Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Alexandria
464 posts, read 479,191 times
Reputation: 493

Advertisements

Marriage isn't important for today's generation...not when you have student loans debts, can't find a job, can't afford to buy your own home etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,161,783 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operator19 View Post
There should be more restrictions on who can marry.
Like what kind of restrictions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,271,474 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK78 View Post
No marriage has been dying ever since contraception became widely accepted.

Contraception renders the marriage act not unlike homosexual acts which is why modern people do not see the difference between two women or men lying together and a man and a woman lying together. All is mutual masturbation and closed off to life. When you think about it only a small percentage of sex acts that are performed today are open to life. While the majority are lust and hedonism.

Contraception is a grave perversion against nature and will cost countless people their souls.

Pius XI, Casti Connubii (31/12/1930)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CASTI.TXT
Ah yes, the religious focus...
More hogwash based on a fairy tale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,161,783 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operator19 View Post
Certain people shouldn't be allowed to marry certain people. We discussed this at one of our meetings.
Well I was hoping for specifics, like what kind of certain people? How would you be able to decide this? What would the actual restrictions be?

It is one thing to say there should be restrictions, it is another thing to actually name what those restrictions should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,271,474 times
Reputation: 11416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Operator19 View Post
There should be more restrictions on who can marry.
Not your call.
Not the call of hateros any more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,520,614 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7 View Post
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/u-ma...154300674.html

Between 1950 and 2011 the US marriage rate fell "a stunning 66 percent," writes Stephanie Coontz in The New York Times. "If such a decline continued," she adds, "there would be no women getting married by 2043!" One presumes there would be no men getting married either, but that's of course if we're only talking heterosexual marriages. Now that DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and new states secure marriage rights for all year after year, it's hard to predict precisely how the US marriage rate will be affected in years to come. But the declining marriage rate in the US doesn't tell the whole truth about what's going on with marriage even among straight couples. "People are not giving up on marriage," Coontz says. "They are simply waiting longer to tie the knot. Because the rate of marriage is calculated by the percentage of adult women (over 15) who get married each year, the marriage rate automatically falls as the average age of marriage goes up. In 1960, the majority of women were already married before they could legally have a glass of Champagne at their own wedding."
Marriage is becoming out dated. The purpose of marriage was to make sure women and children were cared for. There was a time when women could not support themselves. When the very fact that women give birth prevented them from having careers. And there was the issue of who's the daddy. As women become more empowered to support themselves and their children, the gender wage cap is closing and DNA tests have removed the question of who the responsible male is.

Why do I need to get married (already am BTW) if I have my own income, retirement and SS benefit? If I can insure support for my children with a DNA test?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:24 PM
 
5,261 posts, read 4,153,884 times
Reputation: 2264
Human beings are not naturally-oriented towards monogamy. With the diminished role of religion in peoples' lives, there is less pressure to marry and conform to being with one person for the entirety of your adult years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Armsanta Sorad
5,648 posts, read 8,053,753 times
Reputation: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Marriage is no longer scared when divorce is an option.

If we truly value family all that, people should be fined heavily if they want divorce, and adultery should be punished too.

In reality, we couldn't care less. :-) So nowadays, marriage is just a farce.
Unfortunately in a post-feminist liberal society with no-fault divoece, many Americans (especially family judges) don't see adultery as a crime. I bet half of married couples (particularly wives) cheat during married lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 06:35 PM
 
13,684 posts, read 9,003,085 times
Reputation: 10405
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillman7 View Post
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/u-ma...154300674.html

Between 1950 and 2011 the US marriage rate fell "a stunning 66 percent," writes Stephanie Coontz in The New York Times. "If such a decline continued," she adds, "there would be no women getting married by 2043!" One presumes there would be no men getting married either, but that's of course if we're only talking heterosexual marriages. Now that DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and new states secure marriage rights for all year after year, it's hard to predict precisely how the US marriage rate will be affected in years to come. But the declining marriage rate in the US doesn't tell the whole truth about what's going on with marriage even among straight couples. "People are not giving up on marriage," Coontz says. "They are simply waiting longer to tie the knot. Because the rate of marriage is calculated by the percentage of adult women (over 15) who get married each year, the marriage rate automatically falls as the average age of marriage goes up. In 1960, the majority of women were already married before they could legally have a glass of Champagne at their own wedding."
I like the reasoning of this person, proclaiming that if such a decline continues, in 2043 there would be no women getting married.

In "Life on the Mississippi" Mark Twain wrote of the curiosity of the Mississippi River: how, in his day, it was some miles shorter than when La Salle (or whomever) explored the river some 300 years earlier, due to the river having numerous 'loops' through which the current would, eventually, cut through, hence shortening the river. I shall let Twain speak:

"Please observe. In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.

And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 07:19 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,333,532 times
Reputation: 3360
Thank goodness! This means few divorces!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top