Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seriously doubt "all kinds of casual sex out there" could be a substitute for marriage. I think that even if I were sexually active and single, I would not enjoy the sex if were not with the emotional affection of a mutual relationship.
Marriage is a financial partnership as well as an emotional one. Often both spouses need to be holding a job to keep their heads above water. The argument is made that they could do it on one salary if they cut out the extras--two bathrooms, cable TV, etc. But two cannot live as cheaply as one. Throw in a couple of kids and all bets are off.
Social, religious, and financial pressure kept couples together in the past. With working spouses, fewer attending church, and social pressures waning, it is easier for couples to go their separate ways than stick it out.
Marriages of the past endured through rampant infidelity, spousal abuse, alcoholism... Not so sure that is a healthy model.
As to outsourcing, I imagine single people might have housekeepers, eat out, send the laundry out... more than if they were married. But I know many married people with housekeepers, etc.
Couples could also use outsourcing to reduce their hassle and stress. But they often don't. Instead they rely on each other. Being single means you either have to do it all by yourself, which can be hard, or just outsource some of it.
That is crazy talk. There is the issue of sexually transmitted disease, HIV/AIDS and jealousy with open marriages. It takes a strong constitution to follow that lifestyle. Throw children into the equation and it's just a hot mess of garbage. Outsourced? Not the same concept!
I disagree on several points. It doesn't have to be a husband and a wife. What about gay parents? They can also have children.
Please explain how two men can "have a child together". Likewise, two women. I passed high school biology (and several university classes in biology) and am dying to know HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they get genes from both parents into that child?
Please explain how two men can "have a child together". Likewise, two women. I passed high school biology (and several university classes in biology) and am dying to know HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they get genes from both parents into that child?
They can adopt. Some also arrange for a friend to carry the baby. There are also gay couples and lesbian couples who pair up to give each other a child.
Please explain how two men can "have a child together". Likewise, two women. I passed high school biology (and several university classes in biology) and am dying to know HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do they get genes from both parents into that child?
Who are the parents? The ones that provided the DNA or the ones that were around to give the support and love as they matured. That's the flip side of the argument you are leading on.
If your stance is that biological contribution to the birthing process is a requirement to being a parent, then you will loose that debate very quickly. There are numerous instances of adoptive parents having an absolutely normal life with their children.
"Paul and Clara are 100% my parents. And Joanna and Abdulfatah - are only a sperm and an egg bank. It's not rude, it is the truth." - Steve Jobs.
Now if you want to debate whether or not two women or two men can raise a child, that is up for discussion. I would argue that having two fathers, two mothers, or simply two people (not necessarily in a relationship) is a far better environment for a child than a single parent with no support.
Marriage is a financial partnership as well as an emotional one. Often both spouses need to be holding a job to keep their heads above water. The argument is made that they could do it on one salary if they cut out the extras--two bathrooms, cable TV, etc. But two cannot live as cheaply as one. Throw in a couple of kids and all bets are off.
Social, religious, and financial pressure kept couples together in the past. With working spouses, fewer attending church, and social pressures waning, it is easier for couples to go their separate ways than stick it out.
Marriages of the past endured through rampant infidelity, spousal abuse, alcoholism... Not so sure that is a healthy model.
As to outsourcing, I imagine single people might have housekeepers, eat out, send the laundry out... more than if they were married. But I know many married people with housekeepers, etc.
Falling in love is easy. Relationships and marriage are difficult. It's hard work.
Each person has to decide if it is worth the hard work. Many of my friends are yuppies who have been chronically single for years. They do live a good life working for some cool startup or multinational company. It's going to be hard for people like these to actively want to settle down. They have, in way, settled down with themselves, with their life all figured out and lifestyles set.
Living as a single person can be very fulfilling and stress free. You design your own lifestyle, pursue your hobbies, have your routine schedule, and stay focused on your goals. You can buy a house. Retirement savings well on its way. You have some money for leisure. Little by little you build a system of its own. Adding a person seems redundant.
I would say it's not entirely about class. For many centuries people stayed married even though their society was poor, or they were in a war. Marriage becoming a luxury good in America today is a cultural transformation. The kind of BS people in the past were willing to put up is no longer tolerated by this generation. So the luxury good is also a choice.
Yes and this is exactly the problem with the recent generation's view on marriage. They believe it should be a relationship of convenience. Its the "I'm not going to work at this relationship, change or adopt new habits to make it work" attitude people have these days. Back in the days a couple would actually try to make it work.
Presently, marriage has become a gimmick to many. Where once they tire of it they just let get rid of it. It's not that people in the past "put up with BS they didn't have to" and this generation has transcended that backward thinking; its the opposite. The current generations have completely forgotten the integral role marriage plays in establishing a healthy and balanced society/community. This is why the generations of past valued marriage and tried harder to work out their problems to stay married. This degradation of our society/community can be clearly seen throughout the country in the form of a decay of moral's, compassion, empathy, work ethic etc.
They can adopt. Some also arrange for a friend to carry the baby. There are also gay couples and lesbian couples who pair up to give each other a child.
But that child will not carry the genes of both partners. Heterosexual couples can "have children together" unless one is infertile. We would call infertility 'abnormal', not in the sense of 'being strange', but 'outside normal'. So, would you agree that homosexual couplings are abnormal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
