Question About Marriage

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

Typically, in those instances, you have people pointing that out, and counter statistics showing the opposite.

If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

I haven't even seen one. Not *ONE* example where illegitimate children from shackup, or blended family, ligit kids in a divorced families, showed an average improvement. Not one. At the very *BEST* some limited research showed "little difference". But still showed a 'difference'.

Again, statistics are just that. Statistics. Showing average results over a broad spectrum. There are exceptions in every situation.

So maybe the family you came from was the exception. Some parents stay together until after the kids are largely grown and gone. If your youngest child is heading off to college next year, and you divorce your wife.... chances are that you are not going to screw up your kids, because they are already out of the home, and making their own home.

So you, and your siblings made it. Great. I'm glad. I want *EVERYONE* to make it great. I hope you make a million bucks, have a great job, and a vacation home in Hawaii. I really do. I want everyone to succeed.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

You made it without that, WONDERFUL! That doesn't change the statistical average. And yes, statistics can be messed with. Come up with your evidence of those statistics from dozens on dozens of sources, have all been messed with, and I'll consider it. I will. I promise.

I gave that type of evidence in this post: Question About Marriage Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ...

 

[longknife]

Marriage was and is a committment between two people to live together and support each other AND THE CHILDREN THEY BRING INTO THE WORLD.

It is a stable way of procreating and keeping the human race viable.

All the other religious and legal stuff is superfluous.

 

[Disir]

...can anyone tell me, besides the fulfillment of the natural sexual desires, what is the purpose of marriage?

If anyone says, "Because the Bible says that it was not good for Adam to be alone," I'm not a Bible-believer though I do use the Bible in debates for those who believe in the Bible.

Thanks for all answers.

Property.

It's a contract.

That is all.

 

[Andylusion]

Typically, in those instances, you have people pointing that out, and counter statistics showing the opposite.

If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

I haven't even seen one. Not *ONE* example where illegitimate children from shackup, or blended family, ligit kids in a divorced families, showed an average improvement. Not one. At the very *BEST* some limited research showed "little difference". But still showed a 'difference'.

Again, statistics are just that. Statistics. Showing average results over a broad spectrum. There are exceptions in every situation.

So maybe the family you came from was the exception. Some parents stay together until after the kids are largely grown and gone. If your youngest child is heading off to college next year, and you divorce your wife.... chances are that you are not going to screw up your kids, because they are already out of the home, and making their own home.

So you, and your siblings made it. Great. I'm glad. I want *EVERYONE* to make it great. I hope you make a million bucks, have a great job, and a vacation home in Hawaii. I really do. I want everyone to succeed.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

You made it without that, WONDERFUL! That doesn't change the statistical average. And yes, statistics can be messed with. Come up with your evidence of those statistics from dozens on dozens of sources, have all been messed with, and I'll consider it. I will. I promise.

I gave that type of evidence in this post: Question About Marriage Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ...

So I went back to your link.... again.... and clicked it.... again.... and I'm going to post what your own link says.

“The foundational relationship of marriage has quite an impact on the wellbeing of children, and on the welfare of both the states and the nation."

Likewise, child poverty correlates to broken families. “The child poverty rate in Minnesota is 14 percent,” noted BP News. “It then climbs during the trip down the Mississippi River: Illinois (19 percent), Tennessee (24 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent). Similarly, the unmarried teen birth rate climbs: Minnesota (6 percent), Illinois (9 percent), Tennessee (11 percent) and Mississippi (14 percent).”

Addressing the finding that states with higher rates of intact families have lower child poverty rates, and vice versa, Fagan pointed to the simple fact that a father “is motivated to work harder to support a child when he is the biological parent of the child and lives with the child and mother.

Now what did I say?
If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

You failed to provide one. Your example, shows what I said.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

Care to try again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Typically, in those instances, you have people pointing that out, and counter statistics showing the opposite.

If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

I haven't even seen one. Not *ONE* example where illegitimate children from shackup, or blended family, ligit kids in a divorced families, showed an average improvement. Not one. At the very *BEST* some limited research showed "little difference". But still showed a 'difference'.

Again, statistics are just that. Statistics. Showing average results over a broad spectrum. There are exceptions in every situation.

So maybe the family you came from was the exception. Some parents stay together until after the kids are largely grown and gone. If your youngest child is heading off to college next year, and you divorce your wife.... chances are that you are not going to screw up your kids, because they are already out of the home, and making their own home.

So you, and your siblings made it. Great. I'm glad. I want *EVERYONE* to make it great. I hope you make a million bucks, have a great job, and a vacation home in Hawaii. I really do. I want everyone to succeed.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

You made it without that, WONDERFUL! That doesn't change the statistical average. And yes, statistics can be messed with. Come up with your evidence of those statistics from dozens on dozens of sources, have all been messed with, and I'll consider it. I will. I promise.

I gave that type of evidence in this post: Question About Marriage Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ...

So I went back to your link.... again.... and clicked it.... again.... and I'm going to post what your own link says.

“The foundational relationship of marriage has quite an impact on the wellbeing of children, and on the welfare of both the states and the nation."

Likewise, child poverty correlates to broken families. “The child poverty rate in Minnesota is 14 percent,” noted BP News. “It then climbs during the trip down the Mississippi River: Illinois (19 percent), Tennessee (24 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent). Similarly, the unmarried teen birth rate climbs: Minnesota (6 percent), Illinois (9 percent), Tennessee (11 percent) and Mississippi (14 percent).”

Addressing the finding that states with higher rates of intact families have lower child poverty rates, and vice versa, Fagan pointed to the simple fact that a father “is motivated to work harder to support a child when he is the biological parent of the child and lives with the child and mother.

Now what did I say?
If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

You failed to provide one. Your example, shows what I said.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

Care to try again?

And what exactly do you and others on the right want to see done.

Divorce made illegal.

Laws enacted to compel women to remain in abusive marriages.

Compulsory marriage.

The mistake most conservatives make is to incorrectly perceive single parent households as manifesting as a consequence of 'selfishness,' 'capriciousness,' or a 'disregard' for the well-being of children, when that in fact is not the case. There are most often circumstance beyond the control of parents that result in single parent households which can't be addressed by authoritarian rightists seeking to compel conformity.

 

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

So I went back to your link.... again.... and clicked it.... again.... and I'm going to post what your own link says.

“The foundational relationship of marriage has quite an impact on the wellbeing of children, and on the welfare of both the states and the nation."

Likewise, child poverty correlates to broken families. “The child poverty rate in Minnesota is 14 percent,” noted BP News. “It then climbs during the trip down the Mississippi River: Illinois (19 percent), Tennessee (24 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent). Similarly, the unmarried teen birth rate climbs: Minnesota (6 percent), Illinois (9 percent), Tennessee (11 percent) and Mississippi (14 percent).”

Addressing the finding that states with higher rates of intact families have lower child poverty rates, and vice versa, Fagan pointed to the simple fact that a father “is motivated to work harder to support a child when he is the biological parent of the child and lives with the child and mother.

Now what did I say?
If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

You failed to provide one. Your example, shows what I said.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

Care to try again?

LOL. If statistics can be made to say anything, then nothing in either of our citations is necessarily valid, but the point that I was making was that my citation said that more than half of the American population comes from a home where parents are separated/divorced/never married; and it said that out of 315,000,000+ people in America, there are only 2,000,000+ people incarcerated. Being from a "broken home" then does not mean that you will be a criminal, nor poor, if statistics can be made to say anything.

So YOU try again to prove that parents who do not cohabit necessarily hurt their children.

 

[Andylusion]

Typically, in those instances, you have people pointing that out, and counter statistics showing the opposite.

If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

I haven't even seen one. Not *ONE* example where illegitimate children from shackup, or blended family, ligit kids in a divorced families, showed an average improvement. Not one. At the very *BEST* some limited research showed "little difference". But still showed a 'difference'.

