Where did marriage go?

[Vastator]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

We require that a woman name the father of her children then we force that man to pay child support.

Yes, if you can find the man to DNA test him and "prove" he's the dad. If you get the court order for him to pay, he can work under the table or move to a state that doesn't collect for other states. It's a great plan, when it works.

Good example OL! A perfect example of what men have watched these strong, independent women do. They want the kids, they want the lifestyle that a traditional marriage would bring. At least the kids, and supplemental income... But also want to be free of any responsibility to a husband, and the liberty to fuck anyone they want, consequences be damned. More of the same old feminist “you can have it all” bullshit that’s been pumped into little girls heads. Only worsened by the threat of armed men coming to extort the intended target, under the color of law. There used to be a time when making bad decisions had consequences that were the decision makers alone to bear. But since the women’s vote, and the rise of feminism, women have managed to legislate away any consequence for piss poor decisions.
So... Good post OL! That is a shining example of why men are deciding not to marry in the numbers our elders were accustomed to seeing.

View attachment 275352

A meme won’t keep you warm at night.

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

I don't want to spend 60 years in a loveless marriage simply because we made a mistake at 17.

I don't want my children spending their entire lives living in loveless marriages simply because they made a mistake at 17

People change and mature as they age.

we are NOT mature enough to make lifetime decisions at 17
or 20
or even 25

we are still maturing, growing, experiencing....

It is really kind of silly, when you think of it, to expect 20 year old children who just left home for college and just started to have experiences to hurry up and get married.

let them live!
let them have experiences and new relationships.

The person I would have chosen to spend my life with at 17 would have been a big mistake.

the person I chose to spend my life with at 37 was PERFECT!

and I have been with her, in LOVE with her, for 30 years.

and we are not married.

while that’s “nice”, and all; it isn’t really relevant. As you stated you aren’t married. And if you’re SO is around your same age, she’s not really a player in the pregnancy game, so children are most likely out. Often times when people 40+ cohabitate with someone around their own age, it has more to do with creature comforts, than any design at being a family. Without kids, there really isn’t a family. So if a family isn’t in the plans; there is no reason whatsoever to consider marriage if you’re a man. It’s all risk, and no gain.

 

[OldLady]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

 

[rightwinger]

Also consider the divorce rate is nearly 50%. People can say we have old fashioned values but there isn't anything more fundamental to a stable healthy society than marriage and family.

That means the other 50 percent of marriages lasts a lifetime

 

[Markle]

This perfectly describes what has happened.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS


In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
Wow! That fits into this thread perfectly! I guess it makes sense that two incomes would be less likely to be in poverty.

The sad part is that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Your thread is about the reduced rate of marriage. The government rewards a couple having children and NOT being married. The government punishes a couple having children and BEING married. How is that not on the topic?

 

[SweetSue92]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

Interestingly, white liberals almost unfailingly understand this in their own lives and yet vote for politicians and policies which continue the destruction of families in the lives of minorities and poor families.

Many, many minorities are onto the ruse and are done voting for Democrats. Finally.

 

[strollingbones]

we live in a society that does not value children...simple as that....americans put everything they can in front of taking care of kids....as a society we can absorb the costs of taking care of kids...we prefer not to....pro birthers are the biggest cons in the world....have those babies but then you are on your own....glaring examples.....od on drug and you get a free shot to bring ya back...narcam? or something.....need an epi pen or insulin...good luck...this country could care less about kids....not even giving them protection while in school.....bullet proof backpacks are a reality....we give them thoughts and prayers when what is needed is protection from the mentally ill gun nuts....our foster care system has moved so far to an extreme...reunification of families regardless of how unhealthy that family is....

people dont marry now because of the concept of serial monogamy

 

[OldLady]

This perfectly describes what has happened.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS


In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
Wow! That fits into this thread perfectly! I guess it makes sense that two incomes would be less likely to be in poverty.

The sad part is that I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Your thread is about the reduced rate of marriage. The government rewards a couple having children and NOT being married. The government punishes a couple having children and BEING married. How is that not on the topic?

No, I wasn't being facetious at all!

 

[rightwinger]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

Interestingly, white liberals almost unfailingly understand this in their own lives and yet vote for politicians and policies which continue the destruction of families in the lives of minorities and poor families.

Many, many minorities are onto the ruse and are done voting for Democrats. Finally.

What do Republicans do for those families?

 

[Markle]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

Interestingly, white liberals almost unfailingly understand this in their own lives and yet vote for politicians and policies which continue the destruction of families in the lives of minorities and poor families.

Many, many minorities are onto the ruse and are done voting for Democrats. Finally.

What do Republicans do for those families?

Frankly, I don't want the government, Republican, Democrat or whatever to DO anything for my family. Get out of my way and let me earn a good living for them.

 

[rightwinger]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

Interestingly, white liberals almost unfailingly understand this in their own lives and yet vote for politicians and policies which continue the destruction of families in the lives of minorities and poor families.

Many, many minorities are onto the ruse and are done voting for Democrats. Finally.

What do Republicans do for those families?

Frankly, I don't want the government, Republican, Democrat or whatever to DO anything for my family. Get out of my way and let me earn a good living for them.

What if you are injured on the job and can no longer support them

Do you want Government then?

 

[anynameyouwish]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

We require that a woman name the father of her children then we force that man to pay child support.

Yes, if you can find the man to DNA test him and "prove" he's the dad. If you get the court order for him to pay, he can work under the table or move to a state that doesn't collect for other states. It's a great plan, when it works.

Good example OL! A perfect example of what men have watched these strong, independent women do. They want the kids, they want the lifestyle that a traditional marriage would bring. At least the kids, and supplemental income... But also want to be free of any responsibility to a husband, and the liberty to fuck anyone they want, consequences be damned. More of the same old feminist “you can have it all” bullshit that’s been pumped into little girls heads. Only worsened by the threat of armed men coming to extort the intended target, under the color of law. There used to be a time when making bad decisions had consequences that were the decision makers alone to bear. But since the women’s vote, and the rise of feminism, women have managed to legislate away any consequence for piss poor decisions.
So... Good post OL! That is a shining example of why men are deciding not to marry in the numbers our elders were accustomed to seeing.

View attachment 275352

A meme won’t keep you warm at night.

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

I don't want to spend 60 years in a loveless marriage simply because we made a mistake at 17.

I don't want my children spending their entire lives living in loveless marriages simply because they made a mistake at 17

People change and mature as they age.

we are NOT mature enough to make lifetime decisions at 17
or 20
or even 25

we are still maturing, growing, experiencing....

It is really kind of silly, when you think of it, to expect 20 year old children who just left home for college and just started to have experiences to hurry up and get married.

let them live!
let them have experiences and new relationships.

The person I would have chosen to spend my life with at 17 would have been a big mistake.

the person I chose to spend my life with at 37 was PERFECT!

and I have been with her, in LOVE with her, for 30 years.

and we are not married.

while that’s “nice”, and all; it isn’t really relevant. As you stated you aren’t married. And if you’re SO is around your same age, she’s not really a player in the pregnancy game, so children are most likely out. Often times when people 40+ cohabitate with someone around their own age, it has more to do with creature comforts, than any design at being a family. Without kids, there really isn’t a family. So if a family isn’t in the plans; there is no reason whatsoever to consider marriage if you’re a man. It’s all risk, and no gain.

"while that’s “nice”, and all; it isn’t really relevant. As you stated you aren’t married. And if you’re SO is around your same age, she’s not really a player in the pregnancy game, so children are most likely out. Often times when people 40+ cohabitate with someone around their own age, it has more to do with creature comforts, than any design at being a family. Without kids, there really isn’t a family. So if a family isn’t in the plans; there is no reason whatsoever to consider marriage if you’re a man. It’s all risk, and no gain. "


The OP;

WHERE DID MARRIAGE GO

Do you see the word "family" or "children" in there anywhere?


Cus I don't.


The OP SPECIFICALLY SAID "WHERE DID MARRIAGE GO"

marriage

NOT "family" or "children".....MARRIAGE


BTW.....as to "a meme won't keep you warm at night"

My woman/bestfriend/lover/mostsignificantother and I each have our own bedrooms.

We spend an hour or 2 every night watching tv before bed but after that we toddle off to our own rooms. She can read, watch tv, listen to music, putz around with crap in her room without bothering me and I can do likewise!

We have an amazingly loving/affectionate relationship!

Loving her keeps me warm.....

 

[Markle]

I just wish everyone understood how important stability and consistency is for children. If you don't want to settle down, fine! Use responsible birth control and do what you please. We should not be leaving a trail of children behind us during that time, though. It is the children who suffer most from those choices, although it also has a huge impact on both parents--the mother who raises the child alone and the father who is dogged forever by the courts forcing child support payments out of him.

I wish everyone had stability and consistency in their own childhoods. I wish everyone had enough money to keep their kids warm and fed and in the cool sneakers and with braces if they need them. Official, licensed marriage doesn't have to be part of that, but serious commitment does.

Interestingly, white liberals almost unfailingly understand this in their own lives and yet vote for politicians and policies which continue the destruction of families in the lives of minorities and poor families.

Many, many minorities are onto the ruse and are done voting for Democrats. Finally.

What do Republicans do for those families?

Frankly, I don't want the government, Republican, Democrat or whatever to DO anything for my family. Get out of my way and let me earn a good living for them.

What if you are injured on the job and can no longer support them

Do you want Government then?

For that, I have insurance and cash flow investments.

 

[Vastator]

We require that a woman name the father of her children then we force that man to pay child support.

Yes, if you can find the man to DNA test him and "prove" he's the dad. If you get the court order for him to pay, he can work under the table or move to a state that doesn't collect for other states. It's a great plan, when it works.

Good example OL! A perfect example of what men have watched these strong, independent women do. They want the kids, they want the lifestyle that a traditional marriage would bring. At least the kids, and supplemental income... But also want to be free of any responsibility to a husband, and the liberty to fuck anyone they want, consequences be damned. More of the same old feminist “you can have it all” bullshit that’s been pumped into little girls heads. Only worsened by the threat of armed men coming to extort the intended target, under the color of law. There used to be a time when making bad decisions had consequences that were the decision makers alone to bear. But since the women’s vote, and the rise of feminism, women have managed to legislate away any consequence for piss poor decisions.
So... Good post OL! That is a shining example of why men are deciding not to marry in the numbers our elders were accustomed to seeing.

View attachment 275352

A meme won’t keep you warm at night.

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

I don't want to spend 60 years in a loveless marriage simply because we made a mistake at 17.

I don't want my children spending their entire lives living in loveless marriages simply because they made a mistake at 17

People change and mature as they age.

we are NOT mature enough to make lifetime decisions at 17
or 20
or even 25

we are still maturing, growing, experiencing....

It is really kind of silly, when you think of it, to expect 20 year old children who just left home for college and just started to have experiences to hurry up and get married.

let them live!
let them have experiences and new relationships.

The person I would have chosen to spend my life with at 17 would have been a big mistake.

the person I chose to spend my life with at 37 was PERFECT!

and I have been with her, in LOVE with her, for 30 years.

and we are not married.

while that’s “nice”, and all; it isn’t really relevant. As you stated you aren’t married. And if you’re SO is around your same age, she’s not really a player in the pregnancy game, so children are most likely out. Often times when people 40+ cohabitate with someone around their own age, it has more to do with creature comforts, than any design at being a family. Without kids, there really isn’t a family. So if a family isn’t in the plans; there is no reason whatsoever to consider marriage if you’re a man. It’s all risk, and no gain.

"while that’s “nice”, and all; it isn’t really relevant. As you stated you aren’t married. And if you’re SO is around your same age, she’s not really a player in the pregnancy game, so children are most likely out. Often times when people 40+ cohabitate with someone around their own age, it has more to do with creature comforts, than any design at being a family. Without kids, there really isn’t a family. So if a family isn’t in the plans; there is no reason whatsoever to consider marriage if you’re a man. It’s all risk, and no gain. "


The OP;

WHERE DID MARRIAGE GO

Do you see the word "family" or "children" in there anywhere?


Cus I don't.


The OP SPECIFICALLY SAID "WHERE DID MARRIAGE GO"

marriage

NOT "family" or "children".....MARRIAGE


BTW.....as to "a meme won't keep you warm at night"

My woman/bestfriend/lover/mostsignificantother and I each have our own bedrooms.

We spend an hour or 2 every night watching tv before bed but after that we toddle off to our own rooms. She can read, watch tv, listen to music, putz around with crap in her room without bothering me and I can do likewise!

We have an amazingly loving/affectionate relationship!

Loving her keeps me warm.....

The purpose of a marriage from time immemorial is to start a family, which means having children. As to your living arrangements... Like I said; "creature comforts". Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Few people want to die alone; and from a practicality standpoint, for older people, having someone around could be prudent should a medical situation arise...

 

[Unkotare]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

 

[anynameyouwish]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage is still here

You get what you put in

 

[rightwinger]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

LOL

You voted for Trump
An expert on marriage

 

[Unkotare]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

"It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family"

pure nonsense.

It’s right there in your playbook.

 

[Unkotare]

2aguy wrote recently:

as the welfare state has enabled young, teenage girls to have children from multiple males, without fathers in the home......the young males raised in these homes are becoming more and more violent....

It's not the fault of silly teenage girls or the welfare state that is "enabling" that. The Pill, coming in the same decade with Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity" in the '60's, and loosening of divorce laws completely transformed our culture's attitudes toward sex. When I grew up, if you got pregnant before marriage, it was shameful and you got married right quick, if you could. Young couples were beginning to live together prior to marriage, but then marry in a year or two, but it wasn't that common and it was still considered shameful to most. Those couples often got married in a couple of years. The order of things was supposed to be marriage, sex, children. Of course, people have always snuck in sex before marriage, but it was SNUCK.

Our culture changed dramatically, basically overnight. There is no shame in getting pregnant now outside of marriage; no one hides having sex. Couples very openly live together without marriage and no one bats an eye anymore.

I don't see how we reverse that.

It has always been a goal of the far left to destroy marriage and family, but there are more factors at play than just these. Marriage is becoming a luxury for the wealthy, at least in the usual time frames.

LOL

You voted for Trump
....

Did I?

 

[Marion Morrison]

It can't be reversed, the horse bolted the barn for good. The 60's started a "new world".

Not a better one at all.

Btw OldLady, look at the way divorce, poverty, crime, and unwed mothers spiked after 1961, which is exactly when LBJ created a welfare state in earnest.