable, brittle child.
How to raise children: vitamins, nutrients, toys, and "Psychology Today" magazine placebos.
Conventionally "wise and refined", the woman is shown how to attract men with cosmetic strategy and how to be
irresistible with sterilized sex appeal.
Man is tough and fearless, enterprising too. But at home he is lost. He fears her (really: the show producers fear the feminists).
And she spurns him gracefully.
To the child, they never say: "Stop pouring hot soup on your sister's head!". Instead: "You see, when I was a child, once I touched my sister's hair...". ***/
Or, the closest ever: "Darling, you don't want Sissy to become messy and soupy, do you?".
As a teenager, the child is a nuisance, because he wants the truth straight and pleasant. Mom and daddy are afraid of him.
So, the school must do the job. But the school is only geared to the minimum standards above uselessness and crime, in spite of emphatic claims to virtue and patriotism.
What is the situation?
Our highest divorce rate in the world apparently condemns an "Establishment" that (de)forms the family into media-friendly patterns.
Yet, the highest incidence of divorces is among the "enlightened" youth, who try to fit family into their own fads, which supplant the traditional "antiquated views". ***/
The family fits the reality of human nature, not our opinions and theories about it.
It cannot be forced into a pattern that mirrors only what we hardly understand.
The present conventional values are anti family, although our "leaders" claim the opposite.
If the traditional family ideals of loving care, mutual support, enduring cohesion were expanded to society, they would replace some insurance and banking empires, our welfare cancer, one-dimensional bureaucracy and most present political postures.
The Human Family, feared by those who feel united in shared hatred, would supersede ideologies, parties, and politics.
The independent and bellicose ("rugged") individualism has been installed on altars, and the family itself is being sacrificed to an insatiable individualism god.
Like society, family is a natural form of cooperation and interdependence through love, concern, active care, mutual help, intent on developing human beings, not consumer/ producers, worker/citizens, or unconcerned do your-own-thingers.
Insects are probably the best examples of independence, from the moment they hatch.
The best workers, citizens, consumer-producers and do my own thingers (as impersonally ordained) are like ants.
Human independence is only possible as developed with caring awareness, just as the child's ego develops from awareness of the surrounding world.
Of course, both the "Establishment" and the "progressives" claim they want the caring, loving family and society. But they fail because they mistakenly think they know what caring, love, harmony and truth are.
No matter how damaged by transient fads, family still exists, like human nature.
It starts "nuclear" (father/mother/children) and becomes "extended", societal, as human nature evolves, without regard to the faddish meanings we give to those concepts.
Attempts to make the family fit any image are like attempts to make our bodies digest cellulose because it would be so convenient.
Goats and termites can do it, not we.
Of course, family undergoes evolution: but human evolution.
A new theory or faith is not evolutionary as such, even if it is gift wrapped with words like "rational", "Christian", "modern".
Family needs imperatives demanding togetherness and devotion.
We should not trust absolutes, but ordained relativism is also an absolute.
We accept many absolutes, from "Thou shalt not kill" to "No smoking".
Family has long accepted its own, such as loyalty, devotion, cooperation, fidelity, protection, regardless of law, age, gender.
Love, fervently hoped for, is a selfless duty in a family.
Refusing or omitting help, in any needed form, just because a family member is of "major age', mature adult or whatever is appropriate to an insect family (where children are independent from the moment they hatch), but truly degenerate in a human family, where love is nurtured from childhood.
The Greek culture was destroyed by the social suffocation of the family with customs and laws that nullified the paternal authority. The Romans restored the "patria potestas" (paternal authority) and with it the resulting patriotism and "patria" (from "pater"- father).
We observe cynicism add hatred in families without father or paternal authority.
The more sophisticated or evolved any family is, the higher are its standards, but the previous standards are improved in converging love, rather than replaced with diverging individual hostility.
If family is permanent because human child-hood is the longest, and because woman is fertile only a limited time, and man virtually until death, then the present social complexity demands family's permanence.
After all, the learning period, or childhood, is longer now than ever before.
Already before puberty, the child learns to internalize concern, care, enlightened self-aware-ness, with pleasure in satisfying the need to useful knowledge.
If this need is frustrated, it may degrade in revengeful egotism.
That has become the unintended cause of two disastrous social changes:
(1) lowering the majority age from 21 to 18;
(2) Lowering the expected retirement age.
The opposite should have happened in both cases.
=== First, the stunning worldwide culture developments in the 20th century have raised the minimum educational level of survival and maturity from 21 to 25 years. Instead, lowering it to 18 has been utterly counter-producing. Consequently, statistics comparing those who were legally adult at 18 and those who did it at 21 must show the shocking truthThe divorce percentages alone of the 18-2o-year-old married, employed, etc. aren't even worth checking
Nowadays, a high school diploma is almost no long a survival tool, unless it is raised to at least B. A. or B. S. level Retirement age should have rised, due to medical progress, longevity, necessity of more experienced workers, teachers, scientists, leaders, minimized need for muscular strength
The blunder of lowering majority age to 18 was a political move by those who would gain votes from: soldiers, ambitious or rebelling students, parents unwilling to support growing children, parents who cannot inspire defiant teenagers with higher goals than "the value of money", "education to get a good job", "stay out of trouble", "do your own thing", no matter how well intentioned, cause serious damage.
Thus we have spoiled brats, cynical individuals, ruthless hedonists who contaminate society.
Without disciplining parents who materially or figuratively spank them, and can use other means made for recalcitrant minors, we
are doomed to fall into the claws of pretentious mediocrity
They are among the teenagers who drop out from family, school and society.
