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.
No, I don't buy those percentages either. I think they are a "feel good" number being tossed around.
Of course, I am sure we all recognize that tons of "statistics" thrown around by men and women regarding marriage, relationships, etc, are often misquoted or mis-interpreted in favor of whatever position they want to prop up.
The institution of marriage on a spiritual base is antiquated but the government benefits that come with it are not.
Actually, if anything, the posts on this forum show that marriage is not antiquated, but rather superior to the glorified bed-hopping that is living together. Over the years, I've read so many heartbreaking posts about people who invest years in living together with someone, only to watch that other person move out at the drop of a hat.
The problem with those who fault marriage is that they are one-dimensional thinkers. They think of marriage as nothing more than a way to have sex with legitimacy. If that were the case, it would have long ago withered away as an institution. The truth of the matter is that marriage is far more than that. Instead, it is about creating a partnership with two people emotionally, physically, financially, and legally. It is about uniting two lives into one in order to build something larger than the sum of its parts. And the instrument of marriage provides both partners with a degree of stability, for it is not easy to wriggle out of a marriage by design. The reason for this is simple. Even in the best of marriages, there are rough patches and struggles.
Those who think below the waist, of course, don't understand that. They're just searching the horizon for the next orgasm, so an arrangement where two people simply live together fulfills that need. But it doesn't fulfill the need for permanence required for building a life, for one partner could get up and leave for the most trivial of reasons, or no reason at all. It is a life built upon the flimsiest of foundations. It is marriage right up until the moment when, suddenly, it is not.
The ones who really suffer from the marriage-is-just-a-piece-of-paper argument, of course, are women. For if there are children resulting from cohabitation, it means that they are typically left to deal with the business of raising the children of the relationship. Even worse is if the woman already has a child and then invites a man to live with her. The man gets to be surrogate daddy for a few years, then pull up tent stakes for the most trivial reason, leaving a bewildered and angry child behind. I have just witnessed a scene like that with a colleague of mine and the hurt the child suffered in the situation is painful beyond belief. My wife, when asked for advice upon beginning the relationship, practically begged the woman in question not to do it, and things went pretty much according to script.
Hey, I'm not saying that marriage is a guarantee of stability. But it means a great deal more stability than simply living together with someone for a few months or years. For at least 50% of all marriages are lifelong, whereas a very tiny percentage of cohabitant relationships can say the same. When marriages fail, it isn't the fault of the institution. It is the fault of one or both partners who failed to enter it soberly and the sense of commitment required to make it work in the first place.
My post was about how marriage is seen as more of secular institution not a man and woman coming together under the eyes of God. That why I was saying that gays want to get marry and since even heterosexual couples get married under secular reason there the argument to deny this to homosexuals is pretty thin.
It wasn't meant to try a put marriage and living together against each on which one is "superior" that is people personal business for them to work out themselves.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Hey, I'm not saying that marriage is a guarantee of stability. But it means a great deal more stability than simply living together with someone for a few months or years. For at least 50% of all marriages are lifelong, whereas a very tiny percentage of cohabitant relationships can say the same. When marriages fail, it isn't the fault of the institution. It is the fault of one or both partners who failed to enter it soberly and the sense of commitment required to make it work in the first place.
There is the assumption in your post that stability is preferable to change. I don't agree with that premise at its core (outside of family raising reasons). Many marriages are stable and life long, but are the people happy? Is it what is best? Healthiest? Being able to leave when things aren't working is very important. It is healthy. I don't know any person that has left cohabiting after years on a whim. It is an incredibly emotional experience and done after much work and soul searching, but yes, it is easier than having to go through a divorce (and less expensive) and that is a good thing.
I also hate the notion of there must be someone at "fault" when a divorce occurs. Some people, lots of people perhaps, just grow apart. There is no fault in that necessarily, it is part of growing as people.
That study also ends at the age of 40. Plenty of men (and women, although I'd imagine less) are still reproducing at after that age so I bet overall, the percentage equals out.
Wait--but then how did the other 40% of the women reproduce???
By sleeping with the same guys? Which most don't seem to mind, in fact a guy who is currently sleeping with several women is seen as the prize, while same quality guy who cant get laid is seen as a leper. Its not really that hard to understand. If a guy sleeps with two women and both have his baby, the 40%/80% numbers workout perfectly normal. Now, I have no idea if these numbers are accurate and couldn't really care less. What I do know however, is that women tend to shoot for the stars, while ignoring most of the male single population. I also know that if a man has options or is off the market, he is seen as substantially more attractive to other single women than if he had no options at all.
By sleeping with the same guys? Which most don't seem to mind, in fact a guy who is currently sleeping with several women is seen as the prize, while same quality guy who cant get laid is seen as a leper. Its not really that hard to understand. If a guy sleeps with two women and both have his baby, the 40%/80% numbers workout perfectly normal. Now, I have no idea if these numbers are accurate and couldn't really care less. What I do know however, is that women tend to shoot for the stars, while ignoring most of the male single population. I also know that if a man has options or is off the market, he is seen as substantially more attractive to other single women than if he had no options at all.
A man who produces babies with multiple baby mamas isn't seen as a prize except by low class women with no self esteem. I would avoid a man like that under every circumstance because it shows he thinks between his legs and not his brain.
I agree with CPG's post on so many levels. The reality is living together is not the positive thing some make it out to be. Yes, I lived with a guy but in my case we never had kids or bought a home together or even bought anything important together. I mean I even bought the CD's I wanted. I have seen women live with a guy thinking he would eventually marry her and he never did. Some had kids with the man and saw when they broke up the guy didn't have much to do with the kids. With marriage one has greater legal protections.
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.
