So you are saying that couples who choose not to sign that paper have no morals or values?

Because truth be told, I know plenty of married couples with non of those of which you speak

From a business perspective; it's a bad contract.

Legally contracted to someone for the rest of your life because you have/had sex with them?

In the 21st century I can't believe anyone's dumb enough to sign that contract.

I doubt it. This is a crazy study/survey. One to be ignored. I was such an independant female that fell hard for my love at the age of 29. We married at at the age of 32. I was not your normal female and was a work-ahololic. We eloped in the Florida keys with intimate friends as attendents only. No need for the one year to 6 months of pain in the rear planning. I just loved my man and wanted the world to know it. Marriage was great for me and my husband, as most friends of ours. He was my best friend.

Some people move towards marriage because it is the next step, not because of intense love and respect. Those are usually the ones that fail..

I agree with Sandra-Brooks. And I am actually MUCH like her! Married my best friend five years ago when I was 38 yrs old. I too was very independent. Our wedding was not a big deal. It was a Hawaiian theme. I didn't care what anyone wore as long as they were there with us and celebrating. For my husband and I it was a celebration of our love and unity. It wasn't about the size of the ring..or the dress...or if God was there or not. It was a joining of two people with love and respect for each other. We have had some bumps in the last five years, but work at our relationship. I am proud to be married, but don't think it is for everyone, and I certainly don't believe that married couples hold the moral standard just because they are married.

Nikita, they simply said morals and values are becoming obsolete. Stop putting your words into the thoughts of others to twist them your way. You must be a politician. Unfortunately, they are right and that statement is supported by scientific studies.

you know, last time I checked...people who commit these school shootings like columbine and work shootings are people who come from homes where parents are married. I don't know... I don't htink it matters if you are married or not, what DOES matter is HOW a person is raised...

LU, if what you say it true then why are homosexual couples trying so hard, spending so much time, energy and money getting what you say is so stupid. I guess they must be the most stupid of the stupid? Is that what you are saying? Personally I think you are wrong.

What's becoming obsolete is a caring and ordered society.

Yep, it is vital that our sexual relations be sanctioned by a man wearing bizarre looking, and very colorful robes, who represents the Creator of the Universe, and therefore we are moral. Yes, we need to register our relationship at the courthouse. Now, we may be mean and neglectful, we may put our jobs, our golf game, our pursuit of entertianment of all sorts above the needs of the person we have chosen to share our life with, but by golly, we are moral. We went down to a building that is generally used once a week, for people who want to speak to the Creator of the Universe and say certain words. Yep, we could have been immoral. We could have simply shared a house, brought home groceries, looked after and cared for the children, made sure they got educated, worked hard and provided well, yep, we could have done all that but we would be immoral if we didn't go to the special building where you can talk to the creator of the universe, and have that man is colorful robes say that it is all right to have sexual relations with this person. That's what makes you moral.

Jack your hypocrite is showing! You attack me for my comment then go on to say "what's becoming obsolete is a caring society" Bwaha!

Calm down there dude..I was asking her to clarify her statment in my first question..go back and read it again! I wasn't attacking her. I was stating my opinion, just like her, something I thought we were free to do here.

Lol..and as for your politician comment...no I am not a politician, I am a lowly little clerical assistant at an insurance office..but thanks!

The reason gays are trying to get sam-sex marriage approved is for the same rights and benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples under that government issued license. Personally, I feel the term on the license and all 1400+ laws should be amended to "civil union" for all couples and let the religious organizations keep the word "marriage", even though the term was used by many societies/cultures not related to a specific religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only religion or culture in ancient times to use the term.

Yep, it is vital that our sexual relations be sanctioned by a man wearing bizarre looking, and very colorful robes, who represents the Creator of the Universe, and therefore we are moral. Yes, we need to register our relationship at the courthouse.

Actually, the institution of marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. If it were so, as you contend with your simpleton explanation, then explain why Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhists, Confucists etc. etc. marry? Marriage in-fact historically has been recognised as a "business of the state". People that were married were more likely to have many children which resulted in soldiers and workers who fought and paid taxes, respectively! Having children was paramount to the advancement of culture and economic prosperity. Christianity and many other religions came looooooong after the institution of marriage. You my friend need to pick-up a history book or two and at the very least need to go on vacation abroad (probably for the first time in your life) to see the Sphinx, Pyramids or maybe visit the old Macedonian ruins. If you did, you would never post such bogus hogwash that only bowels from simplistic minds such as yours!

What this says is people are afraid to commit. Now if you cannot even commit to someone you profess to love, how can you commit to anything? This is a bad trend.

I wonder how many of these unorthodox families live near the poverty line.

I see this sort of thing all the time, two people accidentally have a child and agree that they both will share baby duties and move in together to help one another out. However, after 2 years or so, one of the parents usually takes off.

People understand that divorce is expensive, and are afraid of committing. Well, I'm sorry, but if you have a child with someone, love them or hate them, you need to be part of that someones life. People need to stop thinking of children as an unfortunate "side effect" of sex.

Statistics show kids who live with a single mother are 4 times more likely to commit suicide. Those children are six times more likely to drop out of school,and 15 times more like to have behavioral disorders.

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13450444

What this says is people are afraid to commit. Now if you cannot even commit to someone you profess to love, how can you commit to anything? This is a bad trend.

Commit? Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. What is a committment if divorce is readily availabe?

But if the marriage dissolves there are legal advantages as opposed to playing house.

kpokeefe - I believe they were mocking people who pretend like the only way to be moral is to have their priest/pastor marry them in a church of god.

That said, I dont believe "the family" is going by the wayside, just the way we define it. I dont think its good or bad, there have always been rotten home lives for kids - whether the parents were married or not, so this element to me is not changing. It's just part of human evolution and figuring things out...and in a free society such as the US, its paramount that humans decide for themselves what they consider to be "family".

I know for gay people, we have (for as long as I can remember) used the word "family" to refer to other gay people - and this was primarily because so many gays and lesbians had been kicked out of their biological familes. The fact that this word isnt very commonly used amongst gay people anymore...and so many of my friends families who initially were cold and unloving to them, have turned the corner and welcomed them back into the family...tells me that society is evolving to understand that family, is 100% what you make it. Biology means nothing, love means everything.

"unorthodox families?" Please clarify. To lump non married couples into the poverty/unorthodox box is pretty brave...or stupid..sorry

Yep, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and sorts of others dress in bizarre robes and go to special buildings to speak to the creator, or creators of the universe, and of course, have then sanction their sexual relations as something being holy. Our ancestors lived in caves and beat dinner over the head, instead of farming, I suppose we should have kept that tradition, too.

Well, I'm sorry, but if you have a child with someone, love them or hate them, you need to be part of that someones life. People need to stop thinking of children as an unfortunate "side effect" of sex.

Children ARE a side effect of sex, whether you want to admit it or not. If you are not careful, you will get pregnant ... period. Just because you get pregnant does not mean that you should try and force a relationship with the partner. If that relationship has little chance of surviving, it is far better to not even attempt it. It also does not mean you should see abortion or adoption as your only other options. Now days, it is very difficult to find a partner who is not already encumbered with children from another relationship. If you happen to be happily married to the one that you share children with, consider yourself very fortunate. However, it is not the end of the world if it does not work out that way.

Nikita,

Sorry, but I do not count two unmarried couples living together as a family (I do understand some couples can not get married, and I am pro gay marriage, however, two unmarried couples are roommates with "benefits")

Future History,

Children are the RESULT of sex, NOT side effect. People need to be more picky with who they choose to sleep with. You have a child and the relationship doesn't work out......fine, but you both need to have a amicable relationship with each other for the childs sake. The statistic I posted above about children living with a single parent speaks volumes!

This is Websters definition of the word Family

Definition of FAMILY
1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household
2a : a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race
3a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common

I don't see the word Marriage in there whatsoever. You are completely entitled to your opinon of course. I just don't see how two people who live together with children can't be defined as a family just because they don't have a piece of paper.

Nikita,

I did not say the two people who live together with children can't be defined as a family. In fact I do consider them a family. Two unmarried people without children I define as roommates (again, I mean no disrespect to gay couples who CAN'T get married, only those couples that CHOOSE not to get married)

Oh, well then I guess I misconstrued this comment you made

"Sorry, but I do not count two unmarried couples living together as a family"

I apologize. On a lighter note, my husband and I live alone (his kids visit every other weekend)but we do have a large cat. I consider us a family..lol. Even if the cat wasn't there, I consider my husband my family.

Nikita,

Thank you for being civil.

Your family sounds lovely and may God bless your family.

Cult,

People need to be more picky with who they choose to sleep with.

Are you saying that you have never had sex with someone you would be willing to settle down and attempt to maintain a family with? That is a ridiculous notion in this day and age. What IS important is that it is SAFE SEX.

I believe they were mocking people who pretend like the only way to be moral is to have their priest/pastor marry them in a church of god.

I suppose we should have kept that tradition, too.

Living in caves a" tradition"? How about they didn't possess the capabilities of sawing, casting, binding etc. etc. What an idiot! TRADITION, LMAO!

Yep, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and sorts of others dress in bizarre robes and go to special buildings

Yeah, and MBAs, MDs, DMDs,Phds, JDs, judges and high thinkers dress in bizarre robes and go to special buildings too to proclaim there intellectual prowess over others or the average person or achiever! In fact many of us here have worn those funny robes at one point or another and I can honestly admit it wasn't what made me successful or more intellectual than other people. So what is your point with Robes and Marriage? If you want a little history lesson to open the pin head of a brain that you obviously have then read about the rein of Clovis I in the 6th Century AD and you will see where marriage and the Christian faith come together historically. Marriage has nothing to do with the Christian faith no more so than Islam is synonymous with marriage. If you want to bitch about one faith controlling "sex", you ought to spend more of your efforts complaining about Muslims. They kill women and men who have sex outside their marriage. Seems to me that killing people would concern you more than chastising, but I guess that is just me and not because I've worn a few funny or bizarre robes in my life!

Legally contracted to someone for the rest of your life because you have/had sex with them?

I know that's probably the basis for 6 out of every 10 marriages, but I don't think that's actually supposed to be the basis of the contract. Probably why the divorce rate is so high.

Future

Are you saying that you have never had sex with someone you would be willing to settle down and maintain a family with?

You are probably right. However, I am more concerned about any children. Like I posted above, kids from single parent families have more behavioral problems, are more likely to commit suicide, and drop out of school. If someone is a single parent, they should not have any one-night stands, or relationships with someone who doesn't want to help raise that child. Kid's are priority #1, the single parent is second.

thank you cult of personality! Same back atcha!

I find it really bizarre too, that judges still wear robes, though not nearly as colorful as those of a religious sort. In Great Britain, and many former colonies they still wear those ridiculous looking wigs. People, their cultures and traditions change over time. To insist that we continue to live in the same manner as our ancestors as the only way to be moral is ridiculous. I visited the Jefferson Memorial a couple of years ago and written upon the walls was a great statement about how we should not be forced to live under the same laws as our 'barborous ancestors' because it would be like forcing a man to wear the same clothing as he did as a child. He stated further that we would not cut the man to fit the clothes. This applies to marriage. From antiquity human beings have been 'married' meaning that the priest, imam or some other appointed shaman pronounced their sexual relations to be somehow special and holy in the eyes of Jehovah, God, Dios, Allah, Ahura Mazda or whatever, and therefore, they can be as mean, ugly, hurtful and abusive as they like but by golly, they were moral because the great holy man said so. People used to get married when they were about twenty or so and then lived another twenty or so years. Now they get married when they are twenty or so but live to be eighty. Do you suppose these people have not changed, that they have not acquired new and different interests? That somehow they can still stand the site of each other after these long, long decades? People and circumstances change and therefore our most basic instituttions need to change. We don't live in the 6th century anymore. We don't live in prehistoric times either. In our culture we call this year 2010, even though our earth is nearly five billion years old. We are vastly different beings from those who painted on the walls of caves. We live longer, know more and have greatly improve our capability for thinking. Therefore we need to change and improve our institutions to suit our needs instead of living as our ancestors did.

