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 suspsect it's more because we homosexuals understand the importance of marriage a lot more than our hetererosexual brethren, who seem to take it for granted as just a "piece of paper". It is so much more than that .
Sounds fine by me. Might as well give homosexuals a shot, heteros haven't been doing a good job. What's funny is the anti-gay marriage advocates are silent on the perils of divorce for heteros.
Personally, I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business period so people can go to their own church or organization and have a ceremony. For legal stuff, they can create their own civil contracts just like non-married folks and file it in the courthouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
While signing the religiously based legal document it not a gaurantee, it increases the odds the relationship will last. So the short answer is "Yes". That's probably becauase it's the less committed folks who won't sign on the dotted line.
Good point, government still should get out of it though.
A high rate of out of wedlock births is very detrimental to parents and children alike:
Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.
Forget Juno. Out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe. - By Emily Yoffe - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2185944/pagenum/2 - broken link)
I would also emphasize that the research cited above is from the liberal leaning Brookings Institution.
Great posts in this thread, mysticaltyger! (Not feeling the marriage one though) Wish I could rep most of your posts, but this is the best one. I always bring this up in the racial threads because if you remove all the single mother households, racial gaps in education, crime and poverty virtually disappear.
I suspsect it's more because we homosexuals understand the importance of marriage a lot more than our hetererosexual brethren, who seem to take it for granted as just a "piece of paper". It is so much more than that .
WTF!!! I fail to see how a guy can be in love with another guy. And it seems to me like the gay marriage thing is more about money. You know, taxes, health care benefits, owning property, etc. But I guess homosexuals are so much purer. You make them sound like perfect humans.
Sounds fine by me. Might as well give homosexuals a shot, heteros haven't been doing a good job. What's funny is the anti-gay marriage advocates are silent on the perils of divorce for heteros.
Personally, I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business period so people can go to their own church or organization and have a ceremony. For legal stuff, they can create their own civil contracts just like non-married folks and file it in the courthouse.
Good point, government still should get out of it though.
I'm actually agaisnt gay marriage, but thats probably the most logical and common sense answer I've herd yet on the issue.
I think marriage rates were a lot higher in the 50s because people realized how easy marriage and kids were compared to living through a decade long Depression and then a horrible war. Marriage & kids are a piece of cake compared to that. Subsequent generations (myself included) have become soft and self-indulgent. It seems people only cooperate in times of severe hardship and then they gradually go back to being self centered when prosperity returns.
That is absolutely false. People remained married during the 50s because it was the cultural norm. Divorces and illegitimate children were unacceptable.
You have to understand the history of marriage to fully comprehend why it is declining today.
Marriage throughout history, in almost every culture and time, was a contract between two families. The wife, usually a young teen, brought with her a dowry and handed over all her rights and possessions to her husband.
Even up until the modern times this was normal. A woman didn't bring a dowry but her property became his and she had no rights.
During the early Suffrage Movement while women were trying to get the right to vote, they were also actively seeking the right to retain their property and have some equal rights within marriage.
Natural Law philosophers in England and in the US were defending the inferior status of women so these concepts were reflected in the Laws being passed.
Jump forward to this day and age and we clearly see the very precedent for marriage changing. Marriage is no longer based on the woman losing her rights and men no longer enter marriage gaining more than they entered the marriage with. The contractual agreements have changed, the culture has changed, the expectations have changed. Marriage is now based on love and we all know love is delicate and easily bruised. There is no cultural expectation to remain married, society doesn't shun divorced people like it used to.
And thus marriage has evolved into something transient. I have no doubt it will continue to evolve into something else or maybe one day become extinct.
Society does not crumble because people get divorced nor does it fall apart if people just live together and have a contract written up. Other countries do this, I don't see why the US won't get out of this religious mindset that marriage is the be all and end all.
I'm actually agaisnt gay marriage, but thats probably the most logical and common sense answer I've herd yet on the issue.
Thank you Sir! I think that's the best compromise to solve the gay marriage issue once and for all. I don't see how either side could have a problem with it. Even religious conservatives can't complain since getting government out of marriage completely is "limiting government".
I wish this would get more traction in politics and media but only Ron Paul has proposed this.
So, based on this link, men who are irresponsible, not adult enough to keep up with their own health, get nagged by their wives, or get sex withheld until they comply with requests will benefit from marriage.
Nice, sign me up tomorrow.
If this is the "case" for marriage, I wish they would put GOOD reasons. I'd rather die early and happy than being nagged and sexually punished into living longer. Thankfully I'm not a drunk, a rapist, a woman beater or irresponsible health-wise like a higher percentage of non-married men are "so-called" in this study.
I only read the first few paragraphs, but those included good reasons. I don't time to read the rest right now. What's the issue, if any, with the commentary in those first bullets?
I only read the first few paragraphs, but those included good reasons. I don't time to read the rest right now. What's the issue, if any, with the commentary in those first bullets?
Hi Braunwyn,
The first bullet points don't appeal to me since I don't need (or want) to pool financial resources, but I didn't criticize that since it works well for other people. In regards to health and finances, I wonder if it's more correlation than causation though, and if class issues don't play a role in why the single folk issues are higher vs. married ones.
I read it again, and I retract what I said about withholding sex. I misinterpreted the point about "socially sanctioned sex roles" and getting men to do the yard work or maintaining employment. Even though withholding sex does occur and is seen as a joke in society, I realized it wasn't in the article. That being said, I think socially sanctioned sex roles need to go away if favor of what works for specific couples. Women shouldn't be ridiculed if she works instead of raising the kids (while giving fathers a pass when the roles are reversed) as if rearing children is "women's work". Men shouldn't be ridiculed if they have trouble finding employment (while applauding women staying at home) as if work is only the "man's job". We are supposed to be in an equal society now.
I do stand by everything else in regards to nagging, irresponsible men, and negative aspects listed about men who choose not to be married. I also wonder if they are comparing young men with older married men, instead of like with like. What's funny is they didn't even study negative behaviors in single women.
I agree with Stan's previous point about marriage benefiting men and divorce benefiting women. I wish they would cover the pitfalls of divorce, suicide rates of divorced men, etc when they are doing this "sales job" of marriage to the populace.
By the way, I welcome the ideal portrayal of marriage portrayed in these articles. I have a problem with the scrutiny of no-fault and unequal divorces being generally omitted from the conversation.
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.
.