Some claim and sincerely believe they can start new societies. They cut their childhood too short and become too soon "adults" of a special kind: as they cannot continue to develop their sensitivity and caring awareness, they develop a thick skin; they become "cool".
Ideally, the teenager never leaves the family when he "leaves" it: he only expands his developing need and ability to contribute to society, after starting them within the family.
With this, it is purely academic to distinguish between "nuclear" and "extended" family.
The human family doesn't care to conform to any definition popping out of 4-6 years long psychology courses.
It just exists as such and as the nucleus of society
And society may be shaped accordingly, not as wished in songs or political speeches.
We should learn from it, not adapt it to our improvised knowledge. Finally, to single out the teenager or 30 , 50 , 80 ager as if he (or she, of course) had separately defined existence, instead of being integral part of the continuum between birth and death, condemns him to the same inhuman indignity as that of the arbitrarily segregated "senior citizen".
Our society has accepted the barbaric custom of a separate old age in "dignified" death row warehouses.
We are developing the same indignity for the embarrassing nuisance of the teenagers who need to fit and evolve in spite of our shallow values, inhuman conditions, incompetent educational system and technocratic Moloch.
The "gap"?
The old blame the young and vice versa.
(The "adversary system" fetishism takes over).
Instead of blame, both need help: from each other. Sincere reaching out would suffice as a beginning.
Hardly anything is more insidiously ridiculous than a young "expert" teaching an octogenarian how to live.
Only the deserter is beyond help, since he puts himself beyond reach.
The task is difficult. But so is a good life.
WHO IS THE BOSS
Man is, of course.
No, it is not a facetious statement.
Nor is it unjust or bad or good, repulsive or attractive.
We don't even know to what extent it is true or false.
Nor do we know what "boss" means in this context.
Yet, we keep debating and digging trenches on the justice of our patriarchal (or what is left of it) patterns.
First, it is remarkable how we avoid discussing the "justice" of things that cannot be changed.
For instance, what justice is in the fact that man is physically stronger than woman?
How just is it that woman lives longer, or that only woman bears children?
The most we can do is to be "scientific" (which is less than we think, really) instead of righteous (which is even worse) about them.
We plunge like vultures on subjects we are unable to agree upon: justice, equality, virtue, etc.
The most we can do is philosophize about them.
Someone said that science is what we know (sort of) and philosophy is about what we don't know and still argue about.
We say that we don't clearly know why or how man has always been in charge.
We know that woman supported it from time immemorial. Listen what women have been telling their sons from biblical beginnings.
A philosophical consideration, not a fact, is that it may have been right or wrong.
Let alone the unresolved puzzles of the many meanings of right and wrong.
It is remarkable how indifferently the female of countless species waits for the end of the mating fight between males. Then, she mates and remains submissively (more or less) with the winner.
What would the female goat say if a civilrightnik tried to inform her of her right to choice, independence and freedom?
The immediate choice between the ram's and her "rights" would only be the first of her many dilemmas.
It is a fact that, as long as man was firmly in charge of the family and society, marriages lasted healthily. ("because they were forced" is a sophomoric answer).
At least, they could not have been broken by today's frivolous reasons that lawyers of each spouse transform into hopeless obstacles that can only handled with divorce. And more money for the lawyer...
As to divorce lawyers, the undeniable indignity is that they lose money if the the spouses choose reconciliation... What could be worse for the family?
Add then the notion that U.S.A. has 80% of all world's lawyers, and that U.S.A. has the moral and social abomination called "default divorce" (divorce for no reason whatsoever, just for the asking, even by the most irresponsible, sadistic, adulterous, violent, profligate, in all ways contemptible spouse. To make it still worse, in many states marriage automatically gives each spouse half of the family real estate, even if a worthless spouse marries a rich one and contributes nothing even after marrying. Thus, upon divorce, the worthless one gets the half of everything, no matter what...), and we might as well dig a grave to bury the American family institution.
And we watch this degeneration progressing beyond control, AND WE DO NOTHING ABOUT IT...
And I used to think that Sodom and Gomorrah were no more than biblical figments of a sick imagination!..
Previously, the man was fully responsible for the family and had little chance to run away. Now family laws discourage marriage and promote fatherless families...
Feminists surmise that better stability would have derived from a matriarchal approach, even if every attempt at matriarchy ended in patriarchy. And it was tried almost everywhere.
Home-made example: the "African American" family is virtually matriarchal and has the worst family statistics, from single mothers and fatherless children, from poverty to crime rate...
It is quite telling that there is no historical evidence of any matriarchy having ever succeeded for any significant period anywhere in the world.
There is overabundant evidence (suppressed in official history) that wherever and wheever matriarchy was tried and supported in any time and placemin the world, it just failed, whether supported or not.
One relevant fact is that one be in charge, at least to break any eventual impasse.
Sacrificing patriarchy or matriarchy to our pompous "result--equality" and phony "liberty" fetishism is asinine idolatry.
The notion that we are entitled to "equality" and "liberty", without first learning what they are exactly, and how to use them, could be compared to that of undertaking appendectomy without knowing exactly what and where the appendix is.
And the notion that appendectomy is more complicated to understand than liberty and equality is lethal nonsense.
The pattern of orderly and productive hierarchy reigns in businesses, schools, government bodies, military and all organizations in which results are, as in the family, more important than debates.
In the case of the family, submission to paternal (or maternal) authority has always been preferred to the alternatives of marriage dissolution or unmarried life.
The bleak picture of many singles organizations, singles bars, discos and dating services show the heavy sacrifices paid on the altars of equality and independence dogmatism.
