[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
TKDCadet04 wrote:
Ya, I’d definitely live with someone before getting married. Primarily because marriage for me is illegal where I am, so I really don’t have much choice on that front, haha.
Are you marrying your sister?[/quote]
Nope…same sex marriages aren’t legal in VA yet.
What’s the point of marriage besides getting people their greencards?
Well,marriages are supposed to help bring forth offspring I guess. To help bring about a new batch to support the state. Women especially like the glamour (real or imagined) of fancy settings such as the wedding. A man wears the same suit always,women have beautiful dresses of various kinds. And when married, the man (usually) risks losing a lot of wealth and even having to support her for life. Assuming that he obliges to marry her, the financial hardships of a divorce discourage separation even in cases of unhappiness.
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
BBriere wrote:
Our society today has a thought that it’s perfectly fine to live with someone and never get married. More couples that just live together though end up with infidelity issues and single mothers. It’s no coincidince. Usually the ones that make the excuses as to why not to get married are the ones that don’t really want to see themselves with that person for the rest of their lives.
Agreed. At my age, looking back, and looking into others relationships living together w/o being married is that they want the benefits, but are too afraid to take the next step, and just want the convenience of bonking someone whenever they want. Getting the milk without buying the cow so to speak.
Pesonally, to me, it’s a great INSULT to your lover to live with a them for more than six months or a year and NOT get married.
It took my girlfriend 6 months of living with me just to fart in front of me. How well can you possibly know someone after only living with them for 6 months or haven’t heard them fart?
You need a woman to fart in front of you in order to get to know her?
You don’t?
That’s like buying the cow without inspecting it’s butt. It’s just a no-no.
Hey you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up it’s ass too, but I’d rather take the Butcher word on it.
So, You NEED to have her fart? What is the criteria here? Does it need to smell a certain way, sound a certain way? Why would you inspect the fart as a relationship compatibility criteria??
[/quote]
This is along the same line as a continuing debate between my husband, my brother, my sister-in-law and I. Yes, it’s cool that we girls are laid-back enough to fart in front of the guys, but at the same time it stinks (we are both big protein eaters) and this erodes some sense of sweet femininity they want to preserve.
Lanky- I’m with you on the farting thing.
For all you morons that think you are so wise by living together before marriage:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html?test=latestnews
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.[/quote]
For retards like you: science has shown that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the glue that holds not just this society, but every society worth considering, together. This has been true for thousands of years. When marriage begins to disintegrate, so does the society. Many studies show that social integration and regulation decrease as marriages become fragmented or cease to occur. See this study for example on homicide and suiccide:
O’Brien, Robert M.; Stockard, Jean. Social Forces, Mar2006, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p1539-1557, 19p
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.
For retards like you: science has shown that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the glue that holds not just this society, but every society worth considering, together. This has been true for thousands of years. When marriage begins to disintegrate, so does the society. Many studies show that social integration and regulation decrease as marriages become fragmented or cease to occur. See this study for example on homicide and suiccide:
O’Brien, Robert M.; Stockard, Jean. Social Forces, Mar2006, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p1539-1557, 19p[/quote]
For retards like you: support your claims with more than vague appeals to authority and red herrings. Explain how society is “glued together” by marriage/the nuclear family and prove that it has been true for thousands of years. You cited a vaguely connected claim, so why not these more relevant ones? Or are you talking out of your ass? For bonus points, can you prove that marriage/the nuclear family was “necessary” prior to the emergence of masculine dominant cultures?
Also, I can think of “societies worth considering” that have strayed from this model, so I would like to hear which cultures you think are and are not worth considering (makes it pretty obvious you’re no history major!).
Which societies fell apart because of decrease in marriage (marriage being the primary factor, please no shoddy correlation studies - “As marriage decreased, so did the population of Northwest Europe during 1315-1317”)??? LOL Hell, define “fall apart” if it does not involve the ending of a society altogether.
Can you define social integration? In sociological terms does it not describe the process of a minority as a whole moving into a society’s mainstream?
What does that, or the study you cited, have to do with the issue at hand (namely my claim that marriage is an outdated social model)? You tried to vaguely connect it to prove something. Can you prove your claim AND know what you’re talking about at the same time?
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.
For retards like you: science has shown that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the glue that holds not just this society, but every society worth considering, together. This has been true for thousands of years. When marriage begins to disintegrate, so does the society. Many studies show that social integration and regulation decrease as marriages become fragmented or cease to occur. See this study for example on homicide and suiccide:
O’Brien, Robert M.; Stockard, Jean. Social Forces, Mar2006, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p1539-1557, 19p
For retards like you: support your claims with more than vague appeals to authority and red herrings. Explain how society is “glued together” by marriage/the nuclear family and prove that it has been true for thousands of years. You cited a vaguely connected claim, so why not these more relevant ones? Or are you talking out of your ass? For bonus points, can you prove that marriage/the nuclear family was “necessary” prior to the emergence of masculine dominant cultures?
Also, I can think of “societies worth considering” that have strayed from this model, so I would like to hear which cultures you think are and are not worth considering (makes it pretty obvious you’re no history major!).
Which societies fell apart because of decrease in marriage (marriage being the primary factor, please no shoddy correlation studies - “As marriage decreased, so did the population of Northwest Europe during 1315-1317”)??? LOL Hell, define “fall apart” if it does not involve the ending of a society altogether.
Can you define social integration? In sociological terms does it not describe the process of a minority as a whole moving into a society’s mainstream?
What does that, or the study you cited, have to do with the issue at hand (namely my claim that marriage is an outdated social model)? You tried to vaguely connect it to prove something. Can you prove your claim AND know what you’re talking about at the same time?[/quote]
I don’t have to prove it, it has already been done; the paper I cited proves it. There are many like it. Just do a search in the Ebsco, Gail or ProQuest science journal databases. These studies are done by sociologists - you know the scientists that study such things? If you don’t have access to such databases then go to a library.
Also, you may not have ever heard of them because you sound like an uneducated fool. One example of a society you may have heard about was Rome. Gibbons demonstrably shows this to be the case…as other historians on Rome do. In addition to that Cicero was an eye witness to it and confirms the historians conclusions.
By the way, social integration could be defined as you did but not in the general sociological sense. Integration and regulation have to do with contact with and relationships with other people along with the protocols that exist to control that contact.
In short the study I cited shows social integration and regulation decrease as non-marital births increase (and as a result suicide and murder increase). In other words women having babies out of wedlock; or that raise children in a divorced home, produce social miscreants that eventually tear society apart.
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
For all you morons that think you are so wise by living together before marriage:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html?test=latestnews [/quote]
wow, narrow minded much.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
For all you morons that think you are so wise by living together before marriage:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532600,00.html?test=latestnews
wow, narrow minded much. [/quote]
I base my opinions on facts and science - not my “feelings” or some new age philosophy. I didn’t realize there were so many hippies on T-Nation.
Fox News and the Colbert Report are all I watch to get my daily dose of the news. I know I’m as fair and balanced as 110 pound stripper with a size 44 DDD chest.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Fox News and the Colbert Report are all I watch to get my daily dose of the news. I know I’m as fair and balanced as 110 pound stripper with a size 44 DDD chest. [/quote]
Is that the best you can do? Attacking the messenger?
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.
For retards like you: science has shown that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the glue that holds not just this society, but every society worth considering, together. This has been true for thousands of years. When marriage begins to disintegrate, so does the society. Many studies show that social integration and regulation decrease as marriages become fragmented or cease to occur. See this study for example on homicide and suiccide:
O’Brien, Robert M.; Stockard, Jean. Social Forces, Mar2006, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p1539-1557, 19p
For retards like you: support your claims with more than vague appeals to authority and red herrings. Explain how society is “glued together” by marriage/the nuclear family and prove that it has been true for thousands of years. You cited a vaguely connected claim, so why not these more relevant ones? Or are you talking out of your ass? For bonus points, can you prove that marriage/the nuclear family was “necessary” prior to the emergence of masculine dominant cultures?
Also, I can think of “societies worth considering” that have strayed from this model, so I would like to hear which cultures you think are and are not worth considering (makes it pretty obvious you’re no history major!).
Which societies fell apart because of decrease in marriage (marriage being the primary factor, please no shoddy correlation studies - “As marriage decreased, so did the population of Northwest Europe during 1315-1317”)??? LOL Hell, define “fall apart” if it does not involve the ending of a society altogether.
Can you define social integration? In sociological terms does it not describe the process of a minority as a whole moving into a society’s mainstream?
What does that, or the study you cited, have to do with the issue at hand (namely my claim that marriage is an outdated social model)? You tried to vaguely connect it to prove something. Can you prove your claim AND know what you’re talking about at the same time?
I don’t have to prove it, it has already been done; the paper I cited proves it. There are many like it. Just do a search in the Ebsco, Gail or ProQuest science journal databases. These studies are done by sociologists - you know the scientists that study such things? If you don’t have access to such databases then go to a library.
Also, you may not have ever heard of them because you sound like an uneducated fool. One example of a society you may have heard about was Rome. Gibbons demonstrably shows this to be the case…as other historians on Rome do. In addition to that Cicero was an eye witness to it and confirms the historians conclusions.
By the way, social integration could be defined as you did but not in the general sociological sense. Integration and regulation have to do with contact with and relationships with other people along with the protocols that exist to control that contact.
In short the study I cited shows social integration and regulation decrease as non-marital births increase (and as a result suicide and murder increase). In other words women having babies out of wedlock; or that raise children in a divorced home, produce social miscreants that eventually tear society apart.
[/quote]
LOL, do you honestly believe the collapse of Rome was due to lack of marriage (as opposed to the myriad of other, more pressing factors)??? Do you know anything of history, or do you just blindly follow articles that support your pro-marriage position?
And you call me an “uneducated fool?”
From what I have seen of the study it has less to do with marriage and more to do with a child having both his/her parents in their life, together. If this is wrong, please link me to the entirety of the study. If this is correct, said study could prove my point just as well as yours, no?
You did not answer my original questions, so I’m assuming you can’t?
