RE: Why Marriage means freedom.

Thank you for commenting.

It's not a translation error, but an interpretation error, in my opinion. Just as it is obvious that one kills in self-defence, it is equally obvious that we kill animals and plants in order to eat. "Murder" is therefore the correct interpretation of the term. I assume that the word "murder" is younger than the word "kill". Anyone who deliberately wants to misinterpret it will of course do so.

Marriage has not been legally destroyed in my country, but the love between man and woman has degenerated into a triviality worldwide in modern societies.

The covenant between a man and a woman is much more than a contract, it is a moral vow that consequently entailed both practical elements and legal provisions. Until about a century and a half ago, this was entirely justified, as marriages generally lasted until the end of their lives and only a few spouses separated. As a woman who did not participate in economic life outside the home, she needed protection in the event that her husband died or she had to separate for serious reasons. This protection was justly granted to her. If, like my mother, you gave birth to six children, there is no question that this entire period of bringing up children and being a housewife should be placed under the protection of the society. A widow's pension is appropriate in this sense.

In Germany, now, spousal alimony is calculated according to the number of years of marriage and the amount of income. This means that women have to pay alimony to men if their income was higher than that of their ex-husbands during marriage. However, this whole alimony issue can also be viewed differently, not from a legal point of view, but from the intimate aspects of the relationship itself, where the separating parties do not need to invoke the law if they do not wish to do so and can reach an agreement other than that provided for by law.

The chosen attitude refers to what I expressed in my text. If you marry carelessly and do not take an oath, then you separate just as carelessly and the "not guilty" is merely the logical decision of such careless marriages (by turning things upside down and not choosing wisely who to take as wife or husband).
By recklessly abandoning Christian values, we are partly responsible for the exceptions becoming the rule. It is easy to recognise that people who have not taken a vow behave dishonestly during and after separation and argue in an unduly dramatic way, but, as I have tried to say, this cannot be justified in a morally coherent way.

Marriage, as it was viewed in pre-modern times, was most probably always seen from the point of view of starting a family. Where children were the result of the union of man and woman as a matter of course and therefore the woman, the man and the children were a unit that secured each other's existence. Failed marriages and separated family members could be absorbed, as they were able to reintegrate into their families of origin. Only those who commonly could not show a severe case for their separation remained ashamed or spurned. At least, that was my parents generation in general. The majority of them were together until death did them apart. I think though, that because we were no modern peoples (Russian-Germans) that was the case. Within only one generation it shifted.

The church or the government cannot restore marriage if it is not the people themselves who want it restored. If the call for a return to the values of marriage, fidelity and serious commitment is not heard loud and clear everywhere, other things will be heard and listened to. Interestingly enough, the policy in Hungary supports families and children. I must look up the legalities.

This issue of marriage is dramatically underestimated and under published, in my eyes, and that's why I'm writing about it and want to see it spread. We now really know enough about what institutions want, but we need confidence and voices that are believed to mean what they say or write.

I agree that men and fathers were and are at a disadvantage compared to women in many ways. I have no doubt that women do not exist as "the weaker sex".