2006-09-09 14:41:17 · 14 answers · asked by ruffian 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. I think society's morals changed and it became less of a "stigma" to have a baby out of wedlock.
Shotgun weddings were caused by the old, Victorian inspired idea that sex before marriage was bad and having a child out of wedlock was shocking. After WWII British society changed a lot, its old entrenched values and morals were broken down and the Sixities, with all the free love, Womens Liberation etc swept away what was left.
Young women who got pregnant no longer felt compelled to have the baby adopted or to marry the father before the child was born to cover up their "wrongdoing". And not all single mothers claimed social security - some worked and/or were supported by their families. Something which wasn't acceptable in the old days of "nuclear family - father works, mother stays home" beleifs.
I think this was a good thing because there was immeasurable misery caused to young women who got pregnant in those days. If they were unable to secure a marriage to the father the baby was pretty much taken off them.
I was born "out of wedlock" in 1971 but my mum was 36 and financially stable so it wasn't as if anyone was going to tell her what to do. If she'd been a single 16 year old she'd have been hidden away in a "mother and baby home" (to avoid"scandal" to the family) and I probably would have been taken away from her at birth and given to strangers to raise. I am so glad I wasn't!!!!
By the time my BF was born to a single 19 year old mother in 1982 (yeah I know, he's a toyboy!), noone batted an eyelid! So much change in just 10-11 years!
2006-09-10 01:01:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they did, then that would be a good thing.
no baby should ever have to be born into a family that was forced together.
society is changing. its attitudes are changing. this is progress. (well, for the most part!)
it is no longer deemed necessary to be forced to wed because of an unplanned pregnancy or to 'stay together for the sake of the kids'.
what's that saying again? "it's better to come from a broken home than to live in one". sums it up really.
2006-09-09 23:55:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Political correctness and changes in social attitudes allowed the need for shotgun weddings to die it's final death, in the minds of civilised people at least.
2006-09-09 22:03:12 · answer #3 · answered by Neil S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about because the law took over and made the shotgun wedding both illegal and an anachronism.
2006-09-09 21:43:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I tink it had something to do with it being illegal for a father to take a shotgun over to the boys house and hold it agianst his head until he had made it to the altar.
2006-09-09 21:44:28 · answer #5 · answered by prancingmonkey 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That and the fact you really can't legally enter a contract (marriage contract) under duress.
2006-09-09 21:47:27 · answer #6 · answered by kickbutt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, they merely hide the shotguns to be poliically correct
2006-09-09 21:55:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They stopped because of gun control
2006-09-09 21:43:18 · answer #8 · answered by Bill 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Damn Brady Bill
2006-09-09 21:47:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No - the police made it harder to own a gun!!
2006-09-11 11:56:10 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