I’d be a bit worried if the only thing holding society together was the fact that two people had visited a registry office together, or had recited some vows in a church of some religion they probably don’t even believe.
I’d also like to point out that if anyone published serious research that only cited a single paper, they would look very foolish indeed. And it also helps if you don’t use phrases like “science has shown” and then refer to an article from a journal called “Social Forces.” I’m usually quite suspicious of sociologists making any kind of statistical analysis anyway.
And regarding the fall of Rome, I suspect the barbarian invasions may have contributed, but perhaps the barbarians were all bearing children out of wedlock.
^ Yeah, the “science has proven” statement was hilarious, namely because all this guy can rely on is statistical correlations. “Social sciences” are not natural sciences.
When you can biologically prove that marriage is a necessity, I’ll be convinced my view is incorrect.
Hehe, you guys can’t tell when someone is yanking your chain.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I’d be a bit worried if the only thing holding society together was the fact that two people had visited a registry office together, or had recited some vows in a church of some religion they probably don’t even believe.
I’d also like to point out that if anyone published serious research that only cited a single paper, they would look very foolish indeed. And it also helps if you don’t use phrases like “science has shown” and then refer to an article from a journal called “Social Forces.” I’m usually quite suspicious of sociologists making any kind of statistical analysis anyway.
And regarding the fall of Rome, I suspect the barbarian invasions may have contributed, but perhaps the barbarians were all bearing children out of wedlock.[/quote]
Read Gibbons and you can come back and we can talk about Rome. You sound like you got your education from the public school system.
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
LOL
GUYS PROTECT THE FAMILY!!! GAYS AND UNMARRIED COUPLES ARE RUINING SOCIETY!!!
Marriage is a dying social construct based upon control (and, for some, superstition). Its importance is dwindling and that seems to scare its proponents.
I wholly support unmarried couples living together.
For retards like you: science has shown that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the glue that holds not just this society, but every society worth considering, together. This has been true for thousands of years. When marriage begins to disintegrate, so does the society. Many studies show that social integration and regulation decrease as marriages become fragmented or cease to occur. See this study for example on homicide and suiccide:
O’Brien, Robert M.; Stockard, Jean. Social Forces, Mar2006, Vol. 84 Issue 3, p1539-1557, 19p
For retards like you: support your claims with more than vague appeals to authority and red herrings. Explain how society is “glued together” by marriage/the nuclear family and prove that it has been true for thousands of years. You cited a vaguely connected claim, so why not these more relevant ones? Or are you talking out of your ass? For bonus points, can you prove that marriage/the nuclear family was “necessary” prior to the emergence of masculine dominant cultures?
Also, I can think of “societies worth considering” that have strayed from this model, so I would like to hear which cultures you think are and are not worth considering (makes it pretty obvious you’re no history major!).
Which societies fell apart because of decrease in marriage (marriage being the primary factor, please no shoddy correlation studies - “As marriage decreased, so did the population of Northwest Europe during 1315-1317”)??? LOL Hell, define “fall apart” if it does not involve the ending of a society altogether.
Can you define social integration? In sociological terms does it not describe the process of a minority as a whole moving into a society’s mainstream?
What does that, or the study you cited, have to do with the issue at hand (namely my claim that marriage is an outdated social model)? You tried to vaguely connect it to prove something. Can you prove your claim AND know what you’re talking about at the same time?
I don’t have to prove it, it has already been done; the paper I cited proves it. There are many like it. Just do a search in the Ebsco, Gail or ProQuest science journal databases. These studies are done by sociologists - you know the scientists that study such things? If you don’t have access to such databases then go to a library.
Also, you may not have ever heard of them because you sound like an uneducated fool. One example of a society you may have heard about was Rome. Gibbons demonstrably shows this to be the case…as other historians on Rome do. In addition to that Cicero was an eye witness to it and confirms the historians conclusions.
By the way, social integration could be defined as you did but not in the general sociological sense. Integration and regulation have to do with contact with and relationships with other people along with the protocols that exist to control that contact.
In short the study I cited shows social integration and regulation decrease as non-marital births increase (and as a result suicide and murder increase). In other words women having babies out of wedlock; or that raise children in a divorced home, produce social miscreants that eventually tear society apart.
LOL, do you honestly believe the collapse of Rome was due to lack of marriage (as opposed to the myriad of other, more pressing factors)??? Do you know anything of history, or do you just blindly follow articles that support your pro-marriage position?
And you call me an “uneducated fool?”
From what I have seen of the study it has less to do with marriage and more to do with a child having both his/her parents in their life, together. If this is wrong, please link me to the entirety of the study. If this is correct, said study could prove my point just as well as yours, no?
You did not answer my original questions, so I’m assuming you can’t?[/quote]
Which questions did I not answer?
As to the study, those are not online you tard unless you have a subscription to the journal database that holds them. They are copyrighted and not free for distribution. Apparently you have never read a peer reviewed journal before. Anyway - just go the library. If you never have been to one ask a kid with parents, he will know…Kids without parents won’t so don’t ask them.
As to Rome - in short, yes. that is the core reason. And it is the reason our society is crumbling as well. Read Gibbons and Cicero dumbass.