The institution of marriage does not fail; people fail.

If 40% of Americans believe that marriage is obsolete, then we are in trouble.

Marriage is also a commitment to God also if you have it performed in a church, so we are also saying God is obsolete? I think we are walking down the wrong path; take away the church, synagogue and mosque are you are left with survival of the fittest. Watch the Discovery channel, animals eat other animals and we are going that direction (not a literal reference to cannibalism, but a symbolic one).

@Cult of Personality. I agree... being a divorced mother with a 9 yr old boy. He is doing much better than if we had stayed together. When I began dating I made it a point to NOT introduce ANYONE to my son until it was something serious. His emotional stability IS my #1 priority and I make that well known to any guys I have dated. Thank goodness I have met a great guy and he is really caring toward the both of us and he is also concerned in turning out a decent stable human being.

I do NOT condone all the single/divorced females that date guys X,Y,Z and introduce them to the family for them to only take off and have all the emotional turmoil in the child's lives.

Also, both my son and I are both fortunate in that we are doing fine economically, so being a divorced/single parent is not limited to economic lower stratus, much less ignorance.

@Future History - I think the point Cult was trying to make is not that you have to marry or even live with a person if you have a child together, but that you will forever be tied to one another if you choose to keep the child. And he/she is absolutely correct, people do need to be more picky about who they choose to sleep with. And for the record, no, I have never had sex with anyone I wasn't willing to start a family with.

We don't live in the 6th century anymore. We don't live in prehistoric times either. In our culture we call this year 2010, even though our earth is nearly five billion years old. We are vastly different beings from those who painted on the walls of caves. We live longer, know more and have greatly improve our capability for thinking. Therefore we need to change and improve our institutions to suit our needs instead of living as our ancestors did.

Amazing how people don't get it. Marriage is about growing our culture and assuring the prosperity and future of the State! WITHOUT MORE PEOPLE a culture dies off. It was that way in Ancient times, Renaissance, Colonial, pre-industrial revolution, and post industrial revolution. Without people our economy doesn't exist. When you watch the stock market go UP and DOWN year after year, what in the hell do you think you are looking at? CONSUMPTION and the INFLUENCE of our culture. Yes, corporations like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, GM, etc. etc. represent culture. It is why markets are studied in sociology by people who wear and hope to wear funny robes one day. Each and everyday the market represents how We feel about the future. Some days good and some days bad. One of the major reasons that we here in America let illegals in to this country is because AMERICANS AREN'T REPRODUCING! We are having 1.6 kids per couple. At that rate without the influx of other cultures and peoples into our society, OUR LEVEL of CONSUMPTION will fall. Look at the Japanese market for the last 30 years!!! Case and point! Marriage promotes HEALTHY reproduction and further advances the "Business of the State" hence a tax break for marriage and children. What an amazing concept! If you careless, then I would ask why you are contributing to your 401ks each month! Now maybe the light bulb will go on as to what marriage is all about today as well as yester-year! We haven't outgrown consumption! They did it in caves and they still do it in Seaside mansions!

What this poll tells me is that about 40% of those Americans polled are nitwits.

natedom - while I don't recommend it, my daughter is proof that it is not imperative for both parents to be involved. She has a 3 yr old whose father was nothing but a problem and has not been there since many months before she was born. My grand daughter has much family to love and raise her, and she is very well adjusted thus far. Having him in her life would definitely not have made things easier. Even though my daughter is working very hard in college and has two jobs, she has once again f'ed up and gotten herself pregnant by someone who is not a suitable partner for her. To top things off, she is moving out of state to be closer to her family, and will not be able to have the father involved in any meaningful way. Nobody is too happy about it, but it is what it is, and she has proven that it is not impossible for this situation to work itself out into a loving, family environment. I just hope this is the last time it happens with someone who is not suitable to step in and do the right thing.

What can I say I love my spouse. I don't abuse my spouse or our children and it works well. The problem is that far too many people have bought into the idea of love and family as portrayed on the movie screen. Relationships, especially marriage, require lots of hard work and many folks are not willing to put in the work that the relationship takes.

Being unwed and opposing marriage are totally different things. I have family members who did not marry, or actually divorced in order to receive more financial aid for their kids education.

The priorities of the me generation don't work well in a committed relationship.

It's not that marriage is obsolete, it's people are less willing to deal with adversity, less willing to compromise, less willing to work through tough situations.

After reading some of these comments, I just had to reply. All these statements about what defines a family, the risks to children in a single parent household, have me second guessing my family. I am single mother, and not because I never married, had one nightstands, married before they were born, or because my children's dad walked out, but because he died. Yes, my kids have some issues, but they are related to dealing with the lose of a parent. My kids are happy healthy individuals for the most part. So far 2 of the 4 have finished school. And it wasn't because they had married parents. We were only married 9 of the 21 years we shared. It's about how you raise them. It's how you love them that matter. Kids act out for all sorts of reason, it's how you deal with it that makes a difference. Single , married, or unmarried none of it matters. A family is what you make it. Just like having a child does not make one a parent. Being married does not make a family.

Humans are not monogamous by nature. In my opinion, the only useful purpose that marriage serves these days, is for couples who want to make a legal commitment to having and raising children, and if they want to continue to stay together when those children have grown and left the nest, then more power to them.

As for morals and values in our society, they are disappearing as our population grows (or overgrows). This is true for ALL sectors of our society, both married and unmarried; rich and poor.

Susan, it will sound rude...but. I think you don't work, and want (or have) several children, and that is your life's purpose. Since diversity is not your strong point, you consider folks that don't share that mission in life to be low on morals and standards.

I personally hope families have less children (so others don't have to contribute their tax dollars to defray your costs), and both parents work so the right morals and values (taking care of one self while contributing to the whole) will be passed on to your female children.

Sorry if it sounds sexist...but I have seen to many examples of divorces that have totally unprepared for life outside of having kids and being a stay at home mom.

This is not about morals it's about law. As a man and to a lesser degree women (depending on local laws).Getting married is similar to taking everything you own selling it off and going to Vegas and betting it all on red or black. 50-50 shot you will either win big or lose it all. There is no real benefit to marriage and I am encouraging my sons not to get married. It is has nothing to do with morals, or love. It has everything to do with it being nothing more then a legally binding contract. You don't have to be married to be in love or be together or even have children. But at least if you are not married and things don't work out at least both parties (usually) can walk away with what they started with.

As long as people treat each other with respect and dignity, the way they themselves would want to be treated, then morals and values will always persevere. it doesn't matter what the family structure is.



There is no courage like "internet courage" to bring out the nastiness in people. Especially on such a topic as this. And now for my two cents....

I have to disagree with the sentiment that children are a side effect of sex, and my argument comes from a biological standpoint. Children are the product, yea, the purpose, if I may dare to say, of sex. Sexual reproduction is something that is not unique to the human race and, in fact, applies to every multicellular organism that I can think of and even a few single celled organisms. Reproduction is the "design" and goal of sex. I would argue that it is pleasure that is the side effect of sex as evidenced by the fact that physiologically speaking not every sexually reproducing organism experiences pleasure (or even pain) from the act of sexual reproduction. The pleasure we feel from sex is an artifact of our nervous systems and is not strictly speaking necessary for sexual intercourse or reproduction. The fact that people are convinced that sex is about pleasure is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Now I've said that, as a man with a foot in two worlds, science and religion are two separate things. Science being a system of explaining, understanding, and learning about how the universe around us works, and religion being a psychological construct we use both as an adaptation to the fear of death and as a system of philosophies and values that we use to regulate our lives and social interactions.

So, putting my religious hat on, I would like to draw on a quote from the Bible/Torah where I believe it was Abraham who said to a mass of people in front of his house, "Do what you will, but for me and my house, we will follow the Lord." Marriage, while not the sole property of one religion, is universal to the human race and is itself a social/psychological construct that we use to try and cement the concept of family to try and create more coherent socially and psychologically healthy community units. I regulate myself and my family by the simplest and most vital of Biblical ethics: the two commandments which Christ said define/contain/hold/use a thesaurus all other commandments, 1)Love God with all your heart, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. I personally hold marriage as an essential component of my "new" family as well as the marriage of my mother and father an essential component of my "old" family (for lack of a better way to label the two family units comes to mind). The morality and ethics with which I raise my children is also important, even more so than the wedding band on my finger. However, marriage is also an important aspect of family in its own right.

In my mind the purpose of sex is to have children, the purpose of marriage is to be a family (however symbolic marriage may be to that end), and the purpose of family is to support each other and to help raise children, if present.

I will not, however, judge one way or another anyone who currently lives in a functional, psychologically healthy family unit that does not fit within my paradigm. I also recognize that there do exist many people who live in a "traditional" family unit that is dysfunctional and psychologically destructive. In these exceptions to my point of view neither the presence or absence of marriage will improve the situations of these types of family units, for their situations are due to different social factors than marraige.

My spouse (of 30 years) and I never had the "piece of paper." Didn't need it – the love and comittment was always there. Also present were the highest morals and values one can possess based upon our upbringing and beliefs. We simply lived by the "Golden Rule." A marriage license would not have changed anything!

The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
Carl Jung

I did not read in depth all the posts above but it seem like

PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT regarding the socioeconomic history of marriage and "family"

Think of it this way, during times of hardship, multiple generations and even extended family tend to dwell together to pool resources. When times are good, two adult households become popular and even one adult with children can work.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO ECONOMICS.

If another great depression hit and times became hard, ideas about family would shift to conservative again.

Morals? MORALS? Lets looks at facts . . .

First: Marriage is an ancient institution first documented in ancient Babylonian law on the Code of Hammurabi. NOT A RELIGIOUS LAW.

Second: Christians came to Babylon to convert the citizens, discovered the law, and ripped off the marriage portion for themselves.

Third: The government now requires a legal contract to be signed when married. This contract is NOT religious in nature and stipulates that two parties shall be legally bound together, wherein there assets shall be joined unless a separate contract exists to define asset ownership (pre-nup). Upon dissolution these assets shall be separated evenly, determined by the court, unless otherwise stipulated in the pre-nup.

Fourth: Upon dissolution, unless otherwise spelled out in a separate contract (pre-nup), the partner with the highest assets shall continue to pay the other partner for a specified period of time. This is called alimony. Think of it like a parking meter . . . you park your car, put your quarters in, and when you leave you have to CONTINUE to put quarters in the meter because you had previously used it.

To wrap up, these "morals" you preach were actually ancient law STOLEN by religious leaders (this is historical FACT, not opinion) and now converted into a business contract by the government. So please, explain . . . which part is "moral"? The stolen part, or the current business contract? I would love to know.

LU- I can aggree with you my friend. That contract is really stupid. Here is my story to support this...I got married young to a woman I thought loved me the way I loved her,but, to my surprise 10 years after the weeding and she got her citizenship papers she wanted out of the marriage. So now I am in the hole for $3000 a mont in child support and alimony for a woman who came to this country and used that contact as a means to secure financial security. I am just waiting 5 more years until my twins are 18 so I could be done with that BIAAATCH..

Morals and values are becoming obsolete.

Don't give me that crap! People can lead moral lives without having Sarah Palin's idea of "values" being forced on them! Palin's morals are a joke anyway...one daughter has a baby out of wedlock, one makes homophobic slurs on Facebook, one is an on-stage prop to make mommy look good...no thank you!

I've lived "in sin" with the same woman for nearly 14 years. We've never needed the piece of paper to validate us. I would marry her in a heartbeat, but the stupid laws in this country would punish us for doing so. I'm disabled, and the law says that I'd have to give up much of my health insurance and be forced to go on hers. If the laws were reversed to favor getting married I'd do it in a heartbeat. As it is now, we'd have to wait until she retires to get married -- which we will -- but by then we'll have lived together for more than 20 years.

If these stupid, Bible thumping Republicans would get off their high horse concerning "morals" and "values" and stop penalizing people for getting married maybe the cited statistics would change. In the meantime, the Thumpers need only look in the mirror for an explanation of why four in ten see marriage as "obsolete"...

so correct...i had soo many nasty arguments on posts like this w/females who were nothing but ho,s,fem-bots who all they said is "oh u got serious issues" and some guys who didnt have enough Testes's who all ways seemed to side and make stupid comments and wanted to appease the other gender, iam against and vocal bout women who abuse and exploited a system that is broken and bias and use their god given gifts of child bearing to steal and live off of the kids they bring into this world and the money from the fathers they trick into giving them sperm but at the same time..they DEMAND equality and they pick and choose their equality...not all women are like that but the bad outnumber the good..

Nantucket -

Marriage, while not the sole property of one religion, is universal to the human race and is itself a social/psychological construct that we use to try and cement the concept of family to try and create more coherent socially and psychologically healthy community units.

Most Americans do not see it this way anymore. As evidenced by so many comments in this forum, it is viewed as a contract, whereby one person stands to gain and the other stands to lose should the contract be broken. The odds of the contract being broken are currently hovering around 50% for first marriages, and they grow higher for subsequent marriages. Hollywood, musicians and sports figures are huge influences in US society, and they do very little to promote the sanctity of marriage. Kids growing up in broken or dysfunctional homes don't witness this sanctity either.

"Marriage" and "family" simply are not synonymous with one another anymore. In fact, current thinking is that "staying together for the sake of the children" is actually detrimental to the children ... most of whom are relieved once the parents finally wise up and separate, thus bringing peace and civility back into the home. There is too much work to be done to reverse this trend for it to even be feasible. We have to let it go and evolve into the mindset that "family" is whatever arrangement brings the most peace and love to those who are affected, and it is much more of a moving target than a lifetime commitment.

No, just your opinion about them.

Hate to disappoint you DoubleJ1-1855874, but if your sons didn't get married but lived as if they were married, most states will allow either person in the relationship to claim a common-law marriage which requires a divorce!! So be sure to tell your sons to also not take trips, share bank accounts purchase items, co-sign a lease..anything that normal married couples would do.

Needless to say, telling your sons not to do those things is stupid and ridiculous. What you should instead be doing is teaching them how to be responsible partners, and identify a suitable mate and be aware and prepared for the challenges that relationships will bring. These will occur married or not. Why don't you just say that you're weaklings afraid of any challenges in life and would rather chicken out, that's all I really hear.

I don't know where to begin with the seemingly anti-marriage folks here. To say marriage is pointless because it could end in divorce...well, life ends in death, so why don't you get a gun and shoot yourself now, saves you the time of living 40+ years and then dying.

As for the "independent" people...it's so stupid to read that. As far as I know, adults are SUPPOSED to be independent. I feel like the incessant need to label yourself as such really just highlights an insecurity about your status as an adult. Never have I felt the urge to have to tell people I'm independent and being married has never affected that status...and further, unless you live on a dessert island by yourself, you depend on other people, so get that foolishness out your head.

There is a reason states try so hard to keep people married, aside from the numerous studies that suggest children in married households generally do better than children in single parent households, there are numerous other areas in which either a family and/or society benefit. Married couples are more likely to make purchases such as a house, cars, vacation homes etc. Married people will move around less, and thus make for better long term employees (in theory). After all, there is a reason gay people want to get married, because there are tons of associated benefits.

There isn't a morals problem in this country, the country is becoming "wussified". There's a bunch of adult sized children running around. Not to say everyone who is not married fit into this category (as a matter of fact many are probably married, and that's part of the reason they get divorced), but with that issue, it's really not about marriage. Marriage is not about sex with one person (there are lots of people in "open" marriages), marriage is about commitment and responsibility - it is a commitment and responsibility, and legally it doesn't matter if you go to the courthouse and do it or not, as I mentioned before, in most states if you exhibit traits consistent with a traditional marriage for a certain period of time, you can be and are considered married (unless you're gay).

But that's all I have to say about that...

Maybe drindling but never obsolete.

First: Marriage is an ancient institution first documented in ancient Babylonian law on the Code of Hammurabi. NOT A RELIGIOUS LAW.

If that is true then why does the Epic Gilgamesh written around 2500 BCE mention marriage. It predates The Code of Hammurabi by almost 1000 years. Also, it wasn't Christians that sacked Babylon or modern day Iraq IT WAS ALEXANDER THE GREAT on October 22, 331 BC! Christianity wasn't even a religion yet as Christ hadn't been born much less died. Alexander believed as did his subjects that he was the son of Zeus. I hardly think that hardly constitutes a belief in anything other than a pagan religion. It would be nice if people actually had stayed awake during history class. It is like if you don't know...Well...Just make it up!!!

Emanuel - A few points . . .

You are correct about common law marriage, however, you can still protect yourself with pre-nuptial agreement in common law marriages as well (Although I believe it is called something else). So DoubleJ should actually have his sons get this contract if they start to get close to the common law mark.

And most anti-marriage people are not worried it will end in divorce, they are anti-marriage because the risks outweigh the benefits. California, for instance, is a no-fault state that requires lifetime alimony after 10 years. So your wife can legally cheat on you for 10 years straight, leave you after 10 years, and you will have to pay her for the rest of your LIFE. You can argue that people should "pick better mates", but I say the risk is still too high. A simple contract can insure that you will not be making lifetime payments. So I ask you, what benefits of marriage (that are not available in cohabitation) outweigh that risk?

Furthermore, the studies that look at children in married households prove that they do better when the parents are happily married. But what about those that stay together for the kids? In that situation, staying unhappily married is generally detrimental to the children. To go a step deeper, psychologically speaking, if children are raised in a chaotic environment (unhappily married couples), then generally seek out that same chaos in their own relationships. So staying unhappily married, with the false belief that it is better for the children, actually helps to continue the same cycle within your kids.

The bottom line . . . there is no clear benefit to getting married, over happily cohabiting, that outweighs the risks involved. It's not about being a "wussy", it's about making the logical risks vs rewards decision.

Emanuel,

To say marriage is pointless because it could end in divorce...well, life ends in death, so why don't you get a gun and shoot yourself now, saves you the time of living 40+ years and then dying.

You are comparing oranges and applesauce. We all die, but not all of us get divorced. I got married with the prospect of never getting divorced, but my wife - who I was happily and faithfully married to, and who was also a great mother to my children - just snapped one day. She got covered in tattoos and started humping the neighborhood like a dog in heat, and eventually dropped the 2 kids in my lap and left town with her new underaged boyfriend and the dog. That is not a fixable marriage ... I became the first in the history of my entire family lineage to get divorced.

Marriage is truely a crap shoot, and I have no intention of every rolling those dice again. My new girlfriend feels the same way. Thanks to the mandatory one year waiting period to file for divorce, she is serving her soon to be ex tonight. Prior to us ever meeting, her ex maintained a highly inappropriate relationship with his secretary for the last 15 years, and consequently chose the secretary over his wife and their three kids.

The human existence is becoming obsolete. I am certain that many many many people on this board will hoooooraaay the day when our moral compass is completely and totally crushed. Good luck to everyone when that day comes. And before any of you aholes start thumping your goddamnned indignation about who I am to declare what is or is not moral, I have only one God to answer to...and guess what...it aint you. You better hope and pray that at least one good person remains to drag you asses through the muck when it gets here. Once the compass is shattered anything goes and no I am not paying attention to your goddamned compass either...the one with the power makes the rules and you better pray to whatever god it is you believe in that I aint the one in power. GFL

Morals and values began with God and will end there. What the anti-God crowd is calling morals and values are the opinions of people who do not believe in God and only go as far your nose.

God never changes. Morals and values will always change since they reflect rules necessary for society. If new rules conflict with old ones, one or the other or both have to be changed. Most of the time people can live by different rules and still get along. I may want to park my car where another person does, but a compromise can be worked out. One of us may have to park another place or we can agree to share the space at certain times. Of course if one of us does not have a car, we have no problem, do we?

My wife and I are married, 40 years, happily because we loved each other then and love each other now. We both believed in God before marriage and always will. We have had our family and are watching them struggle with the so-called freedom to do as they please without God. What a mess!

We are still supporting their terrible choice in lifestyle just to show them we love them and to love our grandchildren. All still love us and we love them, we say so often and prove it by being there no matter what. Our marriage is both civil and religious, no other kind works that well. We are responsible to God and each other, those were our vows and we did not nor do we now take that lightly. The breaking of those vows would have put us in the same ridiculous position as our children. They have had multiple partners and multiple children who are confused as to who to call Daddy and Mommy. They use such words as foster parents, biological parent, and othe such stupid designations. None of that had to happen, but it is the result of sin or disobedience to the simple laws of love and respect God put in place.

They seem to be trying to get back to the God given plan, but it is difficult. Sin extracts a price in relationships. They plan to divorce so they can remarry another person. There must be some advantage to being married in their mind, huh?

There is a lack of trust and they still each want their own way. Compromise is difficult for them. My wife and I are blessed with our own successful marriage, but lament the bad choices of our children. We still pray, visit, love, and support them as we can hoping for a turnaround. We see signs on the horizon, but

I do not envy anyone trying life without God. I don't mean without a belief in God, I mean without God. God is as real as the stars, wind, and sun He created or any of you reading this. You will see Him when you leave this life and marvel.

kpokeefe -

Epic Gilgamesh is ancient Mesopotamian poetry, and I was speaking of the first reference in a society. A fleeting reference to "married brides" is dependent on the translation of the word "married". So you may be correct that Mesopotamia was the first society to use marriage, but Babylon has it recorded as law.

Secondly, no where did I state the Christians "sacked" Babylon. Not sure where you got that reference. I was merely speaking to the point of WHEN the Christians took on the concept of marriage. This was when they came to Babylon and found the Code of Hammurabi . . . the same time they ripped off "an eye for an eye". Alexander the Great "sacking" Babylon bears no connection to this discussion.

Mitteemo - congratulations on finding a soul mate who has the same deranged and brainwashed ideas about how we all got here and what the rules are to being a human being. One thing I want you to acknowledge though - as a Christian (a fair assumption), your doctrine dictates that there are only two places to go when you die - those being heaven and hell. Your doctrine also dictates that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you will not go to heaven. By holding these two "truths" as gospel, you then believe in your heart that generations of entire nations of this world, regardless of how virtuous they are, will be condemned to the fires of hell for eternity because they chose to follow the religions of their ancestors, instead of buying into the one that makes so much sense to you.

You need to realize that your intolerant belief system is as much to blame for the deterioration of society as the poor role models that hollywood, sports and music bring to young impressionable people.

OH please Susan, you are ridiculous. I've been with my love for 20 years now and neither one of us believe in marriage. We are not religious and do not believe in a god, nor do we feel like we have to validate our love and commitment to the State or anyone else. My love is the most caring and giving person I have ever known. It is not about morals or values.

Morals and values began with God and will end there. What the anti-God crowd is calling morals and values are the opinions of people who do not believe in God and only go as far your nose.

You mean that because I'm "living in sin" and I don't go to church that I have no morals or values, but child raping Catholic priests do have them?

They seem to be trying to get back to the God given plan, but it is difficult. Sin extracts a price in relationships. They plan to divorce so they can remarry another person. There must be some advantage to being married in their mind, huh?

So because my wife (OK, common law wife, just to humor you) aren't married, and neither of us go to church, our 14 year co-habitation is invalid?

Thump your Bible all you want, it won't influence me nor anyone else. Have you ever considered how many problems are caused by religion? Go to Northern Ireland and tell a Catholic the Pope is a stooge who wears silly costumes. Go to India and tell the 1.15 billion Hindus that their religion isn't valid. I won't even mention the "religion of terrorism".

Too bad that name calling is against Newsvine rules, because it's very tempting in this case...

Second: Christians came to Babylon to convert the citizens, discovered the law, and ripped off the marriage portion for themselves.

here is what you typed. Christians didn't come to Babylon until looooong after the institution of marriage had already existed not only in Mesopotamia but throughout Asia, Africa and Europe. One of the reasons that Alexander the Great was convinced by his soldiers to stop his eastern conquests at India was so he could return and MARRY as to produce an offspring so that the empire he created wouldn't be divided upon his death as ended up happening. Also, we know the Ancient Egyptians married. They held marriage as bond which connected them with their Gods. This all Loooong before all this other rubbish! Marriage is not a Christian Institution stolen, borrowed or copied! RUBBISH! Read my other posts above and you will get the actual purpose in many societies, religions and cultures that the institution of marriage was conceived! It was about economic CONSUMPTION and advancement of CULTURE that gave rise to it! This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and isn't debateable. Saying anything else is like trying to convince everyone once again that the world is flat!

Gilgamesh was written before the dates you provide.

My son and his fiance wanted to get married but they are seniors in university. They were informed that they would lose their preferred status for financing, they would lose thier health insurance coverage through their parents and, although they can be roommates, if they got married, they would have to move off campus. There is not a lot of financial incentive there.

Emanuel-0684

Hate to disappoint your rhetoric but,
Less then 25% of the states in this country even recognize a common-law marriage. It is not recognized in the state that I live in at all. And while you are entitled to your views don't you dare go as far to say that I am stupid or being rediculous. This isn't about "chickening out" or being a "weakling" it is about protecting what you worked so hard to obtain, simple logic and common sense. Obiviously in your reasoning betting on long odds is a way to show the world that your are smart and strong? Ya whatever.

Furthermore my sons can do all of those things that you said they cannot with the exception being I don't recommend sharing any bank accounts.

For the record I am still happily married (to the their mother I might add) so they get to see firsthand everyday how a marriage works and what is involved in a relationship. However in this day and age and for all of the reasons that others have stated which I feel no need to repeat. There is no real advantage to getting married as the risks definately outweigh the advantages. Since I am not talking about the challenges that are in a relationship but rather the legal liabilities that being married expose you too.

Life isn't without risks neither are relationships. There are also no guarantees in either so why not protect yourself.

There is not a lot of financial incentive there.

Really, comeon, beside most often getting placed in a reduced tax bracket (this of course doesn't apply to couples making well over $250,000), you get to inherit and transfer your spouses retirement benefits tax exempt when he or she dies. You can use your spouses income to fund your own IRA account. Matter of fact in qualified plans a spouse is the only beneficiary that is allowed. In other words you can't disinherit.

kpo - Well, different historical scholars will write different things. Through my studies, I learned that the first historical reference as a law in society was Babylon. But people "bonding" to each other has always occurred. So I agree with you there. Whether you want to call "bonding" - marriage, or something else, it is purely at the discretion of the scholars interpreting the literature / paintings / etc.

And I agree, there are economic and cultural reasons for it. I also find it interesting to look at the genetic reasons. Basically the fact that men are predisposed to "spread their seed" and mate with as many women as possible. While females benefit from bonding to one male to ensure a father for the few children they can bear (in relation to the number of children a man can father). It's an interesting dynamic, especially considering that men go against their genetic nature to bond with one woman.

Getting married is similar to taking everything you own selling it off and going to Vegas and betting it all on red or black. 50-50 shot you will either win big or lose it all.

With that mentality, your marriage will almost surely fail. If you have a successful marriage, it's not just because you got lucky. It's because you and your spouse work hard at your relationship. You make your marriage a priority. You do things together, you respect each other, you solve your disagreements respectfully, forgive offences, look past a few faults, magnify strengths, stand up for each other, complement each other and on and on. If you get married and think it's time to just live 'happily ever after,' you might just fall into the other 50%

Future History, I appreciate your feedback and hope that you have the opportunity to see my response, for whatever it is worth.

I recognize that my paradigm is not all encompassing and that there are many exceptions to it, and unlike most human beings I do not believe that my world view is absolute truth. I recognize my paradigm for what it is and I recognize my own limitations as a human being. I also recognize that I cannot interpret situations like these without a world view, or at least without forming one and maintaining a set of preconceptions in my mind. However, it is my world view. It may not be shared by society at large, but it is how I interpret this issue. While it does make me sad that it is viewed as risk/benefit contract and not a symbolic representation of love and family as I view it, I am simultaneously humble enough to realize that my way of viewing how the world works just isn't the exact same thing that absolutely every sentient entity should believe. People should choose those philosophies which best fit their lives.

Rigid Religion and Hypocrisy are becoming obsolete.

Κυριάκος - While I agree that it does take work on both sides of the marriage for it to last, there certainly are cases where one side is trying while the other is not. If one side is caught flagrantly cheating on the other, and the cheater refuses to try and work things out through counseling and continues the infidelity, it is only one side of the marriage that is deserving of the label of failure. The innocent side did nothing wrong, but has lost anyways. This is why marriage is considered a crap shoot. You can lose even when you do all the right things.

the only useful purpose that marriage serves these days, is for couples who want to make a legal commitment to having and raising children,

Does divorce undo the committment?

Hell, I'd love to be married and living in a Leave it to Beaver house watching the kids playing in the yard (or upstairs making one or two), but the reality is that's pretty unlikely since the best candidate for that is 1000 miles away and my most recent "prospect" managed to rack up a fistful of DUI's while I was overseas (anyone can get one, but when you have multiples,it's time for a change.).

It will be 20 years in a couple of weeks since I lost my best chance at "happily ever after" (killed by a drunk driver, hence my issue with my former prospect's multiple arrests), and while if I do get a future chance at wedded bliss, I'll jump on it, I'm not holding my breath.

Fred, Sorry for your loss.

Jack-2510943

Nikita, they simply said morals and values are becoming obsolete. Stop putting your words into the thoughts of others to twist them your way. You must be a politician. Unfortunately, they are right and that statement is supported by scientific studies.

Hey looney tunes...where are these scientific studies you speak of? Linkety link please?

Six in Ten are classified as obese or obnoxious.

Eight in ten are Orthodox sheeple.

From a woman's perspective, all of the good ones are either already married, gay or dead.

7 of 9 is a character on Star Trek

1 in 10 struggle with how dumb the other 9 are.

5 of 4 have trouble with fractions

4 of 10 vote. At least 1 of those 4 don't know a thing about 'who' or 'what' they are votiing for..

Thanks HAL for the chuckles. Your 7 of 9 and 5 of 4 comments made my otherwise subpar day just a little better. I'm smiling now.

No prob Chet.

;-)

This was quite funny. ;)

7 of 10 statistics are made up

OMG. So funny! Thanks for the laughs!

Factoid: you guys ought to be writing for MSNBC. Your "statistics: are much better than the lame ones they always come-up with for their postings.

Six nuns agree, four atheists are wrong.

HAL-455172, thanks for the laugh. Too funny.

My wife and I 17 years.

My parents 54 years and going.

Her Parents 52 years ( to their ends.... )

A couple of weeks ago my mother had a stroke and she was in the hospital. I was sitting in a chair about six feet from the bed. My mother was in a comma and my 85 years old, WWII Vet, Father was holding her hand, kissing her forehead and speaking to her. The intensity of his eyes, the love of his caress, the deep emotion in his voice can never be found in a dating situation. The intimacy of time and effort is something in life I aspire to.

ShowMeMan, Been there watching the same situation with my parents. While very hard to watch from the medical/physical side of the situation it is amazing watching the love you saw that people rarely notice or even get a chance to see. We are both blessed.

25% of Americans believe the Sun circles around the Earth.

Morals and values aren't becoming obsolete, they are being refined. They are constantly being refined. They always have been and always will be.

What is becoming obsolete, thankfully, are the bronze age morals that are put forth by the Abrahamic religions and other such antiquated sources.

We keep the good, we throw off the bad, and the world keeps spinning.

"Makes you wonder why do all the GAYS want to be married wouldn't civil union be better?"

Just as soon as 'Civil Unions' are recognized at the Federal and State levels and have absolutely 100% the exact same rights/responsibilities as marriage..sure. Until then, no way.

Separate is not equal.

That's the irony of it. A 50% and rising divorce rate amongst you American Christians, and yet you are ignorant enough to believe that somehow the gays would undermine the meaning of marriage. I hate to break it to you, but you Christians have already completely undermined the meaning of marriage anyways.

The gays might actually bring the divorce rate back down, but that's probably what most of us straights are afraid of, being outdone by them.

What if someone wanted to marry their goat or horse? If they were born thinking that way like gays then I say we shouldlet them as an intelligent and advanced society.

Hmmm. Lewis Black could weigh in here on the origins of the concept of marriage.

Anyways, gay marriage I have no problem with. Concerning polygamist marriage, I feel quite the opposite. Let's keep the concept at two consenting adults. Even nearly all Muslims know better despite the fact the Qu'ran isn't against polygamy.

A goat or a horse cannot give consent (to be married or anything), so your analogy doesn't work.

American Medic - I really hope that you are not a real "medic" . . . I fear for your patients. As Magnolia stated, there is a little legal thing called consent, you may have heard about it. A goat, horse, dog, chair, table, or even young child can not give legal consent. Thus, they can not legally marry.

Now you will probably use the polygamist argument now, right? How original. Again, we go back to consent. Can all parties give legal consent while NOT UNDER duress? Many polygamist communities marry off young girls through the use of coercion or force. Thus, they are under duress when giving consent, and this is not legal. However, if all parties do give honest, legal consent . . . then it is none of our business how they live their lives.

I have been married for just over 10 years now. Best decision I ever made. Probably easy to find 4 in 10 to say anything.

Just throwing this out there, but wasnt there a news story not too long about about a guy who married a doll/pillow thing? How exactly did the pillow give its consent?

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

The legal system undermined marriage a long time ago it wasn't the American Christians. I say let the gays have their civil unions. Let them be bound by the same legal contract as the rest of us. What was that saying "Be careful what you wish for."

@Geno

As far as fear of them outdoing us. Very unlikely being gay doesn't make you special, They themselves say they are people just like us nothing more, so why would we expect anything more.

"Gay divorce court" Now that would be a reality show I would acutually watch.

taopin - Different laws in different countries.

A pillow is also not a living thing. If someone wants to marry a pillow, he's the only living thing that has to give consent. A goat is a living thing.

I'm not saying I agree with being able to marry a pillow, but it's something different than wanting to marry a living being.

I'm sure I can get a horse or dog to put his mark on a piece of paper in a church. And I bet I can find 4 out of 10 other people to watch.

The point is, whether it's with a goat or another human, sodomy is not condoned in most religions so therefore, neither marriage is legit. It just leaves the couple looking sick in the head is all. Hey, it's a christian society, like it or not. And the christain majority rules, not some small group of gays or beastie boys. Suck on that!

Jackal:

"I'm sure I can get a horse or dog to put his mark on a piece of paper in a church. And I bet I can find 4 out of 10 other people to watch."

But the point is a dog or a horse can't understand what it is signing, and therefore it is an invalid contract. Just like you can't sign a contract with a minor or a mentally handicap person without a guardian's intervention. If they can't understand the contract, it isn't valid. Marriage is a contract.

RumbleNut:

"The point is, whether it's with a goat or another human, sodomy is not condoned in most religions so therefore, neither marriage is legit."

So does that mean that every straight couple who has ever had anal sex also has an invalid marriage? Because I've known guys that are straight and into doing that with their significant others.

"It just leaves the couple looking sick in the head is all. Hey, it's a christian society, like it or not."

I'm pretty sure the United States has no official religion. In fact, I think the first amendment spells that out pretty clearly.

"And the christain majority rules, not some small group of gays or beastie boys. Suck on that!"

Again, not in the United States. The Constitution was purposely put together to prevent mob rule. It is there to protect the rights of the minorities against the majority. Because even if the majority of people agree with you, if it steps on the rights of the minority, it's not Constitutional.

God has nothing to do with a government license.

Marriage is described in Genesis as: "...a man leaving his mother and father and clinging to his wife..."

Church and government invented the paperwork to control people's lives and extract money from them.

If a person actually believed in less government they wouldn't fall for the marriage/divorce scam that's been going on for thousands of years.

your right God has nothing to do with the state license, He has everything to do with Marriage. God is the first one to institute marriage. The Bible says that if you must Marry before coming together as one (that's sex just in case you didn't know that),. and do not divorce that person except for infadelity.

I don't believe God approves of beating the women or children either or beating your husband. I know this doesn't happen often but it happens.

LU congrats.. you are the ONLY person who understands the difference between a religious ceremony and a government tax!!!! THANK YOU! its nice to know that not everyone in this country is clueless!!!! i've been trying to tell people this for years!!!

In LU land everything is ok. There are no rules for society. It's all anarchy and no civilization.

oldfashionlady-

I feel I need to make a comment here. I'm 62 and have been married more than once. I was full of love and high hopes each time.....A ggod marriage is a lifetime of hard work, BUT both need to want the same thing and be willing to work for it. If it's a one way street then it's not going to work, unless the partner is willing to put up with cheating, abuse, and alcoholism. I wasn't. I've now been in a wonderful relationship for 16 years and have no intention of remarrying. My partner feels the same way I do. We love and respect each other and do not feel we need a license to make it work. My 3 grown children are responsible, loving, respectful members of society. They all have college degrees and are doing very well, this in spite of being raised by a single parent. I know of many married couples who have been together a long time and their marriages are a joke. They stay together for the sake of the kids, but kids are not stupid. It's far better to end a marriage and have the kids get the best of both parents, than to stay together and live in a dyfunctional family situation. I do not condone teenage pregnancy and do agree that people, young and old are not held accountable. It's not only parents that have become too lax in raising their kids, school districts also can shoulder part of the blame, by allowing kids to dress unappropriately and allowing total disrespect. I worked for a school district for many years and my daughter is a teacher, so I know this is true. I sure am not against marriage, but to each his own.

LU, you must have read only a small portion of the Bible, just to get ammunition to push your agenda. If you can't read the WHOLE thing, don't quote any at all! Just the fact that you're reading from the Bible should tell you that you need to be joined to your spouse with God's blessings. Shacking up is not blessed. If you don't join your marriage through the Bible, you probably won't base your marriage on God's word or rules. So don't use the Bible only when it suits you - that's not what it's intended for. By the way, marriage is NOT a man leaving his father and mother, and says nothing about HOW he "clings to his wife". Shows you need to read ALL of the Bible, and if I were you, I'd get on it right away!

Well, Bill, if you've got the inside line, why don't you inform us? Never mind, its just about men subjugating women and religion subjugating humanity. @$$#ole.

Debora:

"your right God has nothing to do with the state license, He has everything to do with Marriage. God is the first one to institute marriage."

My sister didn't get married in a church. She was married by a justice of the peace in a civil ceremony, and she and her husband are happily raising their three kids together. God had nothing to do with their marriage, and their family is doing just fine. The kids aren't running around with no morals, and they're very respectful.

Religion has nothing to do with having a happy family. It may have something to do with yours, but not every family or marriage needs religion to be successful.

Nonsense I was married twice and lived with a woman for twice as long as either marriage. People change after marriage and without it they are more inclined to try to make it work because they are not living under a contract.

logdump- the "contract" as you are putting it can be nullified by divorce.

We love and respect each other and do not feel we need a license to make it work

CfromMI- The license doesn't just magically make it work. It shows that you are willing to tell everyone that you love this person and will stand by themselves for the rest of your life.

Some people have diluted the meaning of marriage. They get married because it is the "right" thing to do or because the woman got knocked-up. That isn't the reason to get married, the reason for marriage is to show everyone what you already know, that you love this person and will stand by them for the rest of your life.

39 years and still going

I guess my parents can be considered obsolete too - 53 years and still going! :)

Still discriminated against and not allowed to get a marriage license. Must be nice to not be discriminated against on this issue. Maybe one day marriage will be available to all Americans

Todd,

Sorry that you are discriminated against. I truly hope that someday, you can have that right.

Wow, my grandparents were happily married 65 years when they died, other grandparents were happily married 50 years when they died, my parents have been happily married almost 42 years and my husband and I have been happily married 14 years. What kind of crazy out dated family do I have that we actually get married and keep our marriage vows???

I think someone earlier had it right, people have no sense of committment today. Too many people these days seem to go into marriage with the thought that "well, if it doesn't work out we can just get a divorce". So when the first little bump in the road comes up, they don't work at the marriage they just bail on it. Hollywood has many examples of this just about every week! How many "stars" do we see who get married and then divorced after a few years and then repeat the cycle multiple times. These are usually selfish and self centered people who are committed to THEMSELVES and not their MARRIAGE! When my husband and I got married we said that the d-word was not in our vocabulary. It is simply not an option for us so if we have a problem then we work it out. I am NOT advocating staying with someone who is abusive in any way or who is constantly unfaithful etc. I am talking about working through those times when maybe there are problems in the marriage or one or both are unhappy. These times happen in EVERY marriage at one time or another. It's what you do about those times that makes a difference. It's about taking those vows you took (whether before God or a judge or whoever) seriously.

I'm very happily married for 20 years!!! Both sets of our parents have been happily married for over 40 years!!! When u choose the RIGHT person the 1st time it makes life so much better.

I'm almost 2 years in and I love it! We work on our relationship everyday and sometimes its a lot of work. I can't wait for all the things to come (good and bad) and I love knowing that my best friend will be there by my side and we'll work through all of it together.

Sorry to get all sappy on your behinds.

Not to sound like a marriage know-it all or anything, but I think it's kind of refreshing that people are able to be honest about themselves and their thoughts on marriage. Some people aren't suited to marriage. That's fine with me. I do believe strong families are at the heart of any great society! We should proudly support great families, no matter how they're defined. How a person is raised is what's important, not what their family looks like.

@ Todd.... Some of us are working as hard as we can to make marriage available to all. If we could just keep religion out of the equation it would happen alot sooner. I believe in equal rights for all. My best friends have been together as a couple for 39 years and have raised 3 wonderful adopted children. Good luck and don't give up hope.

talheure, I agree. How could this be turned into Republican bashing. Someone needs to look at a few more angles. You can look at my earlier posts as to what my life has been like over the years. No Republican policies have hampered our marriage.

gtbdave, you are way out in lala land. I've been married 37 years, lost my job several times, lost our house (foreclosure) in 1994, move to another state to start over at 52. 16 years later, we have a new house, 25 acres of property, new car, great job, and everything we have is paid off! We struggled together, helped each other when times were tough, and here we are, stronger than when we were married in 1972! If you ever heard the vows of marriage, it says, "through sickness and in health, good times and bad......". THAT'S why marriage is important in today's times. It's much easier for two people to go through bad times than for one to go it alone.

Bill, Good inspiration!! I hope I can live long enough to reach what you describe. We're trying if you read my previous posts. Thanks for the insight.

What do republican economic policies have to do with marraige? I got married at 18, 11 years later, that's right, I am not an older person, my husband and I are still happy. We have had our share of hard times, he has been laid off twice, I was out of work for medical necessity for 4 months with both of my pregnancies, yet we are still going strong. If your so-called republican policies were truly at fault for ruining marraige, I would think we would have felt it more than a couple who had been married for longer.

Marraige is becoming obsolete because society is changing.

Three generations ago (depression era), most people got married at very young ages, to someone they decided to start a family with.

Two generations ago (the baby-boomers) people got married because they got pregnant and it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, many of them found out their high school sweetheart wasn't really the person to spend the rest of their lives with, so they got a divorce. The result of these marraiges was Generations X and Y, which coincidentally, are the same generation saying the think marraige is becoming obsolete. These generations don't want to go through what their parents went through.

However, I do believe this will have a reverse effect on the next generation. While my generation is more likely to raise a child in a one parent household, in their minds eye, better because the parents aren't fighting all the time, their children are going to long for that "normal" family. The one with two parents. This will give way to a rebirth of a new "typical" family. Whether that be a mom and a dad or a same-sex couple with a child. Either way, it will be a two parent household.

Silly susannah. There is no "God" -- and classic marriage is a demonstrable social failure (unless you think 50% is a passing grade, of course). Time to move on in the new millennium...

I dont know, they didnt ask him did they? You are going off a very old book, things change.

Hey jhoopy,

Are you saying that in the new millenium that marriage should be abolished?

Interesting how people feel empowered to speak for their god.

Sorry Susannah......

Marriage was never established for religious reasons....read some history.

Marriage is a business contract between a man and a woman...nothing more.

I believe that God originally created marriage to be a reflection on earth of his love for us. When you get married, you basically say to your partner, "I love you, and I always will, no matter what. You are now part of my family. I will never leave you." That is what happens when you ask God to become a part of his family. He promises that he will always love us and we will be with him forever. The only difference is that God doesn't say "until death do us part." Unfortunately, sin intrudes and can turn earthly marriages into broken versions of what they were intended to be. Not only the sins of others, but our own sins as well. There are so many examples of horrible situations. Marriage can't be perfect unless both spouses are perfect. Mine isn't perfect. We've had some really rough patches. That is why as spouses we need to practice the forgiveness that God grants us if we ask for it. Forgive where you can. I'm not advocating sticking around to be your spouse's punching bag, but there are so many things that couples can work through. The love I receive from my husband and my heavenly Father is so amazing. It seems like more and more, people consider both marriage and God obsolete. And it makes me sad. They are losing out on so much. I think marriage is extremely important. I know that my comment will most likely be followed by name-calling, angry rants, and comically snide remarks, but this is what I believe. I know in my head and my heart that it is true.

Actually boston, marriage started out as something that happened between a man and man. One man would pay the other for his daughter. But I do get your point, religion took marriage as its own when in reallity it wasn't.

Jackal...

Absolutly. If you read some previous post you would see I agree. Marriage was nothing more than a business contract for a man to buy a female to bear his kids to work his farm. Thus a dowry.

"And Reginald saw that marriage was a farce -- a coercion and an abomination and, yeah, he condemnedth it outright. For whomsoever says 'always' or 'forever' in human endeavor is a fool, and demonstrably so."

Reginald 18: 24-25

jhoopy, you are one sick puppy. Who are you that you can make a statement that "there is no God"? Are you all - knowing, all seeing? Did YOU create all this that we enjoy around us? Where do you think it all came from?

Well, gosh, golly, Bill, I say "there is no God" because no one can provide proof of this fairy's existence and people like Stephen Hawking make a fairly compelling case for the origin of our universe being a quantum fluctuation in vacuum space. Everything after expansive big bang seems to follow (size of the universe, distribution of material/energy, formation of stars/planets, biodiversity on earth, etc etc) without intervention of any metaphysical agency -- so you tell me: why invoke a God?

Oh, and if your answer involves any of the books of legend (bible, Talmud, Qu'ran etc) I'm afraid you're going to have to provide some compelling secular corroboration -- all of these can be shown to assert false histories of one sort or another and so do not meet even minimal requirements for evidence.

Did I answer your question?

Bill, who are you to make a statement that there is a god?

Jem is right. The far right is trying to keep marriage an exclusive club. When you start excluding people and no longer meet their needs, then don't be surprised if people lost interest in it, much like the way that the Elks and other "fraternal orders" are becoming a relic of past generations.

If the right was really smart, they'd be in favor of gay marriage. There's strength in numbers.

For a christian to accept gy marriage would be tuning their back on God, like gys do. God said that gys are an abomination. Gys are freaks of nature, just like when you see two male dogs locked together, looks silly and sick because it its.

Ah, Leviticus again? Leviticus condemns many things. But, otherwise "moral" Christians continue to patronize Red Lobster. Why do Christians pick and choose which passages they'll obey?

Seems like this is the new game - the queers couldn't get to be defined as "married", so they'll just bash marriage out of existence. Too bad. I think they should have the same financial rights, but I'll never recognize them as a married couple.

Hey Bill...watch out, your judgemental ignorance is showing.

And, just for good measure, boys who throw words like "queers" around usually have kissed a few boys themselves and are stuck in a locked closet. Just sayin

Scole don't be a D-bag. It's not a left or a right thing. it's a human thing.

Uncarring? You don't have an automobile because of California!? But they LOVE the cult of commuting!

Scole, can I guess your from the midwest or something? Your comment "west coast hollyweird types" shows how uninformed you are. I am an LA native, most of the people I know in LA do volunteer work, give to charities and have close and long-lasting friendships. Don't believe everything you see on TMZ, what they don't show is the good things that people do (and I am including celebrities as I come in contact with several in my work, and they are some of the most generous people I have ever met).

So you are saying that people who live together and choose not to get married have no morals? Have you considered that your moral structure is not the same as everyone else here in this great big diverse country?

Marriage isn't for everyone. Some do not feel the need for a piece of paper to validate their feelings for another person, some people are not legally allowed to marry the person whom they love and cherish and some people feel that lifetime monogamy is unrealistic. I'm sure there are many other reasons people do not marry, but those are the reasons I know people have for not getting married because I know couples that ascribe to each of the above. They are no less loving and caring, no less "moral" and no less of a person just because they aren't married. Cohabitating doesn't make them bad people and (hold onto your shorts here) some of them are Republicans!!

jc...please do not fall victim to the same thing as Scole did by lumping a group of people together just because of their geography.Not all of us in the Midwest are uninformed backwards hicks. I live in Missouri and though it does tend toward the Conservative I know plenty of people who lean left and have more than a few brain cells to rub together who live here as well.

Scole....

Get off your high horse and stop being such an ignorant snob.

Marriage doesn't equal morals. Marriage is an antiquated, male chauvanistic form of control and domination. Men bought women...thats the original format of marriage. That has absolutly nothing to do with someones morals and their character.

People who live together in a committed, respectful and loving way don't need a marriage certificate to make them more worthy in the eyes of society.

And lighten up chicken little....the sky won't fall if we don't get married!

Yeah, ironic isn't it? "You should all be married 'cause its good for you. But not you two, or ya'll, and certainly not you two, and definitely not you three."

No one said everyone needs to be married. If you want to get religious, the bible actually says that you shouldn't get married.

¹ Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” -1 Corinthians 7:1

Marriage for religious purposes should be separate from marriage through the state. They should just call them a different thing. Through the state you have a Civil Union and then the religious types can still keep the word marriage sacred for themselves. And in the eyes of the state, everyone weather hetero or homo unions are called Civil Unions. So then there is no discrimination.

What yall don't seem to understand is everyone is born into a christian society. Christians are the majority and the majority rules. Therefore, christain values rule. Go find a lawless, do what you will, satanic society and move there if you're not happy in the states. Why should it be the norm for a small group of people to rule over the majority? That's totally backwards. Go ahead, put a spin on it. Logic twisted is good for all, right?!

Again, RumbleNut, majority does not rule in the United States. The Constitution does not allow it. If the majority impedes the rights of the minority, it is not constitutional. That is why this is such a hot debate.

Oh Boston I was searching for a voice of reason in all this chatter! You do not need marriage to raise wonderfully adjusted kids. being married to your partner does not mean that suddenly you have morals and values up the ying yang!

I do not plan to get married anytime soon and I cohabitate, but I plan to have a family and I dont see my level of commitment any less than someone who gets married-I just dont see it as a necessary evil.

What do you think marriage is? It's the commitment! It doesn't matter if it happens in a traditional ceremony or not. But the idea that two people are committed to each other is the important part.

Sociologically, the research shows that it is just better for our culture to embrace a strong philosophy of monogamy and marriage.

If you say it's not important to you, then are you okay with your partner cheating on you? Of course not. That's because we all want commitment. The very act is called cheating because we know it's wrong to do.

Besides this, our culture is learning to be so non-committal in every aspect of our lives. It's not that they feel marriage is not relevant, but that they don't want to be constrained by the bonds of commitment. Anyone who looks logically at the issue and the evidence based trends will see that marriage and monogamy is a more healthy and sustainable sociological idea.

As a Christian, I am disgusted with the church. We preach things like family, but the divorce rate is as high or higher inside the church as it is outside. If we wanted to change the world, that should be the first place we should look.

Boston, your point is spot on. The problem is that people have this misplaced since of self righteousness. Morals are nice as a virtue..but strength is what makes all VIRTUES possible. Commitment to someone is a virtue and that takes STRENGTH. any fool can get married, but what good is marriage if you lack the strength to be COMMITTED?

Jasonatlee.....

Better do some studying......historically marriage is nothing more than a business contract for a male to purchase a female...thus the dowry. Females had zero rights.....men married women to bear them children to work their farms...this is fact. Religion came into the picture to control men and their behaviors....thus marriage then became a religious ceromony as well.....but it is still rooted in the sale of a woman.

My point being that...women today don't need men and their money or advice. Women may want men in their lives, but they don't need to be "taken care of". We have our own minds, agendas and carreers that afford us to live by our own rules...and the white religious agenda doesn't like that at all and will do anything to demonize any independant woman who doesn't follow the rules.

Children need parents/parent with good resources and good parenting skills...........marriage has nothing to do with that!

tallhair

From you're posts, I'm under the impression that you didn't like or study biology, or, as Barbie said, "Math is hard!"

Talleure..................

I think you are more of a victim of being brainwashed by male dominate society that says you are " wired" to want to be taken care of emotional.

Thats total BS!

Women are no more in need of emotional babying than men are. They tell you that you are wired that way to remove responsibility from their own agendas.

Women and men are equally competant, strong, independant, intelligent and capable. It's their nurturing and upbringing that changes what their "needs" become.

Marriage has everything to do with good parenting skills. One of the most important aspects of being a good parent is showing unconditional love and respect to one's spouse, working out problems (as appropriate) in front of your kids, and showing them through action that committment is important, even in tough times. Most of the men I know who refuse to marry thier significant others have been divorced at least once before, and refuse to commit to the current relationship because they can get laid and still have a back door.

It is a known fact sociologically that children from committed, two parent, heterosexual families fare much better in every social measure than kids from single parent homes. This doesn't mean that single moms are "bad", it means that successfully raising a kid in a single parent home is several times more difficult than raising a kid in a two parent home. Any honest single parent will tell you that. BTW....the single mom or dad who raises a well adjusted kid deserves a medal, in my opinion. But why encourage this behavior when it is clearly non-beneficial to the kid?

Where's the glue? Most people need some help, not all, so where's the glue? What's to stop the word, bastard, from becoming epic?

Boston, haven't seen you on here in a while and again my view is different from yours but you provide great points. I'm glad that this shows that you don't need two parents to be a functioning member of society.

But as far as you saying you would commit to someone without marrying them, marriage isn't necessarily made to make your relationship better. I'll go off on a little tangent here for a second. As you correctly pointed out, marriage was orriginally made for when a man effectively bought a woman as a wife. When religion came around, it took over marriage to a point. A religious marriage is for two people to profess their love toward each in front of family and friends. They wouldn't use this as an act to better themselves but to express themselves. Basically like one giant expensive "I love you."

So if you aren't religious, then I don't see any reason in getting married. I do believe that the state should make "Civil Unions" not marriages. I know the state had the term marriages first but we don't need any religious battles on who is married or not. Then you can go to a church and get married and then become a Civil Union in the eye of the state or just become a civil union in the eyes of the state. The only reason for the state to regulate these unions is for the thing marriage started for, property. This would be an easy fix to this whole gays can't be married thing. Because they would be in a civil union just like all the other married couples and recieve the same rights and benifits as married couples just without any religious tones or the title marriage.

Basically, in my opinion marriage isn't a contract as some others have said on here but a physical sign of commitment. If you don't want to be committed to each other, why do you want to continue to live with each other. And also back to this "Civil Union" thing, then people can do that 5 year plan as a try-out method with no backlash without making the religious leaders angry.

Jackal...

Great points. Well said.

Marriage can be great for some.....but maybe not for all. I still firmly believe that the real "Committment" should be from parent to child. Marriages come and go - thats evident. Parents need to stay committed to child rearing and love their kids more than they hate their ex spouse. Deciding to cohabitate with a mate with the understand of a mutual purpose for raising a family is really the goal. A marriage certificate doesn't make you a better parent than one who is single....thats for sure!

Love the 5 year lease plan...excellent idea.

Firstly Larch Boggett...

I take issue with your point. Who exactly is 'encouraging' single parent households?? Many single parent households are derived from failed marriages, so your point of marriage being the 'be-all and end-all' of stability for children is sooo inadequate.

Also why does everyone automatically think that being in a relationship without marriage means that one partner or both would cheat?? Last time I checked marriage never prevented people from cheating so in truth and in fact marriage doesn't really benefit either party any more than a committed 'common-law' relationship. Its just the church's way of making people feel guilty about the entire thing; getting married suddenly makes you 'somebody' or 'Mrs somebody' as if you weren't somebody before marriage. Its just plain stupid!

I know many well adjusted people who came out of two parent, non-married households. Marriage doesn't suddenly make a functional family or functional children. Two individuals who love each other and are committed to each other and are committed to their children's growth creates functional family and whether the adults are married or not makes no difference.

Boston, too bad that the 5-year trial run will never go over well in this society because the Christians won't let it. (And by the way I am one so don't call me a Christian Basher or anything.) They want to hold their "marriage" as a religious term and I do agree, marriage had become more of a religious term and now the state wants to control it again. The state would make a lot more progress if they didn't regulate marriage but regulated civil unions. Then everyone can be happy, the Christians keep marriage sacred and everyone else recieved all of the legal benifits exactly the same way. And I like how you call it a lease. Also, agree with you on the parents should make sure they stay committed to their children even if their commitment to their spouse stops.

Blakoleander, I know you weren't writing/responding to me but I will respond to you. Most people, even married ones, go into a marriage for the wrong reasons, that is the biggest part of a failed marriage. They believe the marriage will make you happier or that marriage will make their spouse more committed. Marriage is just a piece of paper, it doesn't have magical powers. They need to go into a marriage knowing that or it will most likely fail. If you rely on your marriage to keep your spouse faithful or to make you happier, then you will most likely fail. You need to be committed to each other and happy before you get married and that will greatly increase your chances of success.

Jackal....

The most basic point everyone here seems to be missing is that one can lie, cheat, abuse, and abandon regardless of if there is a marriage certificate involved. Ones committment to another comes from a sense of love, wanting to dedicate and understanding. All of which occur in relationships outside of a marriage already. A paper won't change these ideals....only people change their behaviors.

A family exists within the rules of the said family...not what is described by society.

The trend is and will continue to increase because women don't need to be taken care of any longer. They have their own carreers and money and make their own rules. Power has shifted and women know that. They are comfortable in deciding to live with their mate and raise a family....but to be true to themselves and maintain their sense of independance and self.

Times change, society tries to keep up and the outcome is the new family unit. Morals have noting to do with that....thats religion rearing it's ugly outdated and unrealistic head.

Boston, I'm totally in agreement with you. The piece of paper doesn't change you nor was it ever supposed to change you. And like you said, the family's description of their family is what matters.

the 5 year lease plan made me laugh. There was a handfasting ritual that some societies in Europe used to abide by that allowed a couple to handfast for a year and a day. At the end of that year and a day if no children had been born to the union, the couple were allowed to walk away from the union and go back to being single with no repercussions legally, financially or otherwise. It was like a trial run to make sure that you were compatible with the person before you commited the rest of your life to them. I personally think that would be a great idea. Give people a chance to live with and really get to know the person before expecting them to bind themselves together for life. That same theory is why many younger couples won't even consider marriage until they have lived with the person for a while. You don't really know a person until you have lived with them...then you experience all their little quirks and habits and can decide if you adore those quirks or if they will drive you crazy.

Of course they are. Just because they are brain dead doesn't mean they can't click and type...The democrats are running scared now. Afraid the republicans won't dole out free money and free checks so their rants are starting to become incoherent....

Whatever is no9t George Bush's fault is Dick Cheney's fault....these new brainless lemmings calling themselves democrats are giving the party a new nickname... The party of change will soon be known as the party of idiots...

They already are

Simple journalism here, there are 2 reasons;

1. It is easier for most people to see 4 out of 10 and know its 40% than seeing 2 out of 5
2. 4 is a larger number than 2 so it looks like there are more people saying that it is becoming obsolete. However, you cannot greatly multiply it. Saying 40 out of 100 turns it to look like you are trying to make it look worse and difuses the article. Even 8 out of 20 does this.

So making it 4 out of 10 is easy to understand and makes it look better.

Maybe it's some marketing scheme used to grab our attention. 2 out of 5 is not as alarming as 4 out of 10!

There are still many people who get married...but the trend is on the downward slide.

Yup.

And you guys are 3 of the 4.

I think a more accurate statement would be 4 in 10 adults don't want any responsibility to anyone or anything this day and age. Welcome to the generation of narcissists....'

I have no problem with responsibility at all. I just don't see a point of marriage. How does a paper from the state & a ring make people love each other more?

I think a more accurate statement would be 4 in 10 adults don't want any responsibility to anyone or anything this day and age

I have been with the same person for almost 10 years, we have lived together of almost 9 years. We are very commented to each other and as responsible for each other and our home as many married couples are. (Note I said many not all, some married don't have that commitment)

I think a more accurate statement would be 4 in 10 adults don't want any responsibility to anyone or anything this day and age.

Hey Steve,

So when you tell a woman that you are going to spend the rest of your life with her, you then have to go out and get married and make a public spectacle of it so you will hold your word?

Not being true to your word is far ore irresponsible than not getting married ever will be.

Hey Steve....

How does not wanting to get married make someone a narcissist?

How about it's a personal choice that seems to offend or threatens you and your choices. People who don't get married are no better or worse than you. They just happen to realize that marriage isn't something they care to partake in....and you judge them for that? Thats pretty weak and small of you.

Take a look at yourself before you name call an entire population of single people.

I just don't see a point of marriage. How does a paper from the state & a ring make people love each other more?

The point isn't about making people love each other more, the point (in religious terms, not property terms) is that you want to profess your undying love to someone else in the presence of friends and family. This shows your level of commitment to this person. If you aren't willing to commit to the other person, then you shouldn't get married. Most that get married without willing to commit end up in divorce.

The point isn't about making people love each other more, the point (in religious terms, not property terms) is that you want to profess your undying love to someone else in the presence of friends and family.

Why must it be done in the presence of anyone else besides the one that you love? Why the ceremony and the material things?

If you're a man of your word, your word should be good enough.

Why must it be done in the presence of anyone else besides the one that you love? Why the ceremony and the material things?

Hopefully you have already told them and made it known that you love them. And I do agree that if you are a man of your word, your word should be good enough. The rings and ceremony are more of an outward expression for others saying that you are committed to this person and want everyone else to know about it. The person you are already marrying should know this, if not, you are in for a long road. And again, I am talking in religious terms, not property terms. If you have read my previous posts, I believe that the state should create "civil unions" to control and let the religions control "marriages".

Infatuation, attraction, outward beauty...those things don't last forever.

Love never fails. It is the commitment you make to someone else's well-being no matter what comes.

I have no problem with it. There are lots of people born with birth defects that are happily married. We should extend that same right to all people born with birth defects...

Concerned Citizen: In the beginning God created Adam and from Adam God took a rib and created Eve. God says that two people of the same sex being together is perverted.

Love can last forever, if you see forever as being all of the time you breath in and out.

Oh deary, Deb. Quoting from a book of goatherders' fables is no way to make a point. And since no god actually exists, who told you they were god and insisted that same sex coupling is "perverted"?

What does your brain say is right or wrong?

Deb's brain sez: "Whatever my husband says."

Love can last forever Debora and it has nothing to do with some silly story about Adam and Eve . Gay couples can live for decades together married or not and still be blissfully happy. Gay people breath in and out the same fashion.

Oh Debora............

PLEASE stop !!! Your rehearsed responses are getting so boring.

If you are going to argue in an intelligent forum or debate, enter with your OWN thoughts and opinions. Think outside the box for meaningful, thought provoking ideas to support your side.....

using the usual rehtoric of religious , unfounded and bordering on the ridiculous examples ( ribs from adam)just make you seem uneducated and ignorant.

I like how you call her uneducated for believing in a God that has yet to be proven true or false. It will suck for you all if she is right and God does exist.

and why would it suck for me if a god exists?

I like how you call her uneducated for believing in a God that has yet to be proven true or false. It will suck for you all if she is right and God does exist.

And it will suck for her if a god exists and when she gets to the pearly gates he asks her "Why have you been a follower of man all of your life?"

You folks can denigh God and his creation all you want but that does not change the Facts.

No Mike in portland, I believed in God and creation long before meeting my husband.

@Jackal50 Thank you, These poor people will see one day, I pray they see before he requires their soul.

Speaking of souls and devilish outcomes, enjoy this bit from "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"

http://ww.gotwavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=WAVS&type=Movies&movie=O_Brother_Where_Art_Thou&quote=sellmysoul.txt&file=sellmysoul.wav

Boston, I know you like your figures but I can't really draw my chart on here. Ok so breaking it down to basics say there are two ways to live your life, either you think god exists and believe in him or you don't. There are two ways your life could end, either god exists or he doesn't. Now there are 4 options it could go.

1. You believe+God exists= you go to heaven and live for eternity=+infinity lives
2. You believe+God doesn't exist= you live your whole life for something that didn't come true= -1 life
3. You don't believe+God exists=you go to hell=-infinity lives
4. You don't believe+God doesn't exist=you live your life your way with no religious pressure= +1 life

So you see that it is bad if you don't believe and he does exist while if you exist the worse you could do is just live your life for something that doesn't exist. Also, I am with you, boston, I don't like people randomly posting bible verses on the web unless it calls for it like someone that isn't religious incorrectly quoting it. But bible thumpers seem like extremists just like the Tea Party and gives the opposition fodder for the fire.

I don't agree with calling her uneducated though, that was a low blow.

Jackal:

Your wager does not accurately account for the cost of all outcomes -- and presupposes dogmatic homogeneity for the case of "belief in God". For example, to whose God do you refer in number 1 above? I might believe in God but disavow Jesus, for example -- does that not get me in hot water with the christian God? But what if the Muslims have it right? I'd be dissing Muhammad and pushing Jesus, say -- not so good. Or maybe Joseph Smith really did bump into an angel, or the Hindus are right, or the Druids. You get the point: one man's dogma is another man's heresy, even if there is a God somewhere.

But as for God not existing and you believing it/he/she does, the loss is not just "1 life" but your ONLY life. Whoa, that's an ultimate price, is it not? To throw away your only existence in fear, supplication and false obeisance -- that seems especially horrid.

Absent proof of God, then, isn't your #4 a no-brainer? I mean, if there is an Almighty out there, and he is beneficent, is the burden not with him to manifest himself in unequivocal fashion (him being all-good and interested in your well-being, supposedly, and you just a pitiful imperfect being trying to discern truth from a God hiding in the cosmic noise)?

All reasons to dismiss this type of "wager"...

Jackal...

It's so kind of you to offe rme such interesting choices....but please understand that I am completely comfortable in my choices as they are well informed and thought out.

Let me explain.....quite simple really.

I am agnostic ( with atheistic tendencies)....

I live my life according to my priciples and standards instilled early on by my divorced parents. I answer to no higher power, diety or god. I answer to myself. Therefor my standards are high. I am kind to my fellow mankind, work hard to be productive in society and effect a positive outcome, I raise decent children, I love my spouse, I try to be good to my planet and homeland, I am responsible for all that I do....good and bad.

I do all of this without fear or guilt from an all seeing/knowing entity that lives in the sky. I am decent because it's the right thing to do....not out of an unknowing of the future.

Does this make me better than you...no. But your religious ways don't make you better than me either. So lets agree to live good and kind lives together. You believe in what ever you want....just don't let your beliefs interfere with my personal freedoms.

So have no fear for my soul......I am content with my life and it's direction .

