The irreconcilable incoherence beneath the weekend wedlock wobble

Yaffle

Melanie,

Agree entirely. This is just one of the reasons why I won't be voting Dave this year.

But can any political party now seriously put marriage back at the centre of family life, and still be elected, given that births outside of marriage will soon outnumber those within it?

I fear that we have passed a tipping point. Thatcher could have saved marriage but chose not to; now it's too late.

Ray

Once again, Melanie, you have taken your blunt, ineluctable hammer and walloped the wobbling Cameroon nail firmly on the head.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Surely David Cameron is just doing a U-turn to play to the gallery. Marriage is no longer a logical step in British contemporary life - unless of course it is same sex marriage.

Dave B

I rather liked Ed West's piece on Social Conservatism vs Liberalism:

"A society that “lets it all hang out” and throws away the constraints of bourgeoisie repression will inevitably find itself being watched, monitored and locked-up by an over-powerful, over-regulating, social-worker state."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100019539/the-tory-taliban-are-resurgent-in-the-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-conservatives/

Dixon

I dont agree with the assertion that traditional married family life is best for kids.

I grew up in a family with eight kids. Four of whom were still at home with my arrival. A very "traditional" proleterian Catholic household.

Although my childhood was a happy one...because as a child I was unable to understand the things my parents did to me...what my parents did to, and with, or upon me, has left me crippled for forty years since.

Most paedophilia and child abuse is perpetrated by that same ouwardly clean "wonderful world" traditional family scenario that you think is the best way to protect children.

And that, quite simply, is a fact.

Yaffle

Dixon,

Well how about this for a fact:

"Live-in and visiting boyfriends are much more likely than biological fathers or married step-fathers to inflict severe physical abuse, sexual abuse and child killing."

(source: http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php ; see footnote)

Tiberius

It is perfectly reasonable for you to deconstruct this issue as you have, Melanie, but a successful politician cannot afford the luxury of dealing purely in black and white.

Conlige suspectos semper habitos

Dixon

As Baby Peter's life regrettably proved, the greatest 'parental' abuse is actually perpetuated by people without any blood relationship to the child in question. After all, all those old fairy tales about wicked step-mothers or step-fathers weren't just the products of some storywriter's over-active imagination.

phil

Oh what a petty world we have become ,does it really matter to people contemplating marriage that they will get a small tax break ,what a sound marriage that would be !!! Dave has many ideas ,about as many monkey nuts that I can devour in one session ,some are ok ,others ? but he does try .My problem is every opportunity is taken to heap abuse and sarcasm on any unfortunate who puts forward an idea ,good or bad -Can you wonder why people refrain from sticking their head above the parapet ?
---------
.In case of any doubt I believe in the state of marriage and the right of a child to have a father as well as a mother, and NO not two mums or two dads ,how do you think a kid would deal with that in the playground ? Melanie has said it better than I can in a society where so many "homes" have children by 4 and 5 fathers and numerous "uncles" who stay the night for good measure.Is it really any wonder that we produce so many feral kids .
---------------
On another thread here not long ago I made a suggestion and appealed for help from anyone who cared to lobby for financial support from the govt for the old youth club system fronted by famous sportsmen (which I could produce).A way perhaps of putting a sense of belonging and pride back into so many kids that have lost all sense of purpose -It went the same way as any other idea ,nada -not even an insult !! It was on Rod Liddles thread and I did ask him to email me if he could help or was interested -not a word .
-----
Sincere sympathy to DIXON for his pain but he seems to have turned out to be more balanced than most and more caring as well . Dixon I am getting fed up of being a caring sensible bloke ,I think I may go down the route of the sarcastic foul mouthed lady from another place and become a nasty bastard at least people take some notice of her even if it,s only abuse that she gets :)

Ian C

While what you say, Melanie, is substantially correct, it is impossible for marriage to return to the status of 100 years ago, if only because so many suffered inhumanely at its hands if they were not married or were divorced on terms that were weighted in favour of men, in the main.

What can be done is to slowly rebuild a modern version of the Judeo-Christian model that became usurped because of its and societal blind spots that became unacceptable in the post-2 World Wars in the 20th Century whose effects did more for the death of marriage than anything else.

The more recent outcomes are more a development of blind egalitarianism, arising from the socialism that has crept up on us all, than a deliberate attempt to break up families.

Cameron deserves some respect for even attempting it. It was always going to be a very difficult one and never something that could be legislated for in short order.

There was always going to be muddle along the way - and your job is to keep the moral compass clear with such input.

Dixon

"Yaffle
January 6th, 2010 2:27pm
Dixon,

Well how about this for a fact:

"Live-in and visiting boyfriends are much more likely than biological fathers or married step-fathers to inflict severe physical abuse, sexual abuse and child killing.""

They are still living in a model of the nuclear family, albeit a pretend one, so that does nothing to detract from my point. It is the model itself, not whether or not it is formally recognised that is the venue for such abuse. The situation of "what goes on behind closed doors". The unobserved privateness of the family. It is this which, in part, fosters abuse. Irrespective of whether the
adults are married or cohabiting. So, as I say, your assertion is itrrelevant.

A communal environment would permit of vastly less scope for abuse simply because there is less scope for secrecy.

Dixon

Conlige de Pompous Nominus...see my reply to Yaffle.

John Richardson

'Phil'

Cheer up.
Could always be worse.
As for 'taking notice' ?
Well,over on the 'Coffee Houser's Wall' I have 'Wilhelm' drawling;
"Did you spill my pint sonny..?"

So, could be worse...

Augustus

For more than 3,000 years marriage has signified a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman in our Western
Judeo-Christian and humanist culture. It's goal being to establish the social father of the children of the woman. As soon as that principle is undermined the flood gates are opened for all kinds of anti-social developments, such as polygamous marriages, same-sex marriages, marriages between family members etc. Partnership might be trendy, and same-sex partners like to think that they belong to society as well. But there's only one true type of marriage, and that's the monogamous one. And the Conservative party at least acknowledges that principle.

David

Bravo! Let us hope Cameron reads this.

Renovator

Dictionaries define "Judeo" as a combinative form. Thus, the compound word "Judeo-Christian" implies that Judaism (Torah) is no more than a dependent element of Christianity.

In typical supersessionist and displacement Christian tradition, Christians thoughtlessly presume the prefix "Judeo-" to lay false claim to Judaism (Torah) by means of an impossible union of "Judeo-" (pro-Torah) with "Christian" (supersessionist and displacement antinomian=anti-Torah=misojudaism).

Where values are shared, the accurate (and honest) way would be to state "Judaic and Christian…" (values, traditions, etc.) instead of "Judeo-Christian."

It's reasonably clear to most that the founders of America were primarily Christians. Be content with that and stifle your greed to lay false claim to Judaism along with it. The history of the original Christian church of 135 C.E. was indisputably antinomian, and even viciously misojudaic (see Oxford historian James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue). The 10 Commandments are an indivisible whole. Rejecting any one constitutes rejecting of the whole… and the Church rejected the 10 Commandments when it superseded and displaced #4 (and shredded #1-3 as well). Examples are endless. Dt. 13.1-6 explicitly precludes the Christian NT exactly as it does the Quran, Book of Mormon, Watchtower, etc. Consequently, claiming your NT is included in a "Judeo-Christian Bible" is no less wrong and offensive. The NT is not part of the Jewish Bible.

Greed to claim supersession over, and displacement of, Judaism introduces self-contradictions that undermine and negate your arguments.

Christians' religious greed results in fecklessness that enables the postmodernists to disassemble and destroy America.

Contrary to many modern Christian overstatements, the founders of America guaranteed that religion be free to all in private and imposed on no one in public.

Unfortunately, America's freedom to practice one's religion in private doesn't satisfy religious greed--particularly that of Christians--toward dominance. In such case, religions in America need to be declawed. By over-reaching you ensure the opposite--and probably disproportionate--reaction.

phil

John Richardson
January 6th, 2010 8:49pm
:):)Willie seems to have taken you on as his current "victim"-but he is a huge improvement from where he started ,first the BNP then cut and paste my words but now jokes !!! much better :)

Neil Saunders

Readers of this blog would do well (if they have not already done so) to read Peter Hitchens's recent comments about the present-day Conservative Party and David Cameron:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/01/a-response-to-conservative-home-and-its-contributors.html#comments

Orlando

Cameroon has been infected with the Marxist virus. The Soviets spent decades trying to undermine the west from within by infiltrating and supporting anti-western cultural theories and groups e.g. cultural Marxism. The virus was released into the wild but it did not take immediately. Now, the virus has spread exponentially within western academia, the media and political (self appointed) elites. Cameroon is a victim of this virus. He is surrounded by and talks to people who were educated by those sovietised academics who have been infected by the Marxism virus. All the UKs public services are essentially peddling Cultural Marxism - PC values, sexual freedom, disrespect for our culture, values, history, politics, religion, etc, etc.
It will take a very long time to overcome this, and only if the majority, who have had enough, stand up and take action.