The new unmarried couples cult is one of the prices especially women and children have to pay for the emasculation of the family.
That is preciseoy what destroyed the Greek culture about 23 centuries ago.
In our case, the unmarried living together protects man, more than woman, against the trap of modern American marriage.
The ultra-feminists favor the new cult because they don't understand how it hurts woman. But the "feminazis" know, even if they don't comprehend.
They may like it that way, so that they can exploit the "victimization" of the woman by blaming it on the man. That gets them preposterous compensatory favors, until society wakes up again (in 50, 80, or 200years?).
In today's laws, the ones who are ostentatiously favored in marriage are the woman and children; but at their disastrous expense.
We have reached the point that a wife can bring her husband to court for having raped her.
Whether the court convicts the man in this case is immaterial. The absurdity is that our present laws allow a court to prosecute such a case (ever heard of "violence" or "physical cruelty"?).
We hear horror stories about man deserting the family, man beating the wife, man being irresponsible, cruel, callous...
Anti-man havens for battered women (often disguised as "family WoMan and child protection" or the like) are metastasizing like a social carcinoma, in collaboration with embarrassed police.
The same man that was presumed to be a hero of all virtues, including responsibility, integrity, unselfish love, in all remaining fields of human endeavor...
In this context, it may be immaterial to mention him as an inventor, soldier, builder..., but let it be to complete the picture.
The point is that there must be a reason why the American man is such a failure in marriage and yet so great elsewhere until about 1970, and then a no good *#&*!! Afterwards, especially if white and gainfully employed.
Somewhere, in the background, one may hear a muffled, outlawed, voice that insinuates that, perhaps, the failure is in the American ultra-feminist syndrome.
But we won't pay any attention to that.
Or that same American "feminazi" (not the traditional feminist, which -by the way- I have often supported) is not going to read beyond this point.
And she won't vote for us.
It is a fact, however, that our "liberty" does not allow us to do without the vote of any category of people possessing political clout.
The fear of reprisal or other doom creeps on anyone who dares to say something that displeases militant extremists; who, therefore, are miscalled "feminazis".
Negative or accusatory statements against man have been an American ritual for generations.
Just like those, more recently, against the white man.
Another clue: the resentment children flaunt against famous or successful parents.
Prominent parents used to be a source of pride and inspiration.
If anything, their children used to show off their advantage of coming from such parents. Which it was, if properly understood.
It was also thought that some people are so deserving that they have the right to bestow like any other inheritance-some of their rewards to their children.
It was a pleasure and a duty for the children to inherit and deserve their parents' merits. It was also a duty to use them, or else the parents would not have achieved their goals for their progeny.
Then, the tables were turned around.
The successful parents became a source of resentment for the children who could not "compete" with them.
Inheriting money was ok, after the government Revenue Mafia took its own cut.
Inheriting achievements, status and an honored name became a hindrance...
The child of prominent parents is expected to repudiate them and is offered none of the facilitations bestowed on children of obscure or otherwise disadvantaged parents.
One could remark that some men and successful parents have abused their advantages.
But that is a reason to improve education and society, not to depose a man and parent.
We can only cause worse problems if we depose the ship's captain and expect the crew to take his place merely in the name of rights, .
We have deposed man and his authority, to do away with his abuses: decapitation as a cure for headache.
The man who gets stoned at the tavern and cries in his stupor: "Listen to me, kid, don't ever marry..." is no joke at all. He is sincere, he feels victimized. Even if he has caused suffering to his wife and children...
It could be that, for generations, man has heaped pretentious assumptions on himself alone not on the woman with exhilarating bravado.
In the tradition of blaming male responsibility, woman has gladly adopted the superman concept.
The consequent expectations have become woman's rights and man's duties...
Then, we are bound to discover that superman cannot fly.
And one wonders why one man after another gives up and has no alternative but to run away.
No problem for the lawyers: "that is the way it is" and they make more and more money by legislating against the status quo...
It is known that this kind of frustration cripples man also in routine duties.
That, of course, crushes the wife and mother.
The social structure created by the high expectations leaves her powerless...
She is a victim, and she enjoys it subconsciously.
So, more reasons to pursue man.
It is a Catch 22 situation that is hidden.. but very visible for those who want to look.
In the process, as shown in divorce settlements, the children are handled as mother's belongings.
So the house.
The best the father can obtain is visitation rights. After all, he must pay alimony and child support.
In other words, he loses virtually all the rights he thought he had as a father and husband, and is burdened with virtually all the duties.
Under these conditions, all a man can hope from a woman is sex gratification.
For that purpose, marriage is like building a castle for a chicken.
It won't take long, for modern woman, to realize that she is the real loser in today's unmarried arrangements.
The most elemental evidence is clear enough when she fulfills her motherhood and the man is no longer there.
Some have proposed to try a matriarchal style.
We don't have to go far to find manifestations of its elements:
most American black families are matriarchal.
In those cases, the man has no incentive to marry.
Like any other man of any culture in the same conditions, he has even lost interest in the children. They practically belong to her, not to him.
The progeny continuity takes more than just a copulation, especially if the copulation is spent with a simple act: Non sequitur.
Whether it is man's or woman's fault, why should any sensible man accept responsibilities that leave him with duties without rights or rewards?
The law is progressively eroding man's (white and black) incentive to get involved with marriage and children. He may delude himself that he counts something, as father and husband, until a divorce or law packing "gender feminism" gives him the rudest awakening.
Those who legislate patriarchy away from the present family will have to create an unbearably complicated mountain of rules, laws and controls to "protect" the family
into extinction.
No wonder matriarchy has always failed in all cultures.
What can be done, then, to restore the family?
Let's restore the traditional man incentive roles of leadership and authority which, by the way, are desired by the normal woman.
What if the man doesn't deserve them?
The law, ultra-feminism and the anti-man/anti-patriarchy environment have deprived him of any incentive. All a woman offers him is the self-extinguishing sex gratification.
===================================================================================
THE DIVORCE CANCER
Divorce is like a cancer that can destroy not only families but an entire nation. Most divorcees are commmitted to believing that divorce was a solution rather than an almost crimial escape from maturity; responsibility for depriving the children of the genetic and multifaceted growth only a true mutual devotion children have the right to... But the most insidious consequence is that both children abd their divorced parents keep braiwashing themswllves irreversibly that divorce was the better choise. Many politicians (nost of them lawyers or lawyer-irifluenced) promote rge drivolous nonstrosities of no-fault divorce and ebforced 50/50 glib partition of whealth
From another perspective, a gorgeous woman or irresistible man may become faades who have lost content and high expectations.
Marriage for looks may make togetherness impossible when the looks are all there is, or mutate through aging, obesity or other unfashionable changes.
We require a license for driving, after a rigid test, which followss a serious training.
Marriage is by far more difficult, critical and significant than driving, often more than any diploma or career, but it is allowed without learning period, test, or any proof of capability.
The most irresponsible and ignorant wish is enough.
On the other hand, there are no psychological systems capable of developing a dependable marital compatibility test.
One gets away with the simple excuse that marriage is a natural "right".
Just like animal mating.
Another natural "right" is to have children.
Many parents want children the same way children want toys.
It is not difficult to imagine the educational quality in store for those toys.
What about the implicit right of the children to be born from responsible parents, above a minimum level of health, opportunities, comfort and training?
This alone should command laws and rules giving contents to the right and the manners of generating children.
At least, we should weigh the right of parents to have children and the right of children to be born in a responsible environment.
Without these rules, procreating children is kept on a bestial level.
As glibly as we approach marriage and family, we contrived divorce as a last expedient in lieu of a solution.
As it happens with many government agencies, divorce became a self perpetuating institution, with courts as its temples and attorneys as its greedy priests.
They have transformed a last recourse into a plague.
Most divorces are avoidable.
Many divorcees consider their own cases unavoidable because of the rationalizing process they trapped themselves in.
When any crisis comes, we can decide to overcome it or to push it to its culmination.
When the latter approach is taken, we start endless rationalizations that reinforce our divorce decision.
Marriage used to be a sacrament.
It still is, but like a label on an empty bottle.
And divorce is like a flatulence, because the bottle is empty.
We hire lawyers who make the most money only if we divorce.
We engage our energies and patrimony defending our decision, our money, our right to take and keep what the other party wants.
We cannot stop, lest the other party and lawyer plunge like vultures into our respite.
Ever hear a judge saying that the head of a family (man or woman) must be obeyed?
We are in a stage of our culture, in which reconsidering a truly patriarchal family with a father in command would be the ideal solution, but politically and psychologically unrealistic. Like a repelling primitivism. Probably only a catastrophic disaster could plunge us onto the proper mood to rediscover the patriarchal family...
In a TV program. I saw a heavenly messenger stating to worshiping believers that "family is a democracy"...
Millions of people can listen to that!
How can the children choose (before they are born? ), elect, depose, reelect their parents or choose another natural father or mother? How can parents resign, or change (or cut in half) their children, or impose their unwillingness to honor their duty to the children they brought to this world?
Life and reproduction are inextricably connected to each other.
Beside death, The only proven purpose of life is reproduction.
The active human family connection is inseparable father/mother/children love. Not just sex.
The active human family disconnection is divorce. Not just lack of love.
we spend the rest of our lives justifying our decision with selective recollections and reinforcing rationalize-tions that assure us our choice was inevitable.
AND WE BELIEVE IT
Of course, the other party was always wrong.
In reality, what made it inevitable was our crossing the threshold between resolving the crisis and escalating it.
Help?
A real attorney, a shyster, or a psychologist can help each according to the wishes of the paying client, or according to cynicism or generosiity.
Unfortunately, vampires can thrive in many societies.
Yet, once crossed over, the ensuing proceedings and the lawyers set the course on an automatic non stop.
The solution?
We should decide against divorce, at least in principle. Most people agree, but lawyers whose present livelihood depends on divorce are frantically working to increase and perpetuate divorces...
We are capable of bearing much more than we thought we could, no matter what attorneys (not the shysters) and psychologists may assert.
Remember, BOTH SPOUSES are financially deprived if we use legal pro-divorce help...
Children are hurt most by divorce, and for life. Parents know it too well, therefore divorce brands the parents permanently.
To say that some divorce is best for the children requires sacrificing the children instead of straitening out the parents.
Besides, the more we bear now, the less guilt we suffer in the long run.
What if the other party doesn't go along? Well, that is a temporary insanity on one side only.
We need reeducation beyond lawyers and psychologists. They cannot help us to walk if we have given up walking.
We should not be afraid to yield, even what may seem like "crawling to the "s.o.b." or "castrating bitch".
Nothing is unchangeable, including the apparently "hopeless" hostility of our opponents.
After all, a measure of our worth is our ability to cope with apparently impossible people.
It is an old truism that there is no merit in being nice only to a nice person...
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the long term advantages of accepting the challenge of a "second rate" marriage are far greater than the irreversibly ravages of divorce.
The children subject alone would deserve many chapters.
