[quote]mmllcc wrote:
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What does that, or the study you cited, have to do with the issue at hand (namely my claim that marriage is an outdated social model)?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?
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.
[/quote]
Are you unable to comprehend everything you read? If not, re-read my first response to you and answer all the questions posed. I’m pretty sure you have read the questions but are simply unable to answer them.
LOL, many studies are available online with or without subscription. If you feel uncomfortable providing me with the study due to distribution restriction, and not because it does not prove the point you tried to make, that’s okay. I will find it. If, however, it’s due to the latter reason (you did not correct my assumption of the study’s findings), you fail.
As to Rome - you’re an idiot if you believe that (Gibbons himself points to many factors - why are you reducing his view?). Cicero is a proponent you agree with - why don’t you read things that conflict with YOUR viewpoint instead of only things that confirm it? How is Cicero relevant to a discussion of modern marriage and marital values anyway? Marriage has not been static, particularly in the last few decades. His word does not apply.
How is our society crumbling?