Boston, I was just replying to your statement on how it would be bad if God did truly exist. I don't really care if people believe or not. Like you said, I will continue to be responsible for myself and my actions. And I agree, religion does not make a person better or worse. They still have to choose their own morals.

jhoopy-ok, my whole "wager" was in response to why would it be bad for a non-believer if God did truly exist? So, this actually did work. I didn't say it was all-inclusive, actually I said it was really basic. There would be no way to include all possible outcomes. But I don't get how you say that if a God does exist, he needs to reveal himself. If he did, I'm certain that most would still not believe. Most non-believers just don't believe anything. God says he helped people write the Bible for him but non-believers don't agree. If a man came up to you and said that he was God, would you believe or just need more proof? And don't get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to attack you for your beliefs or lack of. I believe every person is responsible for his or her own actions and will one day need to be held accountable for them either on earth or else. I don't think non-believers are less of a person than I am nor do I think that I am better off because of my beliefs. We are all entitled to think and believe what we want to here. That is why the people who refrain from all-out bashing their opposition on here but instead hold a conversation to discuss their beliefs and why they believe that make this site a better place in my opinion. I know that I won't have the same set of beliefs as the next person, but I am willing to talk with anyone on here about why they believe what they do.

Being born out of wedlock infaltes the Medicaid rolls? Hogwash! You assume that all single mothers get Medicaid. I know a few single mothers and not one of them is on ANY government subsidy. Never have been.

Most of the posts in this thread are a pile of crap. Nothing but regurgitated nonsense spewed from sheeple. Morals and values has nothing to do with God or Religion. There are plenty of people on both sides of the "God" fence who are wonderful people and plenty on both sides who are garbage. A committment to one's "marriage" has nothing to do with God either. And a paper from the government or the Church doesn't guarantee committment. If it did, then the divorice rate would not be over 50%. If marriage and committment (even temporary) was obsolete, then we wouldn't have so many 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages.

All polls and all statistics are flawed in some way. One could easily say that many people polled were a product of a messy divorce (spouses or children), gay partners living together, or singles not close to be ready to get married. All this poll should tell anyone is what we already know: people are getting married later in life, divorce is still high, social presure to get married is waning, and gay marriage is becoming a bigger issue.

The more important issue here is for all the self righteous Christians to police your own congregations and your own families to correct all those morally flawed people before you begin trying to "correct" the rest of the population! The example being shown to our youth by the Church leaders, the Christian politicians (Democrats AND Republicans; left, right, and center), and the Christians in the limelight is nothing to be proud of! So stop the non-Christian bashing on this all the other issues, and fix your own problems first!

So you know "a few" single mothers who are not on welfare, and that extrapolates into the majority of single mothers are not on welfare? Talk about a "pile of crap."

Personally, I don't care. I am married, and my children have the benefit of two parents investing in their future. Children raised by a single parent are at a disadvantage - emotionally and economically. This is good for my children, because the weaker their competition, the better chance they have of lording over the masses. But, I suppose since you know of a single celebrity or two that that means NO children of single parents are wanting economically...

Ah yes, the "my child first!" defense. Personally, when I see a child who stands right by his parents and doesn't do or say anything, I wonder how often their parents are punishing them to get them to be terrified of everything.

Mike, are you saying well behaved children are all beaten? That is ridiculous. My children both rank at the top of their classes, have always been the kids their teachers want more of and they have never even been spanked. Parenting, while a challenge, when done well and consistenly, does not require hitting your children. It requires setting boundaries at a young age, and maintaining those boundaries, it requires time and effort on the parents part. And while a single parent household can produce well behaved functioning members of society, and two parent household can produce the durge of society. Statistically speaking, children with a two parent household tend to do better in school, giving them a step up on other children.

wow. Thanks for assuming that my kids are hellions who have no self control simply because I was a single mom for several years. I was never on medicaid and neither were my kids. The only state aid I ever had was WIC for the first 3 years of my oldest son's life. My kids are very well behaved and I often get comments from people that they are "such good kids" or that they wish other parents would get their kids under control like mine are. When we go out to eat, the server usually thanks us for having well behaved kids that didn't make a mess. Talk about making blanket statements.

I may have been a single mom but I was far from alone in raising my kids. My family was always there helping out and loving my kids. My kids have always had a roof over their heads, food to eat and clothes to wear. They have also always had an extended family that loves them to pieces, provides ample examples of good people and shows them true diversity in what defines family. It's great that you think your kids are bastions of perfection, but did you really need to dog on every child in a single parent household to make you and your kids feel/look better?

My sister and I were raised by a single mom (back in the 70's). She was loving, encouraging, supportive, insisted on good manners and thoughtfulness, and she was a working woman who never received financial support--from either the government or my father. She worked hard, and taught her kids well. As a result we were able to travel all over the world in our teens, we all volunteered our time to help the less fortunate (despite us all being godless...or maybe because we were), and my sister and I were both valedictorians of our class and earned full-ride scholarships to college. My sister became a college professor and I have dedicated my life to research. It really is unfortunate that we were so disadvantaged being raised by a single mom, and that we were outshone by all those from traditional families.

I am currently married to a wonderful man who has taken on the responsibility of helping me raise my kids (we just had one together as well). It does make it easier when there are two parents in the household. It helps to divvy up the "work" associated with kids. So, I can't take 100% of the credit for my kids, since my husband has been there for the last two years helping out. I also have to give credit to my family for all of their help through the years. I apologize if I "jumped on you", but I hate it when people rag on single parents or assume that their kids are going to be messed up. I have known many, many examples of single parent households that have great kids and I feel like it is a slam against all of us when people assume the worst about our kids. I have also known many, many kids from "traditional" families that are not the best examples of the human race. I think it all boils down to how the parent(s) parent and how the kids are hardwired from birth. (I do believe in bad seeds). Thank you for the compliment of Amazing, but I see myself as more Dedicated. I love my kids so much it is almost painful at times and that drives me to do the best I possibly can by them and for them. They are not my trophies or my dress up dolls. They are not my outlet to do the things I didn't get to as a child. They are my kids, my legacy and my heart. Maybe if more parents viewed their kids that way, we would be better off...maybe not.

As for marriage...I am currently happier than I had ever thought possible with my mate. I love him dearly and we made the commitment well before we signed the paperwork. The paperwork was a formality that allowed us to reap the rewards offered only to those who legally marry. I was just as committed to him before that date and just as in love with him as well. Marriage is a mindset for me and I was married in my heart to him long before we got the "piece of paper".

JRWOLF.....

You are so right on the money. In fact, statistics have been systematically altered by republican administrations for decades to promote their outdated "family based" agendas. There have been some great books discussing those very facts...all about how polls and research that was touted as facts turned out to be complete and total BS!

The right wing conservation morons continue to find ways to deceive and flat out lie to the general public about single mother, welfare, poverty in childhood, how divorce ruins the family unit,....so many more.

I wish people would take caution and use common sense when reading articles that seems to hyped and media driven to scare ones senses into thinking the world is collapsing all around them.

Since responsible journalism seems to be no longer the norm.....the audience has to demand facts with proof for any news worthy topic that flies in the face of common sense.

The Bush administration ( and many others) have altered and skewed polls and statistics on welfare, single mothers and education, war, sexual behaviors, homosexuality and many more areas to promote the male driven agenda of marriage and family based issues to keep women controlled and submissive. This is nothing new and has happened systematically through out the decades.

Try reading Susan Faludi or Jessica Valenti. Both provide data and materials that were finally made public through the freedom of information acts regarding how stats have been made up to promote right wing agendas.

Backlash by Susan Faludi is a great source for information. There she quote and provides such links and data.

Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth and Full Frontal Feminism is fantastic as well.

Boston, you can alter any statistic or study to make it say what you want it to. You did it without even realizing it or maybe you did realize it. By you saying "In fact, statistics have been systematically altered by republican administrations for decades" makes it seem like only republicans do it in reality, everyone does it. I know that may not have been how you wanted it to sound but still, it seemed like you wanted it to. And back to my original point, you may alter any statistic, study, or even quote to your own personal liking.

I use the republican right wing agenda as it applies to the article because they are the group intent on pushing unrealistic and out dated traditions and ideas.....despite the opposite trend.

The Pew Research Center is a widely respected nonpartisan research body.

If you know statistics, then you know that it doesn't take a large sample, even in a country as large as the US, to get statistically valid results. It doesn't matter whether you're taking an opinion poll, or doing quality control in a factory. Small samples, properly drawn, can tell a lot. Of course, there's always a margin of error. The article should've indicated that margin.

"The Pew Research Center is a widely respected nonpartisan research body." True, but they are based in Washington D.C. and receive funding from a trust. I wonder how truly biased they are with offices in Washington.

Barry, here's the margin of error.

"The survey has a total margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, larger for subgroups. Pew also analyzed 2008 census data, and used surveys conducted by Time magazine to identify trends from earlier decades."

Munky ... thanks. I should've gone back and looked. As soon as I clicked "post" I realized that most reputable news organizations do include that information. I goofed.

Yeah, I remember my life before my first statistics class.

That's fine until you come to the legal issue of property rights, healthcare, pensions, etc. That is the reason for any contract between two people/businesses, etc. That is why there are over 1400 laws relating to "marriage" and the rights and benefits thereof. "Marriage" has become much more than just a religious ceremony. Families have become more (and actually always have been more) than just one man/one woman (legally bound by contract) and whatever number of offspring they create. There have always been extended families, single parent families, foster care, etc. Who are we to say they aren't legitimate families?

I have been in committed relationship for seven years now, and it is the best relationship I have ever had. We have discussed marriage and I have even proposed but we are in no rush to actually go through with the actual process.

The actual legal process means we will end up paying a lot more in taxes so it is actually beneficial to not sign the legal paperwork, even though we are 'married' in all other aspects. Until there is some legal benefit that would outweight the legal downfalls, we will probably keep putting it off.

The real legal benefits come when one of you is no longer around. If married, the survivor is entitled to additional social security benefits. The survivor also inherits the deceased's property (or most of it) tax-free. Neither of these benefits can be conveyed by private contract.

No, but I can name her beneficiary on my life insurance policy which will FAR exceed any social security benefit she would receive. A will can also be used to transfer property upon death and there is no federal estate tax on property under 3.5 million; none actually in 2010 for any amount.

Again, the 'benefits' of a legal government-recognized marriage are miniscule when compared to the downfalls of that marriage. Our current tax code makes being married a huge penalty if both members make any substantial amount of money. Choosing single status allows both people to take the standard tax deduction and/or one can itemize all the household costs while the other takes the standard deduction. Plus BOTH will benefit from the lower tax rates on their individual incomes. If married, you must combine your incomes as one income and thus one of your incomes is taxed completely at the highest rate. For high incomes, that can add up pretty quickly... $10,000-$12,000 dollars less in taxes, which will leave a lot let over even after funding a hefty life insurance policy.

Every situation is different. For others, the ability to receive to be covered under a partner's health benefits without paying taxes on their value will outweigh the additional tax on incomes.

That's why no one can say that marriage is the right decision for everyone. Personally, I think that marriage should be a tax-neutral arrangement, with no tax advantages or disadvantages.

I'm gay too, but I do support those in our community who want the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples when they enter into a committed relationship. After a 16 year opposite sex marriage, I decided that I was going to remain single the rest of my life, and I've done so for the past 24 years (I'm now 66 y/o.)

JJ ... what's your logic? If gays can get married, heterosexuals won't? Why would that be the case?

I've got to formulate a response to Barry-NJ. Let me get my thoughts together and I'll post a response later.