Here, however, only one consideration should suffice: what would benefit the children more, or at all, marriage or divorce, both natural parents or just one?
Ask the children: if not permanently crippled by the divorce, usually they offer a sobering answer.
===============================================================================================
DODO PSYCHO
Life may be 3.5 billion years old. Perhaps a little less or more.
Without asking for our seal of approval, it has established and developed myriads of things we do not even perceive.
That's good, since ou r choice could have delayed and spoiled everything.
Life also develop ed myriads of things inside, around and variously connected with what we think we know.
Take a mother and her young.
Wherever the young need parent's guidance, a stroke of the paw, a push or any indisputable command is definitely effective.
It is the result of 3.5 billion years of trial, error, establishment and endless improvements.
Suppose, now, that psychologists, biologists, zoologists and other specialists determine to analyze that behavior and decide that, say, a pussycat is no longer to use her paw or other unreasoned methods to teach her kittens.
Instead, she must use a system that allows the kittens to use their own evaluation or other free reaction to voluntarily adopt the mother's teaching.
Nonsense, we would say.
Well, read about fashionable 20th century child psychologists, e.g. John Dewey...
But they do it with themother and children of the human species, in America.
They come up with the apparently obvious theory (psychologists have to come up with something "better than nature", or who needs them?) that a child should never be forced but convinced by an adult who deserves their respect.
To state that a parent must deserve the respect of his/her children seems so logical and obvious, that it would be difficult to disagree with it.
A divorced friend of mine let's call him Fred was dating a girl who gave the best argument against it.
She had three children that showed an unbearable behavioral pattern.
The oldest was a 12 year old girl with an uncanny talent to break plates, glasses, bottles, and hide the broken pieces under the carpet, or leave them on the floor.
She also burst into loud crying every time anyone said something she didn't like. She ran to mommy and mommy asked Fred to be more understanding.
Her younger brother, 11, was a misfit brat.
The first time he came to Fred's home, Fred's sons were playing pool. He entered the room, grabbed the "8 ball" and said he was going to play too...
When Fred tried to explain that the others wanted to finish their game first, he became despondent and said Fred was a lousy host.
Their little sister, 10, ran all over opening drawers, the refrigerator, file cabinets etc., and took whatever she liked.
That kind of behavior manifested itself constantly in mumerous forms.
Their mother never tried to correct them. When Fred tried, just to protect other people involved, the children invariably ran to mommy to complain about him.
Mommy told him, in their prese nce, that her children didn't listen to him because he didn't do anything to deserve their respect.kk
Now, what is the meaning of deserving the respect of misbehaving children who can appreciate (or respect) only someone who bows to their whims?
The respect due to a parent or an adult in authority depends on his position and function, not on a frivolous requirement that makes inexperienced or incompetent spoiled children the judges.
We must assume that the person in authority deserves that authority until somebody can prove the opposite, the same as a free man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
As psychologists have developed full libraries of abundantly documented researches, data, results, theories, refinements of the same in any conceivable direction, their scientific fortress surely looks impregnable.
With all probability, it is.
A fortress can be built with the best materials and the most advanced architecture. It may be designed to be the strongest fortress on earth.
But, leaving all those attributes intact, that very fortress that resists any attack by anyone can crumble because of wrong foundations.
Now, accepted rules would require me to document my statement that families of psychologists may have more divorces, problem children, emotional problems, alcoholism or other addictions or what-have-you.
Imagine now, I stop for months or years of research to accumulate data for a statement that should not need it because many researchers have already proven it many times.
What if families of psychologists have fewer of those problems, but not few enough to justify the advantages of psychological savvy...
As a matter of fact, psychologists seem to have, statistically, even worse psychological problems than non-psychologists.
Certainly, not less divorces or happier children.
I suspect we could say the same of lawyers.
Well, both lawyers and psychologists may develop superb competence of procedures and patterns developed on wrong premises.
Moreover, they are not alone: educators, coaches, therapists..., as well as politicians, legislators (this is only a partial list...) and post-modern parents are exposed and extremely vulnerable to the same contaminations...
Well, let me just relate that the nonsense I have heard from pseudo psychologists is far too much more than one would expect as a result of years of college education and professional practice (which sees in most cases only what confirms their prejudices and ignores what invalidates them).
I admit that they learn a lot. But a lot of wrong theories it is little more than science coated trivia.
Today's theory ridicules yesterday's.
Tomorrow/s theory proves today's theory wrong or even dangerous...
Haven't we learned it yet?
That is another reason why the solid and permanent family is a safe haven. We have heard for millennia that love is miraculous...
Everything else is undependable by comparison.
Take for instance educational theories.
Montessori, Freud, Young, Adler, Gestalt, Transactional, Logotherapy..., the list is endless and futile.
Suppose a little 3 4 year old child was violently dragged from the bed to practice piano, night after night, by a father who was a failed musician, a drunkard and worse things I don't need to remember in detail.
This little boy, who was violently forced into piano playing to compensate for his father's failures, is the perfect example today's psychologists would describe of how to render a child allergic to piano and music.
That child was Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). Or so they say.
Oh, I forgot, all you have to do, now, is to use the hindsight: dig a few details in Beethoven's biography, and take a few more here and there to justify, rationalize and come up with a brilliant theory that you can forget.
There was a time in which children were raised with obedience.
Instead of psychology, they used the Ten Commandments.
I am not a Bible scholar, nor a believer in the perfection of the Ten Commandments, but they surely work better than any psychological theory, diagnosis, prognosis, methodology, transactional analysis, pedagogy and more...
Now, what would a psychologist say in favor of obedience?
