best regards

The financial aspect regarding benefits could be dealt with quite simply. Split child benefit, each parent claims child tax credits as if they were sole parent and get exactly half of the resulting figure. No maintenance passes between them and each provides for the child while in their care. No money wasted on lawyers no CSA. If parents choose to help each other out with childcare which deviates from 50/50 split this remains unofficial and does not effect finance or equal shared care status.

I agree with another reader above that finances are often the root cause; something which could probably be dealt with by advice, guidance and living within one’s means.
As a somewhat fussy young woman, prior to marriage, I was very picky about my partners and had very few before meeting the person I’ve been married to now for 26 years. Nowadays, there is something rather sordid about watching a woman changing her man every few years, having a baby, getting shot of the bloke then picking up another one a few years later. You can keep your liberalism. I’m just glad I’m not a girl in my 20′s any more, in this day and age.

And one more thing….more marriages lasting longer would reduce the ludicrous demand for so much single-person housing. The builders could get on building family homes with gardens, instead of the acres of rabbit-boxes which we now have, to house divorced woman and divorced man.

Nobody is forcing anyone to get married. Contrary to your assertion, John, many financially prudent people aren’t put off being married by possible divorce settlements.

In fact, for the most part, were it not for the financial disincentives that governments have created against marriage (for example, if you lose your job and you have a working – even low paid – spouse, you will get next to nothing from the state, despite tax/NI contributions), the natural economic and social advantages of marriage would be clear.

Quite simply, single parenthood outside a stable relationship is not viable for most people without state handouts. There isn’t enough money to go round when people split up (if they have children).

As for pre-nups, the point of marriage is that it is a pre-defined state-recognised contract in which you agree to share your wealth. Therefore marriage should and must render any such pre-nup agreement null and void – there is only one sort of marriage contract, not one that can be modified by other contracts and agreements. If you can’t accept this, then draw up your own customised ‘partnership’ agreement instead of marriage – but don’t pretend it is exactly the same as marriage.

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule (either way), but statistically, a married, heterosexual couple, are able to create by far and away the best environment to raise children. That this isn’t discussed any more, is largely down to the bars that polical correctness puts on anyone attempting to promote this fact.

This is not much of a surprise however as, ultimately, the destruction of the nuclear family is a prime tenet of Marxism, not least because nuclear families are largely self-reliant with no need for state intervention in most aspects of it’s daily life. The Marxoids who control our government, and our media, have done wonders in creating conditions where marriage is no longer required, or even expected. Political correctness, another favoured weapon of the Marxoids, prevents anyone from being able to speak out about such things as it is only the deafening squeals of “xxxxx-phobic”, bellowed out by the minorities, which are heard/reported. As such, no-one dare raise their head above the parapet to speak out.

Then there is the feminist lobby, who have also pushed for, and got, very lop-sided divorce settlements, especially where children are concerned. It is extremely rare for a father to be awarded custody of children, no matter how feckless the mother might be. Baby Peter is a prime example; a father who tried, and failed, to gain custody of his child knowing that he was being neglected (and mistreated) by his mother and her latest boyfriend. I have great sympathy for the Fathers for Justice campaigners, especially when you read some of their individual stories. As a married man, who has recently become a proud father, nothing terrifies me more than the thought my wife could up, take our daughter and leave on a whim, and I would be reduced to being an “every other weekend” father, if she so chose, no matter what the circumstances of our seperation.

However, these liberal policies, instead of empowering women, as the feminists claimed, actually encourage men to jump from partner to partner, making no committments, and certainly not to bothering sticking around if a child appears, knowing, as both parties do, that the State will step in and help out. The biggest losers in all of this, of course, are the children.

Only now, as these children begin to reach adulthood, are we beginning to see the fruits of these policies, and boy are they rotten.

Liberalism is great, lots of fun, with no responsibility. That it actually leads down a path towards the sort of totalitarian mess such as we have now, is kind of ironic.

Unfortunately, One if the chief aims of Communism was to undermine the basic pillars of Western society, christianity, the family, prohibiting parents and teachers from disciplining children, promoting 24 hr drinking.
They clearly want society to decay, they need the excuse to impose the EU Police state the stability of the family unit therefore has to be destroyed.

The Collapse and destruction of our society is all by design.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yuri+bezmenov&search_type=&aq=f

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=communist+agenda&search_type=&aq=f