[Blue Lion]

I think you misunderstood my post. I don't see a connection between my post and yours post. I meant having children is seen as a way to make the dwindling marriage stronger again.

Mika

Unless the reason for a dwindling marriage is "we don't have kids" that's.... kinda awful.

Would you tell them that?

[Mika]

You could replace "dwindling marriage" with "dwindling relationship" also.

It is not that uncommon. People are just not too honest with each other. My view is simply that quite a lot of marriages happen because two adults are afraid that they will never find the partner they love so they choose the next best option. Also, you could replace "marriage" with "love relationship" or whatever it is called elsewhere. What it comes to statistics, I have none. These are only what I have witnessed with my own eyes and not applicable everywhere.

What it comes to telling people about it, yes I have done that. I feel I'm witnessing such a relationship right in front of my eyes in the case of my little sister and her man.

Mika

[General Battuta]

Marriage is arbitrary. A genuine love between a couple is not.

This is true.  So why not certify it for the world to see by getting married?  Show me a negative in a relationship by getting married.

Boy, I don't know, because it's not legal for a lot of loving couples?

Because it means commitment when a lot of people aren't ready? Because it means tying yourself legally to another individual who could betray and destroy you (on a financial and personal level)?

Given that only 15% of individuals abstain from sex until age 21, I don't think your ideals are a realistic goal.

[Blue Lion]

No I mean would you tell a kid their reason for existence was to improve your relationship?

[Mika]

Me as a parent or as an outsider?

[Polpolion]

Marriage is arbitrary. A genuine love between a couple is not.

This is true.  So why not certify it for the world to see by getting married?  Show me a negative in a relationship by getting married.

A) You don't need to get married. Like I said, marriage is completely arbitrary and would have little to no bearing on people's relationships if it hadn't been so thoroughly made into a paradigm by religion and law.

B) I cite all of the Hollywood marriages that go awry. And all marriages that end up in divorce. But as I said, marriage is arbitrary so it's not like this means anything other than it complicates things.

Given that marriage is arbitrary, there's really no reason for people to need to get married if they really love each other. And there are ways to profess one's love to another in ways that aren't legally and religiously binding, too.

BTW, I'm not trying to say that marriage is by any means bad, I'm just saying that it's unnecessary for a fruitful and satisfying relationship.

[Blue Lion]

As a parent Mika.

[Mika]

As a parent, of course not. Yet having a surprise baby is one of the oldest tricks to catch a relatively wealthy husband. Before it was parents controlling with whom their children should be married with, nowadays the children do it automatically (including aspects of love and also wealth).

For some reason, I'm starting to think that only a few people actually know what love is.

Mika

[General Battuta]

Seriously, Liberator. With more than half of marriages ending in failure, you want more people to get married?

People are starting to realize it may not be a really relevant social paradigm any more.

[Polpolion]

Seriously, Liberator. With more than half of marriages ending in failure, you want more people to get married?

People are starting to realize it may not be a really relevant social paradigm any more.

You're skirting around the issue here. The problem is that people aren't being good parents, and being married has almost nothing to do with that. I don't know specific issues with today's relationships, but perhaps a common one could be that people are less sensitive or understanding with their partner, and that's what's destroying the relationships, not the marriages.

We need to change the frequency of good, healthy, stable relationships (read: relationships that won't end), not change the frequency of marriage (necessarily, at least). The relationships that have evolved into marriages would've fallen apart regardless of whether the people were married or not.

[General Battuta]

Seriously, Liberator. With more than half of marriages ending in failure, you want more people to get married?

People are starting to realize it may not be a really relevant social paradigm any more.

You're skirting around the issue here. The problem is that people aren't being good parents, and being married has almost nothing to do with that. I don't know specific issues with today's relationships, but perhaps a common one could be that people are less sensitive or understanding with their partner, and that's what's destroying the relationships, not the marriages.

We need to change the frequency of good, healthy, stable relationships (read: relationships that won't end), not change the frequency of marriage (necessarily, at least). The relationships that have evolved into marriages would've fallen apart regardless of whether the people were married or not.

That's a valid point, but I think my comment stands as well.

[Goober5000]

I'm going to come to Liberator's defense because someone had the gall to report a post of his to the moderator.  I think we can all agree he's doing a fine job debating, even if you don't agree with his particular position.

That said I happen to agree with his position as well, or at least the more general rephrasing of it: a stable two-parent traditional household is the best way to ensure that the kids they raise are stable and well-adjusted.

General Battuta, I doubt Liberator is in favor of marriages falling apart.  Obviously a marriage that stays together is better than one that ends in divorce; it shows that the married couple is mature enough to work through their differences.  Nobody is ever going to be 100% satisfied with their mate; people are only human.  The question is whether a person is willing to focus on the 80% that works instead of the 20% that doesn't.

