0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wow well I guess I have continued to sour the discussion here on CL with my latest question, eh? Actually if I told Green my standards he would either laugh or be excessively confused....or both.
Sorry, Phid. I'm no help. Tis best to stay single...especially at my age. To be honest, I think this is because of selfishness on my part. It's not like I don't have time, I just don't want to make the time or put in the effort required. It wasn't until recently, because I've always felt "incomplete", but Ive been enjoying being single and can't even imagine someone eventually living here. I thought that would change after the kids grew up and moved out, but it's actually gotten worse (or better..depends on your POV).Just me and the dogs, and plans, and goals of career change or moving or travelling without worrying about anyone "getting in the way" of my decisions.
I feel the EXACT same way, except for me, its kids. Im too selfish to have any. There is too much I want to do!
Then what is the point of marriage for you?
Since when has it been about kids? Since, like...forever. I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news but cohabitating couples have a much higher divorce rate than non-cohabitating ones. From the perspective of a cohabitating couple I probably wouldn't see much use in marriage.
I meant that couples that cohabitate before getting married are more likely to get divorced later on than couples who don't cohabitate before marriage. Marriage also provides other benefits in regard to issues related to alcohol abuse, health of the mind, and happiness.
On a way unrelated story - and this is totally true - Green I "met" you in a dream last night and we were chatting at the table....I think it probably was after I read your post over at NJO about potentially meeting up with Donnie in KY.....but totally funny nonetheless. You had one lazy/wandering eye in my dream....I have no idea why that was the case. Funny how the unconscious works.
Well, I think people must have sex and live together before marriage. Its a must. Otherwise you get hitched and you can become quite disappointed. I think people should know what they are getting into before they jump in.
But the research doesn't support your feeling in this matter
- at least in terms of evident happiness.
I think that people who live together and have sex together before marriage really wouldn't see much point in marriage aside from some technicality and a few legal benefits (along with some legal detriments as well).
If people don't see the "point" in marriage then we live in a society in decay.
ou mean your think tank research?
Evident happiness, ie: subjective data.
Really? It would seem then by default (according to what you seem to be implying) marriage is about sex and living together.
However we see marriage as nothing but a piece of paper. A ceremony wont change anything between us. We wont suddenly love each other more just because the state now recognizes our relationship. The system is also over politicized and prejudice. We dont feel like lending credibility to a flawed system.
Why? Since when does society need marriage?
That's hardly the only place. I don't think it would be too hard to find other data showing the higher divorce rate of couples who cohabitate before marriage.
I think that's a part of it, but obviously marriage is really about something on a higher level.
Can I use your quote the next time I get into an argument against someone who wants to legalize gay marriage?
Oh, do we have things yet to teach you here! It, along with the family, is only the foundation for each and every community, and all civilizations. So society needs marriage like fish need water. Now does the state need to recognize marriages as being legal? No, seeing how marriage would go on regardless of whether the state recognized them. Marriage is a natural institution based on love and is the foundation upon which new life is brought into the world, and how families grow. It is all that and then some.
Appeal to tradition, precedent, popularity whatever is relevant if it shows a trend based on common reason. These types of arguments might not always be the best, but they have value.
Something that has made civilization what it is (marriage between a man and a woman) is far more than just tradition. It's life as it should and was meant to be.
You think its a part of it. Using what evidence? But as for something higher? I agree! So cohabitation is irrelevant!
While that may be the case, its still obvious discrimination. We choose not to get married because we dont want to. Its not fair for those who want to be in the system to not have that ability.
This seems more like an appeal to tradition than anything.
But it is true that even gay people can get legally married, as long as it's one man and one woman. But even for heterosexual couples there are regulations on marriage. Is it not fair if a man cannot marry a dog?
You are right about that...and the appeal is a good one! You seem to have a modernist mentality echoing the French Revolution where remnants of the old should be struck down without even considering a) why you're striking them down (aside from the fact that it's part of the "old" system) and b) without really replacing with anything better. Have you thought that maybe - just maybe - the institution of marriage is a good and beneficial thing? It's not as if a committee got together one day and decided that marriage between a man and a woman was a good thing.
Red herring. The system is built for 2 people. Not more than 2 and not animals. Therefore your argument is moot.
Actually i dont think it should be dissolved just because its "old" unlike you who want to keep it because its old. Its a prejudicial system, its over politicized and it screws up the tax system even more.b) why does it NEED to be replaced?As for it being a good thing, I just dont see it. And something from about.com doesnt count as evidence.
Green, man, the argument is not moot. You're right - the system is built for two people, one of which is a man and the other of which is a woman. You're the one who's trying to deny the system by bringing in the "two men" or "two women" definition into marriage. But if you're going to break it down in that regard, why not break it down in other regards...otherwise I'll just say that you're prejudiced against animals.