First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply Decline in marriages in the United States
Posted 1/3/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


saksiss wrote:

Well considering marriage is a complete joke, and a bad one at that, it's not surprising..


Why is it a joke?

Two people being together for life isn't a joke at all.

Marriage is intended to mean "until death do as part" but what it really means is "until death do us part, or until he forgets to put the toilet seat down, or until he puts on two different pairs of socks one morning, or until he suggests keeping that ugly chair that I don't like, or until he can no longer get it up, or until I'm just generally fed up with him, and then I'll remarry another dude, and another, and another." There is no sanctity in marriage; there is only a pretentious display of empty promises made by empty people.

Do you know how many parents split up in my country? Over 50%. And you can only imagine how many of those single moms, and yeah, custody goes to women 75% of the time, not because the father's don't care, but because women are still considered more capable than men in this area, even when they are mentally unstable, economically reckless, and absolute whores, who jump from guy to guy, giving their children so many stepfathers they can no longer count them all. These women jump from relationship to relationship, so fast, their vaginas still contain semen from their first relationship. It's disgusting, is what it is, because it's directly proportionate to the decline in children's emotional welfare. "My mom is a whore," no shit, son, we all know that.

Marriage? It's a joke, just like love. At least it is to most people, and by most people I mean the ones you would call normal. They never have given a shit about any of that shit, and they never will.
20896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Hrafna wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


saksiss wrote:

Well considering marriage is a complete joke, and a bad one at that, it's not surprising..


Why is it a joke?

Two people being together for life isn't a joke at all.

Marriage is intended to mean "until death do as part" but what it really means is "until death do us part, or until he forgets to put the toilet seat down, or until he puts on two different pairs of socks one morning, or until he suggests keeping that ugly chair that I don't like, or until he can no longer get it up, or until I'm just generally fed up with him, and then I'll remarry another dude, and another, and another." There is no sanctity in marriage; there is only a pretentious display of empty promises made by empty people.

Do you know how many parents split up in my country? Over 50%. And you can only imagine how many of those single moms, and yeah, custody goes to women 75% of the time, not because the father's don't care, but because women are still considered more capable than men in this area, even when they are mentally unstable, economically reckless, and absolute whores, who jump from guy to guy, giving their children so many stepfathers they can no longer count them all. These women jump from relationship to relationship, so fast, their vaginas still contain semen from their first relationship. It's disgusting, is what it is, because it's directly proportionate to the decline in children's emotional welfare. "My mom is a whore," no shit, son, we all know that.

Marriage? It's a joke, just like love. At least it is to most people, and by most people I mean the ones you would call normal. They never have given a shit about any of that shit, and they never will.



Love isn't a joke but those people who give up just for things like that don't deserve relationships anyway in my opinion.
Marriage isn't a joke if you have two people who are committed and won't be idiots like that.
Posted 1/3/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Love isn't a joke but those people who give up just for things like that don't deserve relationships anyway in my opinion.
Marriage isn't a joke if you have two people who are committed and won't be idiots like that.

I get your point. I'm just saying that when the majority treats it as a joke (without knowing that they do) it's pretty much just a joke-- wrapped in another even bigger joke.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Personally i would never date someone unless they would sign a contract to be with me and if they cheat or leave then we have to split everything so to me marriage is a sensible thing that's what happens when you break a contract you pay the price thats why you should never form a contract unless you are 100% sure.


See thats my point. I would never say that I would spend my life with someone if I didn't trust them enough to not require a contract to ensure they didn't cheat on me.


PrinceJudar wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

I personally see no point to Marriage other than the tax benefits. All it is, is a symbol and negative reinforcement. It is a symbol of love, however, in a truly loving relationship, what is the purpose of symbol? If you cannot prove your love without spending thousands of dollars on a wedding ceremony, how real is that love truly? If you both love each other, your actions and your feelings should be strong enough to ensure that you both know that you will be together forever. Additionally, it is negative reinforcement, because it doesn't provide you positive benefits during marriage, it simply holds over your head all the negatives that will come crashing down with a divorce (or positives for some people, but that isn't exactly a "benefit" of marriage either).