In fact I would go so far as to say that a two-parent household, where a man and woman are not married but have decided to live together for the indefinite future, is almost as good as an actual marriage.  They don't have the piece of paper saying they're married, but they have the stable family structure and all the other positive features that come with it.

[Unknown Target]

I know that Goober took care of this, but I'm also chiming in as someone who's not taking part in this argument. Don't report posts just because you disagree with the opinion expressed therein. Hard Light is a pretty open forum when it comes to discussing things, and even though some opinions may not jive with what you hold dear, don't report them just because you find what they say to be "wrong". If you disagree with a post, respond to it with a counter argument, don't rely on moderators to swoop in, delete the post, and scold the poster - it won't happen.

[General Battuta]

I didn't do that, did I? No, I didn't! I'm pretty sure. I apologize if I somehow did...

And sure, Goob, I think two-parent households are generally better than one, and I have no problem considering a man and a woman (or man and man, or woman and woman, but you may disagree) living together to be on par with a marriage.

[MP-Ryan]

I didn't read everyone else's posts, but I have two statistics to contribute that put planet-sized holes in Ms. Coulter's argument:
1.  Violent crime rates, and the number of stable recidivist violent criminals, have been steadily dropping since the 1970s.  Violent crime rates are lower now than they have ever been since they have been reliably measured.
2.  Numbers of unwed mothers do not correlate to numbers of stable family units.  Since the 1970s, marriage rates have steadily dropped or delayed, but the stable family unit has remained relatively intact (even in the face of divorce and separation, family unitsoften reform in blended families, which are also stable).

Coulter is a moron.  She uses limited case and anecdotal evidence to make moralistic points which anyone with reasonably-competent Google skills can debunk in a matter of seconds.

Now, if an interesting discussion along these lines is how ready and legal availability of abortion services has a long-term effect of decreasing the area crime rate.  Tackle that one, if you will =)

[Unknown Target]

I didn't do that, did I? No, I didn't! I'm pretty sure. I apologize if I somehow did...

I was referring to the poster who reported a certain post because he disagreed with the views expressed in it. If you did not report a post for that reason, then no reason to apologize.

[General Battuta]

Whew! 

[Liberator]

Seriously, Liberator. With more than half of marriages ending in failure, you want more people to get married?

People are starting to realize it may not be a really relevant social paradigm any more.

Firstly, Battuta, I'm not suggesting that I want more people to get married.  I want more people to give some forethought into they're actions and what might happen if they do something.  It's not about denying you or your partner your desires.  It's about making sure those desires don't have a negative impact on your or they're life. 

Secondly, thank you very much Goob, I appreciate your sentiments very much, I was beginning to feel a little alone.

Lastly, while they're may not be an earth shattering correlation between effectively fatherless children and violent crime, there is a connection.  Anyone who can recognize simple patterns can see it.  A little bit of inductive reasoning is all it takes.  Crime is high in the inner city, the highest concentration of "fatherless" children is in the inner city, ergo at least part of the higher crime rate is created by children who would have a lower chance of committing a crime had they had a positive male influence.  That's a little simple and it should include a relation to gang membership also, but it's late and I'm tired.

My big, throbbing, huge, overwhelming cry is for people to stop living in a world where the response to a negative situation is "It's not my fault!"  A return of personal responsibility is what the world needs.

[redsniper]

My big, throbbing, huge, overwhelming cry is for people to stop living in a world where the response to a negative situation is "It's not my fault!"  A return of personal responsibility is what the world needs.

This. A thousand times.

[Nuclear1]

Crime is high in the inner city, the highest concentration of "fatherless" children is in the inner city, ergo at least part of the higher crime rate is created by children who would have a lower chance of committing a crime had they had a positive male influence.

Yes, that's true, but you're missing something huge.  Young women who become pregnant in the inner city, with the fathers either leaving them or being very poor role models, have no choice.  I mean, really, if you don't want to have children born into a world where they're going to have a miserable existence and simply contribute to the higher crime rate, why bother having them, right?  And since the child welfare department is sorely lacking in organization in funding, adoption isn't a much better option.

So, the thing you're missing is: why not abortion?

My big, throbbing, huge, overwhelming cry is for people to stop living in a world where the response to a negative situation is "It's not my fault!"  A return of personal responsibility is what the world needs.

If I didn't know you believed in "sex for reproduction only" and anti-abortion, I would agree with this.  However, I know given the context of this argument that this is what you mean by this.  People shouldn't be having sex unless they're ready to have children and if they get pregnant, well, bugger them, they have to raise it or give it away.  If abortion wasn't viewed as babykilling and made more available, I can guarantee inner city crime and violence would drop.