Again, statistics are just that. Statistics. Showing average results over a broad spectrum. There are exceptions in every situation.

So maybe the family you came from was the exception. Some parents stay together until after the kids are largely grown and gone. If your youngest child is heading off to college next year, and you divorce your wife.... chances are that you are not going to screw up your kids, because they are already out of the home, and making their own home.

So you, and your siblings made it. Great. I'm glad. I want *EVERYONE* to make it great. I hope you make a million bucks, have a great job, and a vacation home in Hawaii. I really do. I want everyone to succeed.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

You made it without that, WONDERFUL! That doesn't change the statistical average. And yes, statistics can be messed with. Come up with your evidence of those statistics from dozens on dozens of sources, have all been messed with, and I'll consider it. I will. I promise.

I gave that type of evidence in this post: Question About Marriage Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ...

So I went back to your link.... again.... and clicked it.... again.... and I'm going to post what your own link says.

“The foundational relationship of marriage has quite an impact on the wellbeing of children, and on the welfare of both the states and the nation."

Likewise, child poverty correlates to broken families. “The child poverty rate in Minnesota is 14 percent,” noted BP News. “It then climbs during the trip down the Mississippi River: Illinois (19 percent), Tennessee (24 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent). Similarly, the unmarried teen birth rate climbs: Minnesota (6 percent), Illinois (9 percent), Tennessee (11 percent) and Mississippi (14 percent).”

Addressing the finding that states with higher rates of intact families have lower child poverty rates, and vice versa, Fagan pointed to the simple fact that a father “is motivated to work harder to support a child when he is the biological parent of the child and lives with the child and mother.

Now what did I say?
If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

You failed to provide one. Your example, shows what I said.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

Care to try again?

And what exactly do you and others on the right want to see done.

Divorce made illegal.

Laws enacted to compel women to remain in abusive marriages.

Compulsory marriage.

The mistake most conservatives make is to incorrectly perceive single parent households as manifesting as a consequence of 'selfishness,' 'capriciousness,' or a 'disregard' for the well-being of children, when that in fact is not the case. There are most often circumstance beyond the control of parents that result in single parent households which can't be addressed by authoritarian rightists seeking to compel conformity.

What I would like to see done today, is having a universal 'common law partnership'.

All the homos and bestiality people, can go have a common law partnership, with their dogs and chickens, and other homos who can't figure out how their bodily functions work.

Beyond that, I would like to see "Marriage", left in the hands of the church. Thus if you want to get married, as in real marriage, in a church, then you have to abide by the rules of the church. And if you want a divorce, then you can only get divorced by the approval of THAT CHURCH, and no other.

As for the rest of your mindless drivel, I don't really care what you think. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Andylusion]

So I went back to your link.... again.... and clicked it.... again.... and I'm going to post what your own link says.

“The foundational relationship of marriage has quite an impact on the wellbeing of children, and on the welfare of both the states and the nation."

Likewise, child poverty correlates to broken families. “The child poverty rate in Minnesota is 14 percent,” noted BP News. “It then climbs during the trip down the Mississippi River: Illinois (19 percent), Tennessee (24 percent) and Mississippi (31 percent). Similarly, the unmarried teen birth rate climbs: Minnesota (6 percent), Illinois (9 percent), Tennessee (11 percent) and Mississippi (14 percent).”

Addressing the finding that states with higher rates of intact families have lower child poverty rates, and vice versa, Fagan pointed to the simple fact that a father “is motivated to work harder to support a child when he is the biological parent of the child and lives with the child and mother.

Now what did I say?
If there was even *ONE* example showing the opposite, that would at least give me something to consider.

You failed to provide one. Your example, shows what I said.

Statistically, the best chance your kids have of succeeding, is being in a stable home, with a MOTHER and a FATHER, who are MARRIED, and STAY TOGETHER.

Care to try again?

LOL. If statistics can be made to say anything, then nothing in either of our citations is necessarily valid, but the point that I was making was that my citation said that more than half of the American population comes from a home where parents are separated/divorced/never married; and it said that out of 315,000,000+ people in America, there are only 2,000,000+ people incarcerated. Being from a "broken home" then does not mean that you will be a criminal, nor poor, if statistics can be made to say anything.

So YOU try again to prove that parents who do not cohabit necessarily hurt their children.

Yes, statistics can be made to say anything. Now prove that my statistics were biased in some way, or accept they are true. Pick one, but stop rambling on mindlessly. It's getting old. Either make your case, or move on.

 

[Esmeralda]

It has a lot of purposes. For one thing, it is the socially expected and socially accepted thing to do---instead of just shacking up or not making any formal arrangements at all. People like to be socially acceptable, or they give into social pressure to do the acceptable thing. That all sounds negative: it can be a positive thing too. Just give me a while and I'll think of one.

 

[Andylusion]

It has a lot of purposes. For one thing, it is the socially expected and socially accepted thing to do---instead of just shacking up or not making any formal arrangements at all.

But have you ever wondered why? Why for thousands of years, across hundreds of civilizations and cultures, is marriage a standard?

I'd suggest to you, it's more than just because "it's the sociali accepted thing to do". I think it's because it doesn't work!

According to the numbers, 90% of all shackup relationship don't last. They don't last! And the statistics also show that your chances of getting married to that guy, and staying with him.... drop like a rock the moment you shackup. Your chances of having a happy marriage, drastically fall, if you live together before getting married.

That's why it has been the 'socially accepted thing to do' throughout the ages. It's not some random thing people came up with.

 

[Esmeralda]

It has a lot of purposes. For one thing, it is the socially expected and socially accepted thing to do---instead of just shacking up or not making any formal arrangements at all.

But have you ever wondered why? Why for thousands of years, across hundreds of civilizations and cultures, is marriage a standard?

I'd suggest to you, it's more than just because "it's the sociali accepted thing to do". I think it's because it doesn't work!

According to the numbers, 90% of all shackup relationship don't last. They don't last! And the statistics also show that your chances of getting married to that guy, and staying with him.... drop like a rock the moment you shackup. Your chances of having a happy marriage, drastically fall, if you live together before getting married.

That's why it has been the 'socially accepted thing to do' throughout the ages. It's not some random thing people came up with.

You are saying it's driven by logic and practicality. Nope. It's a completely value driven thing.

 

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

Yes, statistics can be made to say anything. Now prove that my statistics were biased in some way, or accept they are true. Pick one, but stop rambling on mindlessly. It's getting old. Either make your case, or move on.

You tried to prove your point first, so you prove your point or move on. Two people who can't get along should not have to live together. That makes a dangerous situation; since you are so into statistics read this:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf .

Peace,
Ofo

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, statistics can be made to say anything. Now prove that my statistics were biased in some way, or accept they are true. Pick one, but stop rambling on mindlessly. It's getting old. Either make your case, or move on.

You tried to prove your point first, so you prove your point or move on. Two people who can't get along should not have to live together. That makes a dangerous situation; since you are so into statistics read this:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs03.pdf .

Peace,
Ofo

"can't get along".

You want to know the primary reason two people can't get along? Pride and selfishness. I want you to do what I want. You want me to do what you want. Suddenly..... we can't get along.

Why do I demand you do what I want? Because I am prideful and selfish. And so are you.

When two people stop being so full of themselves, and so selfishly demanding whatever they want.... suddenly you can get along.

It's a choice. Where you are, and the situation you are in, is 90% due to your choices. Not so magical mystical "we just can't get along".

And here's the other aspect. Nearly everything in that report is accurate and true.... but tell me... did they determine how many of those 'family' violence was between blended, broken, or shack up, family members? Did you notice "common law" family?

You show me the number of traditional family violence verses, the modern 'anything goes' family violence.

Show me that number. That will give us some statistics to really look over.