It wouldn't sound as scientific as an intricate explanation of how to generate better response with a sophisticated and reasoned free adoption of the loving parent's suggestion...
Then, of course, don't forget that we must consider the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind, and fit it with picking a cherry with a variable speed drill (120 or 220 volts? Monophase, 3 phase?) held by a lesbian albino lady in a red dress with yellow polka dots.
Nonsense? Sure: fitting together family with divorce, "liberty", "independence", "equal rights", "democracy" is no smarter than fitting and understanding the psychological meanderings with a cherry and an electric drill held however by whomever...
America has more psychologists than any other country.
America also has the most spoiled brats.
The most divorces.
The worst anti male hostility.
The worst dope problems.
The worst racial conflicts (untrue, but it is politically correct. to say it).
When do we wake up and put our psycho socio pedagog orthopolitical package next to the dodo bird is?
The Ten Commandments are decidedly better, even if they are claimed to be only a supposedly primitive beginning...
COPULATION CONSULTANTS
"Copulation consultant", or "erotic gratifier", as a professional designation, is probably the last step a prostitute needs to become socially acceptable.
In many ways, the prostitute can be mentioned to exemplify a noticeable portion of the status problem women are facing today.
Some say a prostitute differs from a wife in the fact that she is not married and gets paid for her services.
Her morality and promiscuity are proportional and inversely proportional to her security and financial needs.
Well, I tried to explain it.
Things are happening today that promise or menace professional honorability to the prostitute, as well as industrialization of the house/maker/wife/mother functions.
First, unionism, feminism and civil rights postures are doing away with the dignity or even right to existence of all activities that are not salaried and regulated.
It did not occur to them that destroying the dignity of whatever is not paid is the classical "throwing away the baby with the bathwater".
The most important casualty is woman as the mother, wife and housewife.
Today's woman is induced to feel degraded or at least disparaged if she is not paid for what she does in marriage.
This fate is befalling the concepts of wife, mother and housekeeper.
They are told by the civilrightniks, unionists and ultra-feminists that they are being exploited in non remunerated functions arbitrarily defined by (white) men..
Soon, even love must have a job description and a salary...
Preferably on a union scale and collective bargaining.
Union rules in a bordello may even force men to choose the bimbos with the most seniority first (with Viagra free).
Which screws up the oldest profession.
We will have to sober up and start with copulation consulting and the salary set by supply and demand.
After all, the oldest profession claims its due.
If the wife is still not paid and unionized, then, the modern ethics may place her below the level of a "copulation engineer".
Marriage, by the way, is no longer necessary, for a man and a woman can live together with their civil rights, job descriptions and remunerations defined by collective contracts and safeguarded by job secured bureaucrats.
If the above scenario sounds nightmarish, I agree...
Justice is guaranteed by the fact that the bureaucrats were hired on the basis of racial disadvantages instead of competence.
One could not be in better hands...
An unmarried couple could fit in job descriptions like "Household". Engineer, Breeding Executive, Copulation Broker, Crotch Curator, Perineum Analyst, Certified Oralist, Education Assistant, Food Manager, Maintenance Supervisor, Societal Agent, Financial Provider,
Of course, the list is only limited by the imagination of the bureaucrats, whose power grows with the size of the list and the troubles it can make.
========================================================================
THE EGG-CHICK-EGG
The socialist liberals claim that poverty and capitalist exploitation have destroyed the family by forcing the woman to work instead of caring for the family.
Just a minute: weren't the socialist the cause, or at least the irresponsible causation?
The ultra-feminists claim that the family has no right to exist if it interferes with woman's liberty and equality with man.
The conservatives claim that displacing the traditional family values with the unproven dogmas of liberty, equality, "civil liberties", enforced gender and racial equality, unsupervised sexual freedom has deprived the family of its unity, solidity, authority and even its raison d'tre.
The socialist claim is the same that asserts that poverty creates crime.
History has abundantly proven otherwise.
Poverty has created work rather than crime. The rich have less incentive to work than the poor.
The family is stronger and more prolific in civilized "third world" societies than in the prosperous and industrialized societies.
The countries where the family values are decayed are (or will be) barbaric, or at least uncultivated.
Virtually every century, all over the world, has produced devoted people, from common peasants to knights, monks, philanthropists, hermits, idealists, saints, prophets, all kinds of leaders completely dedicated to poverty and selfless help to fellow men.
Many of them became famous because of their great deeds, inventions, conquests, discoveries, immortal masterpieces in every field of endeavor.
A surprisingly large percentage of the greatest men (and women, of course) were helplessly dependent on other men; many were even slaves or hardly better than slaves.
Many of those great men would have achieved nothing, had they been spoiled by wealth.
The cases of insignificant or downright rotten children of wealthy and famous people are too well known and embarrassing.
A convincing example is certainly the Great Depression of the 1930's in USA.
Poverty was then at such a miserable level, and for so long, that today's (1994) poor would be very wealthy by comparison. Yet, the number of murders, robberies, violent felonies, rapes and other crimes, fatherless children, divorces, family problems and other social disorders are much more numerous and worse today than during the Great Depression.
The hyper-feminist ("feminazi" or ultra-feminist) anti family and anti-man posture is so extreme and repeatedly declared, that it is unnecessary to repeat it here.
It is the attack on the traditional family values that deserves at least a mention.
However, a list of what was mentioned elsewhere in this book would be sufficient.
Patriarchy must be restored without the least apology.
First, because it has withstood the test of millennia, cultures and wars against any other approach.
Second, patriarchy is not at all anti woman; most likely anti feminazi in the same sense as it is against abusive males and machismo.
It includes protection of man, woman and child, without being in the least anti any of them, as today's feminazism is viciously anti male.
Then, patriarchy is desired in its essence (but today without the "patriarchy" designation) by the traditional feminist women, because it increases man's responsibilities, not his guilt (has anyone ever thought that every man has a mother,wife, daughter, sister he mostly loves and is loved by?...)
Parental authority must recover all functions and rights that it lost to the courts, bureaucrats, teachers, social workers and other meddling do-gooders.
Legal majority should be raised from 18 to the 24, or even more, years of age.
The crimes, irresponsible marriages, immature parenthoods, incompetent enterprises, mindless promiscuity, venereal diseases, illiteracy, foolish choices and contracts, gang activities, teen age prostitution, dope addiction and many other problems it would minimize, if not eliminate, would be mind boggling.
This alone would save so many billions from wasted welfare, law enforcement, educational and child care budgets and countless other expenses, that it would become a major solution to our social and financial woes.
Divorce should be made as difficult as possible, to save the family and children.
Taxation should favor married couples and penalize marriage dissolutions and unwed couples.
Unfortunately, most politicians are lawyers, and lawyers would lose enormous incomes if divorce problems were eliminated or minimized.
The final consequences of whatever is done to restore the traditional family (in whatever new form may be necessary) cannot fail to be a godsend for our entire nation.
=======================================================================================
LOVE COMES NEXT
Several years ago, one of my chemists was a handsome and very pleasant young man from India, beside being a brilliant scientist.
His personal magnetism was obvious in any social environment. He could have dated or married almost any girl in America.
One day he told me that he had to return to India to meet and marry a young lady his parents had chosen for him.
To my standard Western questioning about arranged marriage without the primary love motivation, he came up with examples we both knew of countless love marriages that ended disastrously, or at any rate not as successfully as competently arranged marriages.
His reasoning was so disarming that I had to surrender to his posture, which became easier to understand the more I thought about it.
Among other things, one fact became more and more evident: being focused on each other, husband and wife have many temptations toward mutual hostile criticism and its consequences.
Even if that mutual focusing is initially motivated by love, which, by itself alone, is just an emotion, no matter how poetic or sacred.
Hollywood couples, the epitome of famous love unions, have an astounding frequency of failures and divorces.
When husband and wife both focus on a common interest (children, business, any activity or goal) instead of on each other, something is created like two parallel lines in the same direction that don't cross each other.
I would venture to say that more durable affection and togetherness can be more likely derived from common (obviously compatible too) goals than from love and sex alone.
Sounds unholy?
It is hard to deny that the observation, between love-bird lovers, "I don't love you any more like before" is disastrous, whereas the same observation by a simply affectionate spouse, or one like "I don't like to have one more child", is manageable.
I could have mentioned better examples, but that should suffice for now.
Family goes far beyond sexual gratification, for which dates and simple copulation would suffice, but the nucleus of life reproduction and nurture first, both sublimed in love.
Yet, family is now under attack by the government, lawyers, militant homosexuals, ultra-feminists, deconstructionists and leftist liberals.
Government delivered the first crippling blow by lowering the majority age from 21 to 18.
Removing parental control and protection from irresponsibility among the very young has beeb and is the closest to national cultural suicide. Besides, even among mature adults, the mere sex/love motivation can be just as irresponsible.
The devastating consequences show most obviously in our spectacularly high divorce rate.
As previously mentioned, our increased longevity and educational requirements alone should have raised majority age to at least 23 or 25.
Intrusive legislation added insult by giving bureaucrats arrogant power over the family.
"Aid To Dependent Children" and welfare penalized marriage and made father's involvement remarkably inconvenient.
Lawyers nailed the family's coffin with "No Fault Divorce", which injected malignancy in every marital difficulty.
Politicized psychologists defined homosexuality with a "normality" label that branded normal people as "heterosexuals".
This denied -or at least contaminated- the normality of male/female interaction in the reproductive familial reality.
Recognizing a claim-jumping homosexual marriage versus normal marriage puts homosexuals on an unnecessary collision course with the heterosexuals, and desecrates what should be sacred (at least as a concept) in conjunction with reproduction.
Marriage is upgraded by the family, not by a meddlesome government.
Considering marriage an unconditional right for the homosexuals facilitates a devious substitution of reproductive union with typically sterile fornication, ruthless toward the children (which makes partial-birth abortion easier than abstinence) and a pandering for votes by irresponsible voters, whose number increases as bellicose "entitlements" are dispensed like "wheat and games to the populace" (which inadvertently reveals politician's contempt for the general public. "Reelect me and the hell with you", or "Aprs moil le deluge").
Ultra-feminists, dictatorially man-hating persons (and ignorant of history), see family as woman enslavement and patriarchal oppression.
Deconstructionists, the enemies of our culture, are dedicated to the deactivation of the family and Western culture, which they aim to fragment with a malignant "multiculturalism".
They fear family as the nemesis of big government and leftist multiculturalism.
Nuclear and extended families harmonize in commonly agreed values and form the basis of democratic societies from the roots.
Big government is imposed from above through proliferating regulations to support bureaucracies and politicized organizations.
They contaminate America with victimization of workers, women, children, minorities and races, to fabricate a lynching mood against family, individual initiative, competition, un-politicized education, values and secularized religion.
Does anyone care?
SALVATION IN MULTIPLICATION
No one seems to dispute that members of the modern and prosperous nations deliberately limit the number of their children to a very minimum, while members of the poor "third world" nations tend to generate as many children as possible.
The reasons given are that more than one or two children are considered an unnecessary burden for sophisticated people who don't have the need of poor people to be supported in their old age by their children.
This situation, however, has produced the inescapable consequence that the population of the richest and most sophisticated nations is decreasing at an alarming rate, while the poorest nations are growing in a similarly alarming rate.
Furthermore, an unintended consequence is that the thus increasing number of older people percentage in low-reproducing rate nations causes the older people to become and unbearable burden for the younger ones.
Conclusion: reality proves that prosperous people have very similar reasons as the poor for producing as many children as possible...
(to be continued)
==================================================================================================
THE INDISPUTABLE
+The above contains enough argumentation in favor of the inviolability or sacredness of the family, even if we ignore the religious background.
The strongest reason to protect, promote, defend the supremacy and indissolubility of the family is the father/mother/child inviolable trinity.
The question of guaranteed paternity demands the absolute certainty that the father of the child be guaranteed not simply by the mother's assurance
that she copulated with no other man but the father of the child in question.
The assurance by the mother that she copulated with no other man may be legally sufficient to recognize who the father is, but only on the basis that the mother's assurance must be believed and valid tells the truth unless someone proves that she is guilty of deception or audltery.
But how can she scientifically prove that she is telling the truth?
The following is a list of the components of that assurance:
1) The woman's main motivation must be not the pleasure of sex but the irresistible passion to generate a child.
2)The woman must be virgin before mating with her husband.
3) She must mate with only her husband and have no opportunity and willingness to mate with anyone else.
4) Her loyalty to her husband must be absolute, and adultery must be made impossible...
The main reason for woman's absolute sexual loyalty is the protection of and of the truth about the child's paternity.
Before today' DMA scientific methods, the only foolproof method to ensure the paternity truth has been strict control of every minute or even second of her life and activities. This problem deserves volumes and volunes written by spouses, parents and children. Absolutely not by lawyers.
[to be continued]
======================================================================
**********************************************************************
The objection against returning to "the old way" to make a marriage work is that the old ways don't work.
Therefore the new must be tried.
That could be valid only if the new were supported by better results.
Actually, the new style marriages have a much higher percentage of failures than the old style's.
One out of 2 American marriages ends in divorce.
No fault divorce and sex equality make things worse, like all scatterbrained initiatives to "improve" on the "old ways".
We believe we have found a solution or achieved improvement when we call any chance "improvement".
It was thought that divorce would protect the woman (man, of course, is considered wrong "a priori"), but nothing has victimized woman worse than "freeing" her from man and putting her on equal "competitive" (=hostile) footing.
We must try something else.
We could surely try the "old way" and call it "something else" or any other name.
That would make it acceptable.
It would prove how silly our last methods of choice have been.
It could dawn on us that neither the old nor the new ways can work if we lack self discipline and common beliefs.
Family failed when we started to neglect the rules and self discipline that made it work in the past.
The traditional meaning of marriage is a built in commitment against separation and divorce.
When conflicting man and wife go to court for "irreconcilable" differences, the law should find a way to decide how they should try or find a behavior to keep the family going, not how to tear it asunder.
Problems caused by laws to keep families together could not be as bad as those caused by divorces.
If normal children could vote without lawyer and psychologist counseling, for instance, there would hardly be any divorce.
Now, what matches the importance of our children in the family?
Spouses and parents have no rights to desert the duties that they adopted as permanent with the act of marriage.
People go to jail for tax delinquency and other infractions which, as bad as they may be, are not as important as crimes against the family.
It is odd then, that we cannot consider similar punishments, rather than divorce, against "family duty delinquency".
A society in which taxes are better protected than the family doesn't deserve to survive.
The present law does not help; it bullies into the family to enforce independence of the mates against each other, instead of enforcing their freely contracted devotion to each other and to the children.
Marriage is not made for spoiled brats, and children are not their toys.
But the spoiled brats increased in number to the point that they became a noisy crowd who got the hands on the steering wheel, and made new laws.
The old rules were not nice toward the spoiled brats.
So, the spoiled brats stretched and cut and corrupted marriage on their pattern, until it lost shape and life.
This is one of the many cases in which we have to wait for the boomerang to return to the starting point because it hit no target.
Divorce is a cancer in the social structure of U.S.A.
It appears that this cancer has many interests tied with new values.
Questioning the new values is taboo.
One set of new values hides behind "equal rights".
Few marriages can really survive implementation of "equal rights".
Like any defined organization, family can only survive when one family member has the final word in cases of impasse.
Often we must face the choice of sacrificing the family to equal rights or equal rights to the family. The latter choice has always prevailed in the past by successful cultures who were not less sophisticated than ours.
Equal rights may be today's fetish, but they are still concepts and theories in a aprimitive stage.
Family is the reality.
=================================================================
Those who predicate abortion would not have liked to be aborted.
Some say that divorce is often necessary to protect the children from the emotional damages caused by fighting parents.
This sounds reasonable until we examine what happens to the children after divorce.
The truth is that, normally, a bad marriage hurts the children much less than most divorces.
Love is sacred, but irrational and dangerous if not disciplined. This fact is so little understood that it seriously undermines the success of marriage.
Marriage would have a more solid ground if it were based more on genetic, biological, social, psychological, financial and professional reasons.
Marriage's enduring purpose is family and children. The love which is now conventionally required for marriage is too ephemeral. It is for lovers and lasts only until the two lovers start being serious about the real business of life.
The difference between marriage and a partnership is that, in marriage, each spouse is
responsible for 100% of the shares.
Marriages that ignore it
ends in failure, even if they don't notice it..