Of please ... we could be talking about breakfast cereal and you would interject homosexuality into the discussion.
Should It Be Lawful For Minors To Be Married With Parental Consent?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Of please ... we could be talking about breakfast cereal and you would interject homosexuality into the discussion.
genuineoriginal
New member
Marriages without children does not change the fact that marriage is a societal institution that provides support for pregnant women and children by ensuring that there is a husband to support them.
There are people that claim that the institution of marriage was created by women to meet this very need.
_____
MARRIAGE: AN ACHIEVEMENT OF CENTURIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN (pdf)
. . .
She may be primeval, at the dawn of marriage itself; or she may be someone who visited a welfare office or a crisis pregnancy center this morning. Either way, she has the same problem: she has a baby (born or soon to be so), and raising him or her is going to be a lot harder – for the mother and the baby alike – if she does not succeed in getting the father to play a role in helping both her and the baby. Maybe she is lucky and he actually wants to. But what if he does not? She can try to persuade him; that might work – for a while. She might in effect bribe him with continuing sexual access, but that is not going to work over the long haul because younger competitors enter the sexual market every day. So what can our young mother do?
There is one other strategy open to her, but she cannot implement it alone. It is that of setting up a thick web of social rewards and expectations, valorizing the men who dedicate themselves to their children and of the mothers of their children, and stigmatizing those who do not. This act of social construction (if you insist on calling it that) requires not only the participation of the entire society, but also the passing of centuries.
Success will come, alas, centuries too late to help the young mother with whom we started. But maybe, maybe, we can help her similarly-situated sisters down the ages. Maybe, that is, unless anyone were to stop the process and reverse it, teaching that marriage is not about tying men to the children they have sired or may sire, but rather, about the moment-to-moment happiness of the couple who gets married; that, plus a bunch of legal benefits. If that were to happen – and of course it has – the system will unravel in much less time than it took to put it together.
. . .
_____
MARRIAGE: AN ACHIEVEMENT OF CENTURIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN (pdf)
. . .
She may be primeval, at the dawn of marriage itself; or she may be someone who visited a welfare office or a crisis pregnancy center this morning. Either way, she has the same problem: she has a baby (born or soon to be so), and raising him or her is going to be a lot harder – for the mother and the baby alike – if she does not succeed in getting the father to play a role in helping both her and the baby. Maybe she is lucky and he actually wants to. But what if he does not? She can try to persuade him; that might work – for a while. She might in effect bribe him with continuing sexual access, but that is not going to work over the long haul because younger competitors enter the sexual market every day. So what can our young mother do?
There is one other strategy open to her, but she cannot implement it alone. It is that of setting up a thick web of social rewards and expectations, valorizing the men who dedicate themselves to their children and of the mothers of their children, and stigmatizing those who do not. This act of social construction (if you insist on calling it that) requires not only the participation of the entire society, but also the passing of centuries.
Success will come, alas, centuries too late to help the young mother with whom we started. But maybe, maybe, we can help her similarly-situated sisters down the ages. Maybe, that is, unless anyone were to stop the process and reverse it, teaching that marriage is not about tying men to the children they have sired or may sire, but rather, about the moment-to-moment happiness of the couple who gets married; that, plus a bunch of legal benefits. If that were to happen – and of course it has – the system will unravel in much less time than it took to put it together.
. . .
_____
If you want to continue to think marriage is about the moment-to-moment happiness of the couple, then you are taking away the protections of the mother and baby that marriage provides.
After all, many men today would be happy to enjoy sex with many women and never take any responsibility when the women get pregnant.
genuineoriginal
New member
And when the young woman is forced to raise her child alone in poverty because of people like you condemning marriage, that is just what you can expect to happen.
Not all marriages produce children ... for those that do, in many instances, the children are more at risk IF one of the parents are unfit or violent.
:yawn: They already do that. The only difference (if things were done YOUR way) is that those women would be tied to an unfaithful loser who would make her miserable.
genuineoriginal
New member
That is the worst way to make a marriage, since it will fall apart just as soon as the man or woman "falls out of love" with their spouse and "falls in love" with the pizza delivery person.
You make too many assumptions. Unless you have walked the walk, you have no clue what you are speaking of. It is far better to scrape by, living pay check to pay check as compared to living a life of wealth and misery.
So ... your criteria for a strong marriage is ... the spouses must not love or care about one another?
NEWSFLASH: Your way is much easier to accomplish by just ... remaining single.
genuineoriginal
New member
I see you are perfectly happy in forcing your child to live in poverty and without a parent during the times you are off to work earning that pay check.
You also seem to want your child to choose someone while their ability to think rationally is clouded by the hormones racing through their bodies, a condition known as "love", and end up scraping by and living paycheck to paycheck with their own children when the feelings go away.
No, my criteria is putting family before feelings.
I see you perfectly happy forcing a couple into a marriage that will most probably fail and being dismissive of any abuse or adultery that is part of that marriage.
Nah ... I just have no desire to be the type of selfish, control freak who wishes to throw my children out the door at the first opportunity ...
No. It's. Not. Your criteria is being dismissive of a child's future. You speak of marriage as though it is nothing more than a business deal.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The LGBTQueer movement has gone to great measures (beat up people, threatened their lives, had them fired or sued, damaged private property, etc. etc. etc.) to get where they are with marriage equality today. By leaving two boyz that want to share their (shortened) lives together out of the equation, it shows that you're a homophobic Nazi racist theocratic bigot.
Shame on you Arthurrrrrr.
Okay, once you've put the LSD down and tuned back into sanity FM then feel free to respond on point aCW...
:freak:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Who doesn't love Froot Loops?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Surrounded by what? Hallucinations?
It would seem to me that anyone with a non indoctrinated frontal cortex would balk at the notion of children being married or forced into it. Still, if they're 15 year old girls and a conservative Christian promotes it then hey, it's all good eh aCW?
:thumb:
lain:
genuineoriginal
New member
You are doing that by insisting that the couple must choose their own spouses because of a momentary feeling.
You seem to have a problem comprehending the way an extended family functions.
You think making a decision based on careful consideration of a child's future is being dismissive?
You are much more dismissive with your, "as long as it makes you happy," attitude towards marriage, divorce, and living alone in poverty trying to raise a child.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Indeed it is. If a child doesn't wish to get married it's irrelevant in GO's place of residence aka 'Bonkersville'...
He's the type of nut that I hope just doesn't have children...
After puberty, the only thing stopping a person from adulthood is, well, you.
They had no problem with it before you, so what's the real problem? Because it isn't their age
Haven't seen anyone answer this.
All I see is affirmation of what is already presumed, not an actual moral structure to validate why the new system is better than the old, which was around all the way up to this recent age.
It went like this: 14 for girls; 16 for boys. This was where they were ready for woman and manhood, and this was the standard even so far as to colonial America.
So, again
What's the problem :idunno:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yeah, well horses and buggies were all the rage back then too, but I'd much rather drive a car nowadays.
And BTW, I spoke to the age issue on the first page.
And BTW, I spoke to the age issue on the first page.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I have to say this thread of yours brings back bad memories of the Ducky Dynasty threads. And I don't think a one of us on either side of the issue who was there for those threads has changed our minds.
