For First Time, More Singles In U.S. Than Married Couples

[nehalem256]

Of course no one who's not an intolerant misogynist with mommy issues actually believes that.

Judges don't (start at the bottom of page 8 and keep reading)
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2388:Josner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

Neither do the states attorney's general who are trying to keep it illegal:

Notably the state does not argue that recognizing same-sex marriage undermines conventional marriage.

But you keep using that busted ol' argument. We've come to expect it from you.

You do realize that I was stating the exact opposite basically, right?

Destruction of marriage as a valuable societal institution is pretty much a prerequisite for same-sex marriage to make any kind of sense at all.

So in other words. Conventional marriage must be undermined before same-sex marriage makes sense.

Which is why 40 years ago same-sex marriage was laughed out of the court system.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm married, well educated (as is my wife), and we both earn good livings.

We have no intention of ever having kids.

It isn't my duty to have kids to prop up the economy or to add taxpayers to the population.

Not to worry.

People like this guy in Atlanta have it covered for you.

He has had 34 kids with 17 different women and you get to pay for every one of them.

9-10-2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ren_n_5768680.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Iyanla Vanzant To A Father Of 34 Children: Why Didn't You Get A Vasectomy?



Jay Williams is a successful video producer in Atlanta who has worked with some of the music industry's top talents.



"Let me ask you this question, Jay. Thirty-four children. At any point, did it dawn on you [that] this is too much?" Iyanla asks.


"No," Williams answers evenly.


When Iyanla asks Williams about using protection during sex, he insists that he did. "I probably would have 200 kids if I didn't use condoms," he says.


Williams says he never considered getting a vasectomy, either. "I don't want one," he explains, still holding the 14 dolls. "I don't have a problem with what I created."

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Not to worry.

People like this guy in Atlanta have it covered for you.

He has had 34 kids with 17 different women and you get to pay for every one of them.

Jay Williams is a successful video producer in Atlanta who has worked with some of the music industry's top talents.

Williams says he never considered getting a vasectomy, either. "I don't want one," he explains, still holding the 14 dolls. "I don't have a problem with what I created."

He can pay for his own and live in a box on the street since he "doesn't have a problem" with what he created.

 

[Paratus]

You do realize that I was stating the exact opposite basically, right?


So in other words. Conventional marriage must be undermined before same-sex marriage makes sense.

Which is why 40 years ago same-sex marriage was laughed out of the court system.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

But like I said you go right on with that old unsupported argument. If it gets you through the day.

 

[nehalem256]

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

But like I said you go right on with that old unsupported argument. If it gets you through the day.

Assume facts?

sorry, but its a fact that the courts tossed out same-sex marriage as blatantly absurd in 1972:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

[SlowSpyder]

Assume facts?

sorry, but its a fact that the courts tossed out same-sex marriage as blatantly absurd in 1972:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Divorce rates were just as high, if not higher, in 1972 than today. So if a high divorce rate is to blame for same sex marriage making sense today, why didn't it in 1972 when the trend was clearly moving towards more divorces than today when the trend looks to be the opposite? (my guess is because it is a bullshit argument)

 

[nehalem256]

Divorce rates were just as high, if not higher, in 1972 than today. So if a high divorce rate is to blame for same sex marriage making sense today, why didn't it in 1972 when the trend was clearly moving towards more divorces than today when the trend looks to be the opposite? (my guess is because it is a bullshit argument)

The rate tells you how many people are getting divorced. Not how many divorcees there are.

Also, its not just divorce, but the bastardom rate, which is much higher now.

There is also a difference between a 5-10 year trend of higher divorce/bastard rates in 1972 vs. a half century of the same don't you think?

Marriage rate declined from 10.6->6.8 or 36%
divorce rate declined from 5.3->3.6 or 32%.

Seems like the actual divorce rate as a fraction of marriages is increasing if anything.

In fact the only reason you could argue that divorce rates are falling is because marriage itself appears to be dying

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Nehalem, are you married? How many kids do you have?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The rate tells you how many people are getting divorced. Not how many divorcees there are.

How many people getting divorced determines how many divorcees there are. Geez dude, think about it.

Also, its not just divorce, but the bastardom rate, which is much higher now.

Move the goal posts.

There is also a difference between a 5-10 year trend of higher divorce/bastard rates in 1972 vs. a half century of the same don't you think?

*edit - Misunderstood what you said. The divorce rate was steadily increasing prior to 1972, for about 100 years... It appears to have been decreasing for the last 40+. This would be in conflict with your argument.

Marriage rate declined from 10.6->6.8 or 36%
divorce rate declined from 5.3->3.6 or 32%.

So less people are getting married, but more are staying married that do. Again, I don't see how this supports your argument that divorce is to blame for same sex marriage making sense in today's world.

Nehalem, are you married? How many kids do you have?

And this.

 

[IronWing]

It's good to see the He-man Women Haters Club standing firm in defense of traditional marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

How many people getting divorced determines how many divorcees there are. Geez dude, think about it.

Wrong. PAST divorce rate determines how many divorcees there are.

Move the goal posts.

I don't remember agreeing that the goal post was only divorce. If we are talking about traditional marriage talking about the bastard rate is at least as important.

*edit - Misunderstood what you said. The divorce rate was steadily increasing prior to 1972, for about 100 years... It appears to have been decreasing for the last 40+. This would be in conflict with your argument.

And appears to have shot up drastically in 1967.

And as I said the divorce rate isn't decreasing as % of marriages.

So less people are getting married, but more are staying married that do.

This is completely false as I demonstrated. If the marriage rate decreases 50%, but the divorce rate only goes down 40% then less people are staying married.

Again, I don't see how this supports your argument that divorce is to blame for same sex marriage making sense in today's world.
And this.

I don't remember making that argument.

So in other words. Conventional marriage must be undermined before same-sex marriage makes sense

You are the one taking divorce rate as the only measure of conventional marriage. And I would agree that it started breaking down before 1972 anyway.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I notice you keep dodging my question. I think that says quite a bit.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I notice you keep dodging my question. I think that says quite a bit.

So from Nehalem's non-response to the two questions which have been repeatedly asked of him in this thread (Are you married? How many kids do you have?), I can surmise that the answers are "No" and "None" respectively. Gotta love people implying that you're "selfish" or somehow bad because you don't have or want kids while they have none themselves. His dogged defense of hetero marriages is also interesting since apparently, he is NOT MARRIED.

Please Nehalem, correct me if I am wrong and those AREN'T the answers to the questions.

 

[Svnla]

I saw with my own eyes that women lied about being abuse (verbally because of no physical marks on their bodies) to leave their husbands and the poor chaps did have to pay for child support up to their noses just because those women did not want to stay (cheating, wanting something new, etc.).

 

[Sonikku]

War violates the sanctity of marriages.

 

[werepossum]

As long as gays can't marry, then it stays sacred and keeps the 'traditional' definition, though.

My exwife had to pay me $300/month in child support until she lost her job. You guys are marrying (and divorcing) the wrong women.

I thought the same, that it's ironic that we conservatives are decrying the decline of marriage while fighting the one group of people whose desire for marriage is increasing.

And I thought surely my divorce, which cost $85 (of which $35 was court costs), meant I won the divorce wars. I now see I was sadly mistaken.

It's good to see the He-man Women Haters Club standing firm in defense of traditional marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

I thought the same, that it's ironic that we conservatives are decrying the decline of marriage while fighting the one group of people whose desire for marriage is increasing.

Its not really ironic at all. If marriage is declining, expanding the definition of marriage to include not-marriage doesn't fix the problem. If anything it will make the problem worse by making the idea of marriage sillier.

 

[werepossum]

Its not really ironic at all. If marriage is declining, expanding the definition of marriage to include not-marriage doesn't fix the problem. If anything it will make the problem worse by making the idea of marriage sillier.

Why would it make it sillier? If to use your tongue-in-cheek example people gain the right to marry toasters, that does not affect my marriage at all. My own marriage is still defined by what we put into it.

And gay marriage is only "not-marriage" because it's currently defined as such. Same with interracial marriage. Once it's legal, it ceases to be an issue.

 

[nehalem256]

Why would it make it sillier? If to use your tongue-in-cheek example people gain the right to marry toasters, that does not affect my marriage at all.

So you really don't think if the society started recognizing people marrying toasters as equal to people marrying that it would have an impact on the institution of marriage in society?

If that is true why does it seem that so many people are so offended by even the suggestion of it?:hmm:

My own marriage is still defined by what we put into it.

I think this statement pretty much sums up our difference in thought.

You are viewing marriage as in individual(or couple) endeavor. Whereas I am viewing it as a societal institution.

Does marriage exist to serve society or to serve individuals.

And gay marriage is only "not-marriage" because it's currently defined as such.

If marriage can be anything then it is meaningless.

And I don't think anyone really believes what you just said anyway. By the same argument toaster marriage is only "not-marriage" because it's currently defined as such. But yet the same supporters of same-sex marriage pitch an awfully big fit about how toaster marriage isn't marriage D:

Same with interracial marriage. Once it's legal, it ceases to be an issue.

Which is a horrible analogy:

Just because I don’t agree with an argument, however, doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Marriage has historically been a sexual institution. A rational person can maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together—that is, two people of the same sex—can’t be a marriage. That argument doesn’t justify denying them the right to love one another openly, nor does it justify denying them the benefits and honors we bestow on couples for making lifetime commitments. But it can justify a person’s refusal to accept a same-sex relationship as a marriage.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/...e_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html

And in fact same-sex marriage advocates clearly believe that as well. Because otherwise they couldn't argue that banning same-sex marriage was discriminating against homosexuals.

 

[Paratus]

So you really don't think if the society started recognizing people marrying toasters as equal to people marrying that it would have an impact on the institution of marriage in society?

If that is true why does it seem that so many people are so offended by even the suggestion of it?:hmm:



I think this statement pretty much sums up our difference in thought.

You are viewing marriage as in individual(or couple) endeavor. Whereas I am viewing it as a societal institution.

Does marriage exist to serve society or to serve individuals.



If marriage can be anything then it is meaningless.

And I don't think anyone really believes what you just said anyway. By the same argument toaster marriage is only "not-marriage" because it's currently defined as such. But yet the same supporters of same-sex marriage pitch an awfully big fit about how toaster marriage isn't marriage D:



Which is a horrible analogy:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/...e_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html

And in fact same-sex marriage advocates clearly believe that as well. Because otherwise they couldn't argue that banning same-sex marriage was discriminating against homosexuals.

Marriage is both for the couple and society. If it was one or the other people wouldn't do it or the government wouldn't endorse it.

Marriage is not only about sex and children. As a legal example, Indiana specifically allows 1st cousins to marry only after they are too old to conceive a child. Why allow first cousins to marry in the first place if there is no non-child bearing benefit to the couple or society?

SSM provides benefits to both the couple and society regardless of sex or children. But in reality stable two parent households are better for raising children and homosexual couples are on average more likely to adopt.

Overall it strengthens the institution without making any large changes to the institution.

Religious institutions may still decline to marry homosexuals but that has no bearing on civil benefits.

 

[shira]

About the obvious bias of the law. What kind of fucked up country makes it so a woman can run off with another man while you are serving your country and still be entitled to half your stuff?

There's no bias at all. A man can run off with another woman while his wife is serving her country, and he's still entitled to half of her stuff.

So why would you be confused?