4 ms·

Raising kids is difficult and time consuming. As people gain more opportunities to do other things than raise kids they chose to do those other things instead.

Raising kids is difficult and time consuming. As people gain more opportunities to do other things than raise kids they chose to do those other things instead. It's an opportunity cost issue, not a literal cost issue. That's why the birth rates goes down rather than up as you climb income percentiles. People with more money have more opportunities. The only real force to counteract that is cultural/social pressure to raise kids which has also fallen off pretty hard. It might be less obvious to younger people or people with younger parents but having kids was much less of a "decision" for couples not that many decades ago and was much more just an assumed fact. If you didn't, people assumed there was something wrong with you.

taylodl 3y ago
> having kids was much less of a "decision" for couples not that many decades ago and was much more just an assumed fact To your point, oftentimes the marriage wasn't considered valid if there were no children, after all, what evidence was there that the marriage had been consummated? In fact, that we used to talk about a marriage being "consummated" shows how our views on marriage and family have changed in a very brief timeframe.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > To your point, oftentimes the marriage wasn't considered valid if there were no children, after all, what evidence was there that the marriage had been consummated? No, I don't know what culture or religion you're referring to, but this is absolutely backwards to what the Catholic Churches (and, by extension, other Christians) believe and teach. First of all, every marriage that is going to be valid, is valid without consummation. Remember, Joseph married Mary and they never consummated: she retained her perpetual virginity, so that is our gold standard. Now, traditionally for the Catholic Church, if the bride and groom were alone together after the wedding, consummation is presumed. It might be difficult to disprove a consummation, children or no children, because a married man and woman will naturally wish to do what is natural to their state in life, and will indeed be encouraged to have as much sex as they wish. Interestingly, if the man or woman is fully impotent and unable to complete the marital embrace, then the marriage is invalid from the start. The ability to consummate is vital to validity, but not the fact of consummation itself. Christian marriages (and natural marriages) are valid from the moment the spouses exchange consent. The consent makes the marriage. Full stop. Of course, consent must be given by qualified persons, in an approved ceremony, before the proper witnesses, too. Now, a consummated Christian marriage (between a baptized man and baptized woman) has a special property: it is absolutely indissoluble. There is nothing in Heaven or Earth that can separate the marriage bond in this case, except the death of a spouse. Now it follows that if a consummated, sacramental marriage is indissoluble, then an unconsummated marriage may, in certain cases, be dissolved, and this is correct. If the couple finds trouble and procures a divorce, then the Catholic Church may grant a dissolution of the bond. This is different from a declaration of nullity ("annulment"). A dissolved marriage recognizes the validity of what came before, but for some reason it was broken up. I hope that helps; Christian marriage law, and Catholic canon law, is rather confusing and surprising to most laypeople.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    I was painting with a broad brush
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Well, no, you seemingly invented something out of whole cloth, because I can't really find any evidence that non-consummation makes a marriage invalid, in a secular sense: obviously I've proven the religious aspect of it. So [citation needed] for your broad brush: if you can prove otherwise then I'll stand corrected. The history of marriage, and the diversity of jurisdictions and regulation for it, is certainly a large haystack to search.

taylodl 3y ago

> having kids was much less of a "decision" for couples not that many decades ago and was much more just an assumed fact To your point, oftentimes the marriage wasn't considered valid if there were no children, after all, what evidence was there that the marriage had been consummated? In fact, that we used to talk about a marriage being "consummated" shows how our views on marriage and family have changed in a very brief timeframe.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> To your point, oftentimes the marriage wasn't considered valid if there were no children, after all, what evidence was there that the marriage had been consummated? No, I don't know what culture or religion you're referring to, but this is absolutely backwards to what the Catholic Churches (and, by extension, other Christians) believe and teach. First of all, every marriage that is going to be valid, is valid without consummation. Remember, Joseph married Mary and they never consummated: she retained her perpetual virginity, so that is our gold standard. Now, traditionally for the Catholic Church, if the bride and groom were alone together after the wedding, consummation is presumed. It might be difficult to disprove a consummation, children or no children, because a married man and woman will naturally wish to do what is natural to their state in life, and will indeed be encouraged to have as much sex as they wish. Interestingly, if the man or woman is fully impotent and unable to complete the marital embrace, then the marriage is invalid from the start. The ability to consummate is vital to validity, but not the fact of consummation itself. Christian marriages (and natural marriages) are valid from the moment the spouses exchange consent. The consent makes the marriage. Full stop. Of course, consent must be given by qualified persons, in an approved ceremony, before the proper witnesses, too. Now, a consummated Christian marriage (between a baptized man and baptized woman) has a special property: it is absolutely indissoluble. There is nothing in Heaven or Earth that can separate the marriage bond in this case, except the death of a spouse. Now it follows that if a consummated, sacramental marriage is indissoluble, then an unconsummated marriage may, in certain cases, be dissolved, and this is correct. If the couple finds trouble and procures a divorce, then the Catholic Church may grant a dissolution of the bond. This is different from a declaration of nullity ("annulment"). A dissolved marriage recognizes the validity of what came before, but for some reason it was broken up. I hope that helps; Christian marriage law, and Catholic canon law, is rather confusing and surprising to most laypeople.
- taylodl 3y ago
  I was painting with a broad brush
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Well, no, you seemingly invented something out of whole cloth, because I can't really find any evidence that non-consummation makes a marriage invalid, in a secular sense: obviously I've proven the religious aspect of it. So [citation needed] for your broad brush: if you can prove otherwise then I'll stand corrected. The history of marriage, and the diversity of jurisdictions and regulation for it, is certainly a large haystack to search.