Overall, I don't particularly like the idea of marriage. Even if the goal is to start a family, marriage doesn't really do anything to help...

You know what would be cool? If marriage was a surgical procedure that linked you mentally so you were able to send telepathic messages to your significant other...


Statistically, marriage upholds in regards to children. According to sociologists, cohabitation parenthood is more similar to single parenthood than it is to married couples in terms of instability and uncertainty for kids.


These trends worry many sociologists. Research shows married households tend to be better-off financially, and more able to build up emergency savings and retirement funds. Married parents also are more likely to own homes, Census data show.

Meanwhile, cohabiting parents are more likely to split up. When they do, they often form new partnerships, and have additional children, creating a complex web of half-siblings, step-parents, child-support payments and family visits.


There is a place for marriage I'd argue for starting and, particularly, maintaining a family. I think the concept of marriage is correct and 'aligned' for such goals.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cohabiting-parents-at-record-high-1426010894

As for wedding expenses:

The answer to that is not very real.

Telepathy would still be rad though.



Again, you shouldn't need some paper to prove to your kids that you will always be together (and even still, with high divorce rates, marriage is far from a guarantee). The statistics that are involved in the difference between married households and "cohabitation parenthood" are really just population statistics and not so much resulting from the fact that their parents are "cohabiting". Like the article said, those who are poor are more likely to enter into cohabitation parenthood. Also, some part of this may be due to the kid being an "accident" and the parents decide to raise it. In the past this would traditionally be a marriage with relatively low stability (probably) but now, marriage isn't required so much. Additionally, you have spoken at great length about planning and I would wager that those in the "cohabiting" statistic thought significantly less about their partner and their future than those in the married side. Planning is still a vital part of "cohabitation".

Basically, in a strong marriage, the fact that you are married doesn't matter, while in a weak marriage, it may simply keep the family together after the marriage has fallen apart which may or may not be a good thing...
20896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

sundin13 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Personally i would never date someone unless they would sign a contract to be with me and if they cheat or leave then we have to split everything so to me marriage is a sensible thing that's what happens when you break a contract you pay the price thats why you should never form a contract unless you are 100% sure.


See thats my point. I would never say that I would spend my life with someone if I didn't trust them enough to not require a contract to ensure they didn't cheat on me.


PrinceJudar wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

I personally see no point to Marriage other than the tax benefits. All it is, is a symbol and negative reinforcement. It is a symbol of love, however, in a truly loving relationship, what is the purpose of symbol? If you cannot prove your love without spending thousands of dollars on a wedding ceremony, how real is that love truly? If you both love each other, your actions and your feelings should be strong enough to ensure that you both know that you will be together forever. Additionally, it is negative reinforcement, because it doesn't provide you positive benefits during marriage, it simply holds over your head all the negatives that will come crashing down with a divorce (or positives for some people, but that isn't exactly a "benefit" of marriage either).

Overall, I don't particularly like the idea of marriage. Even if the goal is to start a family, marriage doesn't really do anything to help...

You know what would be cool? If marriage was a surgical procedure that linked you mentally so you were able to send telepathic messages to your significant other...


Statistically, marriage upholds in regards to children. According to sociologists, cohabitation parenthood is more similar to single parenthood than it is to married couples in terms of instability and uncertainty for kids.


These trends worry many sociologists. Research shows married households tend to be better-off financially, and more able to build up emergency savings and retirement funds. Married parents also are more likely to own homes, Census data show.

Meanwhile, cohabiting parents are more likely to split up. When they do, they often form new partnerships, and have additional children, creating a complex web of half-siblings, step-parents, child-support payments and family visits.


There is a place for marriage I'd argue for starting and, particularly, maintaining a family. I think the concept of marriage is correct and 'aligned' for such goals.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cohabiting-parents-at-record-high-1426010894

As for wedding expenses:

The answer to that is not very real.

Telepathy would still be rad though.



Again, you shouldn't need some paper to prove to your kids that you will always be together (and even still, with high divorce rates, marriage is far from a guarantee). The statistics that are involved in the difference between married households and "cohabitation parenthood" are really just population statistics and not so much resulting from the fact that their parents are "cohabiting". Like the article said, those who are poor are more likely to enter into cohabitation parenthood. Also, some part of this may be due to the kid being an "accident" and the parents decide to raise it. In the past this would traditionally be a marriage with relatively low stability (probably) but now, marriage isn't required so much. Additionally, you have spoken at great length about planning and I would wager that those in the "cohabiting" statistic thought significantly less about their partner and their future than those in the married side. Planning is still a vital part of "cohabitation".

Basically, in a strong marriage, the fact that you are married doesn't matter, while in a weak marriage, it may simply keep the family together after the marriage has fallen apart which may or may not be a good thing...



Even if i trust someone not to cheat on me i will still get them to sign that contract because that's who i am.
If they won't cheat they have no reason not to sign it.

I trust my girlfriend and don't think she will ever cheat on me however that doesn't mean i don't believe it can happen as she has the potential as much as any other woman i date to cheat on me.

If i have learnt anything from being cheated on in over 10 relationships it's that you have to have trust but trust won't stop people from cheating.

I trust my partner with my life however i will always be vigilant to know they are not cheating even though i trust them not to and honestly don't think she would ever do so :P


It's just who i am there is no one i can trust 100% but me the most i can trust someone is 99.99% because i always know everyone even my own family is capable and can backstab me.

Once you have been through these kinds of things enough you don't give anyone your full trust even the person you love and will be with forever... atleast not right away.
20896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Hrafna wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Love isn't a joke but those people who give up just for things like that don't deserve relationships anyway in my opinion.
Marriage isn't a joke if you have two people who are committed and won't be idiots like that.

I get your point. I'm just saying that when the majority treats it as a joke (without knowing that they do) it's pretty much just a joke-- wrapped in another even bigger joke.


Well you are correct and it honestly saddens me people are like that
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16
Coming back to this thread like

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

sundin13 wrote:

Again, you shouldn't need some paper to prove to your kids that you will always be together (and even still, with high divorce rates, marriage is far from a guarantee). The statistics that are involved in the difference between married households and "cohabitation parenthood" are really just population statistics and not so much resulting from the fact that their parents are "cohabiting". Like the article said, those who are poor are more likely to enter into cohabitation parenthood. Also, some part of this may be due to the kid being an "accident" and the parents decide to raise it. In the past this would traditionally be a marriage with relatively low stability (probably) but now, marriage isn't required so much. Additionally, you have spoken at great length about planning and I would wager that those in the "cohabiting" statistic thought significantly less about their partner and their future than those in the married side. Planning is still a vital part of "cohabitation".

Basically, in a strong marriage, the fact that you are married doesn't matter, while in a weak marriage, it may simply keep the family together after the marriage has fallen apart which may or may not be a good thing...


Planning is indeed. You're correct that marriage matters less to those in a strong marriage. While perhaps marriage matters less to those in a stable relationship, the negatives of getting married are even lesser wouldn't you say? It's designed to be aligned with those goals rather than against.

So I suppose the conclusion would be, perhaps it matters little, but not doing so in such an instance matters less so? Thus the benefits of marriage outweigh those against it, not just in tax but the implication of loyalty it is symbolic of.




WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Why is it that you people understand that CDC statistics are shit because of response rates and poor sampling when it comes to college rape statistics, but when the statistics are something suited for your argument then all rational is out the fuckin' window?

Child violence isn't surprising consider the number of single mother households. Of course that depends on the thoroughness of the study to account for such variability (time spent with children etc).

Women are more often victims of intimate partner violence (even simple assault). Men are more often victims of non intimate violence. Although I'd argue because of stigma and a woman's perhaps varying methods, aggression is nearly equitable (male victims often complain of psychological abuse).

More on intimate partner violence: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf

Oh really? Women with more sexual partners are less likely to have stable relationships? I never would have guessed. Unless you're arguing men will have more stable relationships after having more sexual partners then I don't see the point. Men on average still have more sexual partners last I checked. So that was a silly point to make.

Posted 1/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Again, you shouldn't need some paper to prove to your kids that you will always be together (and even still, with high divorce rates, marriage is far from a guarantee). The statistics that are involved in the difference between married households and "cohabitation parenthood" are really just population statistics and not so much resulting from the fact that their parents are "cohabiting". Like the article said, those who are poor are more likely to enter into cohabitation parenthood. Also, some part of this may be due to the kid being an "accident" and the parents decide to raise it. In the past this would traditionally be a marriage with relatively low stability (probably) but now, marriage isn't required so much. Additionally, you have spoken at great length about planning and I would wager that those in the "cohabiting" statistic thought significantly less about their partner and their future than those in the married side. Planning is still a vital part of "cohabitation".

Basically, in a strong marriage, the fact that you are married doesn't matter, while in a weak marriage, it may simply keep the family together after the marriage has fallen apart which may or may not be a good thing...


Planning is indeed. Your correct that marriage matters less to those in a strong marriage. While perhaps marriage matters less to those in a stable relationship, the negatives of getting married are even lesser wouldn't you say? It's designed to be aligned with those goals rather than against.

So I suppose the conclusion would be, perhaps it matters little, but not doing so in such an instance matters less so? Thus the benefits of marriage outweigh those against it, not just in tax but the implication of loyalty it is symbolic of.




WeeabooWarrior wrote:


Why is it that you people understand that CDC statistics are shit because of response rates and poor sampling when it comes to college rape statistics, but when the statistics are something suited for your argument then all rational is out the fuckin' window?

Child violence isn't surprising consider the number of single mother households. Of course that depends on the thoroughness of the study to account for such variability (time spent with children etc).

Women are more often victims of intimate partner violence (even simple assault). Men are more often victims of non intimate violence. Although I'd argue because of stigma and a woman's perhaps varying methods, aggression is nearly equitable (male victims often complain of psychological abuse).

More on intimate partner violence: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf

Oh really? Women with more sexual partners are less likely to have stable relationships? I never would have guessed. Unless you're arguing men will have more stable relationships after having more sexual partners then I don't see the point. Men on average still have more sexual partners last I checked. So that was a silly point to make.



"Why is it that you people understand that CDC statistics are shit because of response rates and poor sampling when it comes to college rape statistics, but when the statistics are something suited for your argument then all rational is out the fuckin' window?"

Why do you make a composition fallacy and assume the same methodology (Survey Sampling) in rape surveys (not cases) is the same methodology used in Actual STD or Health related Documentation? How do you know the Data is Erroneous? Do you have Data to prove otherwise?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/14/citing-exploding-hiv-epidemic-who-says-for-first-time-all-gay-men-should-take-antitretroviral-drugs/

Simply saying "Your methods are bad" isn't an argument, until you have Evidence to counter it. If you actually care about healthy gay people, you would understand the health reality.

"Child violence isn't surprising consider the number of single mother households. Of course that depends on the thoroughness of the study to account for such variability (time spent with children etc). "

All the Data is Aggregate, if you spend time in the Black Community, you will see the pattern clear as daylight, it's just tragic to be honest. I'm not here to poke fun at women, but they have serious issues and WE all need to fix it.

"Women are more often victims of intimate partner violence (even simple assault). " Source?

"Men are more often victims of non intimate violence. " That's not valid, it's roughly 50%, I have heard this from battery shelters and such.

"Although I'd argue because of stigma and a woman's perhaps varying methods, aggression is nearly equitable (male victims often complain of psychological abuse)." That's good and all, but do you have actual facts about it? Do you have links?

"Oh really? Women with more sexual partners are less likely to have stable relationships"

Yes.

http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2899_Marriage_Partners_Study.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf

"Unless you're arguing men will have more stable relationships after having more sexual partners then I don't see the point. "

This is about statistic and facts about women and marriage, the more sex partners, the less stable their long term relationships Men have ALOT of problems, and I mean ALOT. But nobody cares about us.

"Men on average still have more sexual partners last I checked. "

Your just making a Tu Quoque fallacy, "You do it too!", this is about 3rd wave feminism and sexual liberation, which is a joke.







22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:
Why do you make a composition fallacy and assume the same methodology (Survey Sampling) in rape surveys (not cases) is the same methodology used in Actual STD or Health related Documentation? How do you know the Data is Erroneous? Do you have Data to prove otherwise?


Looks at the methodology and response rates already, have you?


WeeabooWarrior wrote:All the Data is Aggregate, if you spend time in the Black Community, you will see the pattern clear as daylight, it's just tragic to be honest. I'm not here to poke fun at women, but they have serious issues and WE all need to fix it.


Aggregate indeed. Single motherhood is also more prominent for African American women.

If your argument is 'men and women are both shit'. Then I'd agree.


WeeabooWarrior wrote:Source?

That's not valid, it's roughly 50%, I have heard this from battery shelters and such.


I literally linked it.


WeeabooWarrior wrote: That's good and all, but do you have actual facts about it? Do you have links?


Did you even read the CDC study you referred too?


WeeabooWarrior wrote: Your just making a Tu Quoque fallacy, "You do it too!", this is about 3rd wave feminism and sexual liberation, which is a joke.


I'm saying your point is stupidly obvious for humans in general and was irrelevant to make specifically in regards to gender unless your point was 'look women are shit too' which is exactly the same fallacy you're accusing me of. Lol.




15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
just wait until the fire spreads around then we will have a party!

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Freddy96NO wrote:]just wait until the fire spreads around then we will have a party!




I could trigger people all day.

6992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
Who wants to marry someone that can take half your stuff + monthly payments after a few years of being nagged endlessly?
Posted 1/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:
Why do you make a composition fallacy and assume the same methodology (Survey Sampling) in rape surveys (not cases) is the same methodology used in Actual STD or Health related Documentation? How do you know the Data is Erroneous? Do you have Data to prove otherwise?


Looks at the methodology and response rates already, have you?


WeeabooWarrior wrote:All the Data is Aggregate, if you spend time in the Black Community, you will see the pattern clear as daylight, it's just tragic to be honest. I'm not here to poke fun at women, but they have serious issues and WE all need to fix it.


Aggregate indeed. Single motherhood is also more prominent for African American women.

If your argument is 'men and women are both shit'. Then I'd agree.


WeeabooWarrior wrote:Source?

That's not valid, it's roughly 50%, I have heard this from battery shelters and such.


I literally linked it.


WeeabooWarrior wrote: That's good and all, but do you have actual facts about it? Do you have links?


Did you even read the CDC study you referred too?


WeeabooWarrior wrote: Your just making a Tu Quoque fallacy, "You do it too!", this is about 3rd wave feminism and sexual liberation, which is a joke.


I'm saying your point is stupidly obvious for humans in general and was irrelevant to make specifically in regards to gender unless your point was 'look women are shit too' which is exactly the same fallacy you're accusing me of. Lol.






"Looks at the methodology and response rates already, have you?"

I can't find any major errors, and I can't find any data that would suggest otherwise. Can you find research or actual documentation The data is aggregate and runs compliantly with Data from the CDC to the WHO. Gay men on average, have sex with quite a few partners, so increase the risk of getting more diseases, just like women do.

"If your argument is 'men and women are both shit'. Then I'd agree."

I wouldn't say they're shit, they need help. But there are things about men or male culture or whatever, that I really, really hate. But in terms of numbers and money, women are a higher burden on society, it's just plain true.

Did you even read the CDC study you referred too?"

Which one (Not being a smart ass, i linked quite a few).

"I'm saying your point is stupidly obvious for humans in general and was irrelevant to make specifically in regards to gender unless your point was 'look women are shit too' which is exactly the same fallacy you're accusing me of. Lol."

I don't see how facts are stupid, and none of which you stated was my original position. My original position was calling into question the legitimacy of these movements, which either 3rd wave feminism or LGBT, I can't back up there hypothetical legitimacy with facts.



6992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16
Men get raped in divorce court. Unless you enjoy being raped by lawyers and a judge, don't get married.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.