AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

The 2nd Amendment and the Institution of Marriage

I’m so sick of seeing this argument from people:

“Marriage is a failing institution — what are the stats now? Like 51% of first marriages end in divorce?”

Marriage is not a failing institution. People fail their marriages. If people would take the institution of marriage seriously, the stats would be better. But the institution itself is fine. It’s been around for centuries and worked just fine. Because the majority of Americans are too selfish and naive and stupid to treat the institution of marriage so lightly, that is why the stats are poor.

Just like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, so too marriage does not fail, people fail their marriages.

The way I see it, people who say that failed marriages mean that “the institution of marriage is a failure” is the same as saying that murders mean that the 2nd Amendment is a failure.

Advertisements

April 4, 2009 , 11:57PM - Posted by | 2nd Amendment, Firearms, Gun Control, Marriage

2 Comments

  1. 51% 66% 47% …

    They make it up as they go along.

    I read once that they always exaggerate, to make it seem like the norm, encouraging people to get divorced.

    Why? To corrupt society and/or for lawyers to make a buck.

    Paranoia? Read the Communist Manifesto. One goal: the destruction of the “bourgeois” family.

    Comment by Akira | April 5, 2009 , 6:17PM

  2. Marx und Engels:

    Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

    The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

    He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

    For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

    Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

    Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    Comment by Akira | April 5, 2009 , 6:20PM


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: