Marriage is no longer sacred.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

I agree with OP's argument. I just wish it wasn't being made by a 15 year old with absolutely no experience with the subject.

Marriage became redundant as soon as anyone was allowed to do... unless you're gay.
That just blows my mind, we'll let stupid 20 something's throw all their chips in when they aren't even entirely sure and yet a couple can't get married even though they've been with one another for over a decade. Simply because they're both dudes/chicks.

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

MrHide-Patten:

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

Yeah! If your husband/wife cheats, its your fault and you should be punished after the fact!
Lets not even acknowledge abusive marriages!

Now you are just being silly.
You can treat your own marriage as sacred, but leave other peoples alone. It doesn't hurt you what other people do with their marriage.

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

Yeah! If your husband/wife cheats, its your fault and you should be punished after the fact!
Lets not even acknowledge abusive marriages!

Now you are just being silly.
You can treat your own marriage as sacred, but leave other peoples alone. It doesn't hurt you what other people do with their marriage.

Personally, I'm not married. The whole things sounds (to be frank) bat shit fucking stupid. Why must people validate a relationship through an outdated books say so (rehetorical question)?

I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

MrHide-Patten:
I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

Why should you `lose your marrying right`?
(And my mother survived an abusive marriage and is re-married, so generaly it doesn't stop you wanting marriage, it stops you wanting to be married to the person you were married to).

Like I said, marriage is a personal thing. It should not be up to anyone else if you should or should not be allowed to marry. If you personally think marriage is outdated, then thats cool, but you cant dictate who should get rights.

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:
I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

Why should you `lose your marrying right`?
(And my mother survived an abusive marriage and is re-married, so generaly it doesn't stop you wanting marriage, it stops you wanting to be married to the person you were married to).

Like I said, marriage is a personal thing. It should not be up to anyone else if you should or should not be allowed to marry. If you personally think marriage is outdated, then thats cool, but you cant dictate who should get rights.

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

MrHide-Patten:

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

An abuser does not need a marriage in order to abuse.

Your argument is basically: People do stupid things, so lets take their rights away.

No.

People can learn from stupid things, and even if they do not, you dont have the right to take away rights.

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

An abuser does not need a marriage in order to abuse.

Your argument is basically: People do stupid things, so lets take their rights away.

No.

People can learn from stupid things, and even if they do not, you dont have the right to take away rights.

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

MrHide-Patten:

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

Life is complicated.
You can start out completely in love and 100% wanting your marriage, but it can fade through time and circumstances. The last thing you would need then is a government person showing up on your door telling you they are taking your rights away.

You can grumble and gripe, but it is simply not a good idea when you get down to it. Divorce is there for a reason, the last thing we need is more reason for unhappy people to stay in unhappy marriages.

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

Life is complicated.
You can start out completely in love and 100% wanting your marriage, but it can fade through time and circumstances. The last thing you would need then is a government person showing up on your door telling you they are taking your rights away.

You can grumble and gripe, but it is simply not a good idea when you get down to it. Divorce is there for a reason, the last thing we need is more reason for unhappy people to stay in unhappy marriages.

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

MrHide-Patten:
I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them. :)

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:
I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them. :)

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

MrHide-Patten:

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:
I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them. :)

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

I'm from the UK.
I'm sure thats what homophobes think about keeping gays from marrying, point is, its not up to you.

I always thought that marriages should be a separate entity from legal partnerships, but that's just me.

As a counter point to your argument check out the Catholic church... we don't take kindly to divorce >.>

Phasmal:

MrHide-Patten:

Phasmal:

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them. :)

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

I'm from the UK.
I'm sure thats what homophobes think about keeping gays from marrying, point is, its not up to you.

I'm from 'Merica and I endorse this sentiment.

The entire "sanctity" bit is only found in Western near East cultures for the most part. This is because of the heavy influence structural religion had on shaping those societies. In many traditional (pre-western contact) societies, "marriage" was just what you did while the kids grew up to a certain age and then once they did it was time to find a new "spouse". During the time together it wasn't all that uncommon for either member of the relationship to have "extra-marital" sex. Hell, the Karma Sutra has an entire section of how to have an affair and get away with it. Before the British it was expected that people are going have sex outside of the marriage and the proper thing to do is to not pop kids out or get caught with the wrong partner.

And since I haven't bothered to read the other few pages in their entirety and I'm pretty sure this has come up... There is no definitive evidence that proves that H. sapien is{not} monogamous. Monogamy is purely a cultural response and depending on the environment/economy of any different culture polyandry, polygamy, and monogamy are are valid expresions of different ways of raising kids.

That said, I am an engaged American male and not planning on finding another woman, it has nothing to do with the sacred and all to do with the tax/legal benefits and cultural norms. I plan to have a long term relationship and those are very useful, for those not certain of the length of their relationship then cohabitation without marriage may be the best course of action.

I may be misinterpreting you, you seem to be suggesting that the humanity-specific notion of finding self-actualizing purpose in life should be superseded by the woman's historically traditional place of subservient child-guardian so that the man can do all the resource-gathering.

Replace 'historically-traditional' with 'biologically-wired,' and yes.

I find the notion reprehensible. A woman has as genuine a claim to gathering resources for the family as a man has to protection of the child.

Legally, yes, but Mother Nature is one sexist bitch.

As gendered organisms, our hormonal structures lend us to certain activities to be sure, but that is only a tendency, not a shackling law. I can't seem to empathize with believing society would be better if women remained in traditional roles only.

Today's society might not be as free or as fun, but it would actually stand a chance of reproducing itself, versus dying off in one generation and getting replaced by far more inferior and repressive societies that care for reproducing themselves first and your dreams and aspirations dead last. "Civilization provides lots of opportunities" does not mean "therefore I can throw off all traditions and expect civilization to continue rewarding me for them, or even to continue."

Anyway, this all seems to hinge on you interpreting marriage as only adhering to the above model; 'woman protects and nurtures, man works', correct?

I find that likewise disagreeable. Marriage needn't have anything to do with childbearing, and for the reasons mentioned above, I don't believe it needs to define gender roles either.

The great majority of marriages work because the great majority of people are biologically, emotionally, and culturally wired for it. Childless marriages allow those who don't want children to still participate in a common societal event, but for obvious reasons, they're not the common model for the majority of the population, because if the majority does not reproduce, your society and its attendant civilization is dead. You don't get to throw out the necessity of reproduction and attendant child-rearing by calling it a "model" and declaring all models fundamentally fungible, that's like calling both profit and loss "cash flow" and running your business into the ground because it wasn't making you happy(though it was making your employees a living and you and your stockholders a profit.

It never was sacred, it has always been about business, end of story.

Myrmecodon:

The great majority of marriages work because the great majority of people are biologically, emotionally, and culturally wired for it. Childless marriages allow those who don't want children to still participate in a common societal event, but for obvious reasons, they're not the common model for the majority of the population, because if the majority does not reproduce, your society and its attendant civilization is dead. You don't get to throw out the necessity of reproduction and attendant child-rearing by calling it a "model" and declaring all models fundamentally fungible, that's like calling both profit and loss "cash flow" and running your business into the ground because it wasn't making you happy(though it was making your employees a living and you and your stockholders a profit.

most marriages don't work though, as soon as the divorce rate reached 50% the whole notion of 'Marriage being the cornerstone of our society' went out the window. Furthermore we aren't wired biologically to be with one person the rest of our lives.

From a Biological stand-point staying with one partner your entire sexual life is crazy. Very few animals or insects stay with one partner and the ones that do usually have a good reason for it (usually the male partner is killed or genitals become fused together)

evolution has hard-wired into our brains that we need to continue the species, The idea that one person will be the perfect match for you emotionally and genetically is false. We want to produce the best offspring possible so we're always looking for someone who is a good match, only society views marriage as important.

Myrmecodon:

I may be misinterpreting you, you seem to be suggesting that the humanity-specific notion of finding self-actualizing purpose in life should be superseded by the woman's historically traditional place of subservient child-guardian so that the man can do all the resource-gathering.

Replace 'historically-traditional' with 'biologically-wired,' and yes.

Sorry, you think women are biologically wired to be subservient baby machines?

Phasmal:

Sorry, you think women are biologically wired to be subservient baby machines?

Actually, I think they're biologically wired for hyperbolic histrionics who throw out childish statements like that whenever they have nothing to add to an argument...UNLESS they're already connected to a man, in which case they tend to develop a unique personality apart from that emotional herd, since their personal validation is tied to the preferences of one man rather than the need to be blandly acceptable to several women. A woman can be smart, a group of women are nearly always the silliest thing in the room. A wife can be a creative manager of her household, the Sex and the City crowd is vapid even in the films meant to portray them positively.

Sort of the exact opposite of men, who individually tend to spout wild theories, boring stream-of-consiousness narratives and insane nostalgia-trips but generally work quite well as teams. A man is a man among other men, a man alone is a woman.

Limecake:
most marriages don't work though, as soon as the divorce rate reached 50% the whole notion of 'Marriage being the cornerstone of our society' went out the window. Furthermore we aren't wired biologically to be with one person the rest of our lives.

We aren't specifically wired biologically to build civilizations either, guy, but build and adapt to them we did. In any case, the divorce rate only reached 50% because A: Family court is incredibly biased toward women(though that's changing!) and B: Mandatory child support rewards women who walk out on their husbands for another guy. In a state of nature without a politically-skewed legal system, the stability of de facto marriage would far outpace the stability of de jure marriages in this society. Incentives matter.

From a Biological stand-point staying with one partner your entire sexual life is crazy. Very few animals or insects stay with one partner and the ones that do usually have a good reason for it (usually the male partner is killed or genitals become fused together)

No animals or insects that I know of have to learn Chaucer, compound interest, the multiplication tables, or atomic theory. If you're done with your biological absolutism we'd like to continue this conversation on our Earth planet.

evolution has hard-wired into our brains that we need to continue the species, The idea that one person will be the perfect match for you emotionally and genetically is false. We want to produce the best offspring possible so we're always looking for someone who is a good match, only society views marriage as important.

WOMEN want to produce the best offspring possible(Hypergamy. Look it up.) Men simply want to produce as many as possible from as much a variety of women as they can stand(Polygamy, which you should already know about.) Civilization and tradition, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that the inevitable wars from allowing man's polygamous and woman's hypergamous instincts to rule were intolerable, and thus created the institution of marriage, in which one man and one woman were bound to be responsible for each other and their children. You want a state of nature, go back to Africa where we came from.

Required reading: Sexual Utopia in Power, for the proper definition and psychology of hypergamy.

novixz:
snip

image

This madness has too end. Marriage is still sacred. It is just some people abuse it. Where I live, the divorce rate is pretty low, and even then it is being dragged up by the cities. The average marriage around here last for over 50+ years. I am planning to marry my girlfriend after we are done with college. The only people I have really seen push hard against it are athiest, and even then that is on the internet only (the only athiest I know in person plans on getting married). So I dont know what you are getting on about.

Myrmecodon:
Weird snip.

Riiiight. Okay, sure.
Was just looking for clarification on your initial point that I quoted you on
.

Myrmecodon:

I may be misinterpreting you, you seem to be suggesting that the humanity-specific notion of finding self-actualizing purpose in life should be superseded by the woman's historically traditional place of subservient child-guardian so that the man can do all the resource-gathering.

Replace 'historically-traditional' with 'biologically-wired,' and yes.

So, I'm not sure how thats hyperbolic.

EDIT: Fixed quote.

EDIT2: Oh, and feel free not to reply either, after all that I dont think I need clarification now :P

Myrmecodon:

We aren't specifically wired biologically to build civilizations either, guy, but build and adapt to them we did. In any case, the divorce rate only reached 50% because A: Family court is incredibly biased toward women(though that's changing!) and B: Mandatory child support rewards women who walk out on their husbands for another guy. In a state of nature without a politically-skewed legal system, the stability of de facto marriage would far outpace the stability of de jure marriages in this society. Incentives matter.

are you implying that most divorces are caused by women looking for 'easy money' via mandatory child support?

Because I'd like to see some statistics on that if it's true, and no, proving it can be done doesn't mean that it's happening as often as you claim.

More than likely these people just grew apart, have you ever lost a friend over an arguement? same idea.

No animals or insects that I know of have to learn Chaucer, compound interest, the multiplication tables, or atomic theory. If you're done with your biological absolutism we'd like to continue this conversation on our Earth planet.

just because we don't have dogs splitting atoms doesn't mean we aren't, in the very simplest sense, animals by nature.

we don't need to do atomic theory, build civilizations, multiply numbers or learn music to continue the human race. If animals needed to multiply 3x4 to breed you can bet your ass they'd figure it out.

WOMEN want to produce the best offspring possible(Hypergamy. Look it up.) Men simply want to produce as many as possible from as much a variety of women as they can stand(Polygamy, which you should already know about.) Civilization and tradition, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that the inevitable wars from allowing man's polygamous and woman's hypergamous instincts to rule were intolerable, and thus created the institution of marriage, in which one man and one woman were bound to be responsible for each other and their children. You want a state of nature, go back to Africa where we came from.

Required reading: Sexual Utopia in Power, for the proper definition and psychology of hypergamy.

again, I don't see the problem comparing humans to animals. In fact I did read the website you posted and even they compare the two:

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female "sexual orientations" are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

so you're ok with your source of information comparing humans with animals but not me?

furthermore:

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one "alpha male" at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner's humorous story "I Can't Breathe"-the private journal of an eighteen-year-old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of "sex partners," she would presumably respond "one"; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.[2]

So how is this supposed to prove marriage was ever been anything other than a religious tradition?

Meh. Marriage, like all traditions, evolves and changes over time. It has been doing right up until now, and will continue to do so for as long as it exists. I'm pretty sure this must be the umpteenth time it has stopped being sacred for one reason or another.

I've never seen the appeal myself. My girlfriend would like to get married one day, and I'm willing to go along with that if I happen to be 'the one guy,' but it's not something I've ever really had a burning desire for.

Limecake:
are you implying that most divorces are caused by women looking for 'easy money' via mandatory child support?

Hellz yeah, though there are of course biological temptations to stray after 4 years and 2 kids. But they're just that, statistically verifiable temptations, not THE PRIME COMMANDS OF YOUR HORMONAL GOD.

Because I'd like to see some statistics on that if it's true, and no, proving it can be done doesn't mean that it's happening as often as you claim.

I aim to please:

F. Roger Devlin:
Michelle Langley's Women's Infidelity is probably the first book ever reviewed in The Occidental Quarterly advertised as "shipped in a plain envelope without any mention of the contents on the package." But even if you are not an adulterous wife yourself, there are good reasons for pay­ing attention to Langley's documentation of social dissolution. An advanced civilization requires high-investment parenting to maintain itself. The greatest threat to proper parenting in our time is divorce, overwhelmingly initiated by the wife (70-75 percent of the time, according to Langley).

Her book's central thesis is an unpopular one previously set forth in this journal by the present reviewer: women are no more "naturally" monogamous than men.

Biochemical research points to a natural four-year sexual cycle for the human female. This apparently allows enough time after childbirth for the average mother in a state of savagery to regain her ability to survive with­out male provisioning. In the absence of any system of marriage, a woman's natural tendency is to "liberate" herself from her mate after that point. When her hormones prompt her to reproduce again, she simply takes a new mate.

Langley cites Helen Fisher's Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray and Burnham and Phelan's Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts in support of this account. According to the latter, separation and divorce are most likely to occur in the fourth year of marriage "across more than sixty radically different cultures."

Feral female sexual behavior is governed by a number of chemicals. The euphoria of infatuation is associated with the stimulant pheylethylamine, naturally produced in the body by erotic attraction. As with other drugs, it is addictive, and people gradually build up a tolerance to it, requiring ever-greater levels to achieve the same effect. Over time, it loses its power over us, and infatuation is replaced by a calm feeling of attachment to our mates. There are neurochemical factors at work here as well. But the feeling of at­tachment or bondedness is akin to the effect of a sedative or narcotic rather than a stimulant.

More than likely these people just grew apart, have you ever lost a friend over an arguement? same idea.

If you lose a friend over a single argument, there either probably wasn't that much there to begin with, or you're incredibly immature.

so you're ok with your source of information comparing humans with animals but not me?

Considering that you're not taking human considerations into account, nor the fact that the institution of marriage itself affected the evolution of the human animal, far faster than nature ever could, and that your purpose in reducing humans to animals seems to be to simply say that ANIMALS DO THIS A LOT AND WE KNOW IT EVOLVED AND I FEEL GOOD, THEREFORE IT'S ALL OKAY AND DON'T JUDGE ME, no, I'm not okay at all. We're using the same words, but your meanings seem to have been taught to you by people with a radically anti-life agenda.

So how is this supposed to prove marriage was ever been anything other than a religious tradition?

Try "social institution that generally worked across a deep and wide spectrum of human experience, whose common insights and efficiencies prompted the religious leaders to protect and respect the various human stages they saw people going through, make them as universally available to everyone as possible, and see in them a spark of Divine Wisdom very rarely achieved by the average man or woman alone, especially if all they did was follow their instincts." You throw the word "religious" around like it's a bad thing; the really shameful thing is that our universal schooling system treats the basics of working marriage with such open contempt, and lets the media sell the Disney version of romance to young ignorant minds without opposition.

LobsterFeng:

Here's one: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

And here's one: http://graceforgrace.com/2008/08/30/mormon-temple-marriages-have-only-6-divorce-rate/

Both of them lead to more ones if you're still interested.

From Religious tolerance (YOUR link, mind):

Brigham Young University professor Daniel K. Judd computed in the year 2000 that only 6% of those Mormons who marry in a temple ceremony subsequently go through a temple divorce. This is a small fraction of the rate in the general American population. 3

Unfortunately, the value may not be accurate:

Most Mormons who have their marriage sealed in a temple ceremony and who subsequently divorce do so in a civil ceremony.

This avoids the rather complex temple "cancellation of sealing" (divorce) procedures. Thus, their divorce is not counted in the above figure.

Some Mormons marry in a temple ceremony, divorce in a civil procedure and subsequently remarry in a second temple ceremony. This would count as two temple marriages and zero temple divorces -- thus reducing the apparent divorce rate.

Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce -- a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. 5 Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate. 6 More info.

Emphasis mine.

Thank you for confirming that the LDS is cooking the books.

novixz:
marriage, at this point in society, is no longer needed.

This is correct.

Was it ever needed?

EDIT:

Finally decided to follow this thread up. Anyway, yes I'm 15. That does not mean I can't argue a topic and my reasoning be any less valid, anybody saying "oh you're only 15" needs to quite being so ignorant. Anyway, no my parent's are not getting a divorce, they've been happily married for 20~ years. What bought this up is how I was told "even if you don't love each other anymore, you made your choice now you have to live with it." Just thought it was an interesting topic. Anybody concerned about my profile picture should remember that ones taste in music isn't directly correlated how how much credibility one has. For the guy calling me out for me saying my occupation is "being the illest," (he was banned anyway) oh, I'm so sorry. How dare I liven up a page with a little bit of humor?! I'll repent immediately can then we can go and tidy up all the other uncleaned pages on the internet. The point I'm making is that marriage is really just a tradition from when people died young, so it's just a bit outdated, and we don't need it that much.

novixz:
snip.

you can argue a point

buuuuuut.....

this is just one of those things that you'll have to take peoples word on, it doesnt make you dumb or ignorant

but the lack of life expereince is a big deal, it seems odd to be told that you dont know anything

but in the grand scheme of things you really dont (hell I probably dont eather)

Myrmecodon:

Today's society might not be as free or as fun, but it would actually stand a chance of reproducing itself, versus dying off in one generation and getting replaced by far more inferior and repressive societies that care for reproducing themselves first

Oh my god, the darkies are breeding, THE DARKIES ARE BREEDING!!111!!11!!1

it never has and never will be, the very idea of it is stupid.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked