The UK's marriage rate

[SUBMAN1]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S

[bradclark1]

Have you checked the birth rate? More couples are living together (gasp) or becoming single parents (double gasp) today than ever before. You might want to check US stats too as we are switching to that. I think it has little to do with calling a union a union (triple gasp). I'm just left gaspless.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S

Well, considering how often the Yanks get divorced and remarried, its no wonder we're behind you.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, considering how often the Yanks get divorced and remarried, its no wonder we're behind you.The US is holding at about 40, or double the UK for marriage rate and the divorce rate has drastically declined to 17 per 1000 couples.

The US can't hold a candle to what is happening in the UK.

-S

[kiwi_2005]

Marriage today is risky - Paul Mc Cartney comes to mind he marries that wrench who from day one her plan was to marry him for his money no other reason just greed. Few yrs later hello shes asking for some of his money! What gives her the right to claim for his millions when she had nothing to do with it she never helped him make his millions.:nope: Yes he should support his child but thats it. She walks out of court very rich. Okay unless you and your wife got the house/car bit of extra land etc together if you divorce then its fare to go half each of everything between yous. Otherwise in the situation likes McCartneys your partner shouldn't get a cent.
By law here if your partner is living with you for more than 3 yrs he/she can claim for half of everything even if he/she never put in a cent towards it. Thats crazy i would rather burn my home down than to give it away.

[Trex]

Mind you, one reason for the US marriage rate holding is perhaps the antiquated sort of law still on the books in some states, despite Lawrence v. Texas, making it a crime for two people to live together without a formal marriage.

[SUBMAN1]

Mind you, one reason for the US marriage rate holding is perhaps the antiquated sort of law still on the books in some states, despite Lawrence v. Texas, making it a crime for two people to live together without a formal marriage.This law has never been used in recent memory except when looking for alimony.

-S

[jumpy]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S
Yup marriage rates are low, and justly so - I'm not keen on the whole enterprise; apart from the cost :roll: there's also the fact that I want to keep all my stuff if I separate from my other half. The only people who are in a win win situation when it comes to marriage and divorce are solicitors.
Perhaps coming from a family background where my parents divorced, I have a certain scepticism for the whole institution of marriage.
But all of this doesn't mean the proletariat are not squeezing kids out left, right and centre, THEY ARE! I only have to walk into town or through any nearby housing estate to see young people with loads of kids.

I think it's a little blasé of you to engineer that into omg11!!1 'nice knowing you' etc :down: seeing as there's more to it than that. In this respect I'll echo KP's words about divorce rates and add the whole litigation culture that began with the US 'PC - make the lawyers money' which is making itself more widespread here now too; where people aren't content until they have compensation for the most inane trivia. Thanks for exporting that to us... no really, we were in such dire need of PC, it's so much better and more efficient than good old fashioned common sense and decency we had before.
I could just as falsely say "See ya yankees! by the time all those swarthy moustachioed Mexican illegals are finished crossing your borders, you'll all be eating tacos' and chilli and calling everyone 'gringo'."

This law has never been used in recent memory except when looking for alimony. BINGO! score 1 for the lawyers.

[SUBMAN1]

I think it's a little blasé of you to engineer that into omg11!!1 'nice knowing you' etc :down: I don't have to engineer anything - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/poptrd0305.pdf

Notice how migration is being used as the reason your population won't decline. Why not go research who exactly is migrating? :p

BINGO! score 1 for the lawyers.True.

As for your stuff - ever heard of a prenump? Its how you keep your stuff seperate from a mariage if you are that self centered.

-S

[3Jane]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S


Too busy laughing to actually post a longer response to this drivel.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

The reason immigration is so high is because we dont have the same restrictions as America does. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but people regardless of nationality and ethnicity will flock to places that its easy to get into.

US Visas arent exactly the most warm of welcomes for someone who wants to come to the US either temporarily or permanently. Infact, there's a whole air of "We dont want you here, and you have no right to be".

Over here, its "Do you have legs?" "Yes" "Welcome to the UK, here's your passport and first months benefit. The NHS Hospital is just down the road, and we have a bed reserved for you" :shifty:

[jumpy]

I think it's a little blasé of you to engineer that into omg11!!1 'nice knowing you' etc :down: I don't have to engineer anything - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/poptrd0305.pdf

Notice how migration is being used as the reason your population won't decline. Why not go research who exactly is migrating? :p

BINGO! score 1 for the lawyers.True.

As for your stuff - ever heard of a prenump? Its how you keep your stuff seperate from a mariage if you are that self centered.

-S

Well, there's no concealing the confrontational pitch of your words there. I don't agree with you, but that's ok.;)

[SUBMAN1]

Well, there's no concealing the confrontational pitch of your words there. I don't agree with you, but that's ok.;)Don't take it the wrong way since I understand that no one likes hearing bad news about ones country. I'm pointing it out to you over there so that you can do something about it to fix the problem.

To not do anything is to keep things status quo, and eventually this will turn out to be disasterous for you.

-S

[antikristuseke]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S

Non sequitur much?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Well, there's no concealing the confrontational pitch of your words there. I don't agree with you, but that's ok.;)Don't take it the wrong way since I understand that no one likes hearing bad news about ones country. I'm pointing it out to you over there so that you can do something about it to fix the problem.

To not do anything is to keep things status quo, and eventually this will turn out to be disasterous for you.

-S

Do what about it, exactly? Last time I checked, marriage was a choice, not a requirement.

[clive bradbury]

Well, subman, if you are interested in birth rate research, take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

the USA rate is remarkably close to that of the UK (only two more births per 1000), which is only to be expected as most developed nations tend to have low birth rates.

I'm not really sure about what point you are trying to make in your post - perhaps you could explain your arguments a little. For example, you seem to consider 'liberal' attitudes to marriage a bad thing - could you explain why?

How about your personal feelings? Do you see marriage as a good or bad thing, for instance?

Personally, I would love to see the population of the UK decline, although there is no actual sign of that. I would finally find somewhere to park...

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Personally, I would love to see the population of the UK decline, although there is no actual sign of that. I would finally find somewhere to park...

:rotfl::rotfl:

And finally find a pub that's not packed to the brim :lol:

[Konovalov]

Well, subman, if you are interested in birth rate research, take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

the USA rate is remarkably close to that of the UK, which is only to be expected as most developed nations tend to have low birth rates.

I'm not really sure about what point you are trying to make in your post - perhaps you could explain your arguments a little. For example, you seem to consider 'liberal' attitudes to marriage a bad thing - could you explain why?

How about your personal feelings? Do you see marriage as a good or bad thing, for instance?

Personally, I would love to see the population of the UK decline, although there is no actual sign of that. I would finally find somewhere to park...

I'm trying to find the point to it also. Perhaps that ALL Liberals and Muslims are the enemy. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Well, subman, if you are interested in birth rate research, take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

the USA rate is remarkably close to that of the UK (only two more births per 1000), which is only to be expected as most developed nations tend to have low birth rates.

I'm not really sure about what point you are trying to make in your post - perhaps you could explain your arguments a little. For example, you seem to consider 'liberal' attitudes to marriage a bad thing - could you explain why?

How about your personal feelings? Do you see marriage as a good or bad thing, for instance?

Personally, I would love to see the population of the UK decline, although there is no actual sign of that. I would finally find somewhere to park...Yes, our Blue states are declining, and our Red states are rising, which is why I think the democrats want the illegal votes - they have declining population and will lose for the rest of time their ability to win elections if it continues. However, our birth rates are increasing. Yours are declining.

ALso, we have a population increase going on. .883% increase.

12 is high by the way - your actual birth rate is 10.65 in 2008.

-S

PS. Don't use Wikipedia. Its the worst for inaccurate information since you or I could edit it.

[clive bradbury]

You are still not making the point of your post clear, though - at least to me - maybe I'm a bit slow...

[SUBMAN1]

You are still not making the point of your post clear, though - at least to me - maybe I'm a bit slow...Lets see, what part about a problem with marriage laws, low marriage rates, low birth rates with the US of A having an almost 50% greater birth rate, and immigration problems are you missing?

-S

[jumpy]

50% greater birth rate than the UK is nothing to shout 'god bless america' :lol: about when you consider that's compared to the population of the UK being 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.) and the US 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

With those kind of numbers I'd have expected it to be way more than '50%' over the UK.

As for the marriage laws, there's nothing really wrong with the ones we have apart from the fact that many people don't seem to feel it's necessary these days, coupled with the fact we no-longer need to have 10 kids per family in order that some of them will survive to adulthood and that some choose other interests over raising children.
Immigration is a problem, but that's to be expected from a country that used to own half of the known world and currently is one of the top few nations in terms of its wealth and opportunity (compared to most 3rd world lands).

[STEED]

Marriage is looked upon as out of date by the young now, pump out kids and shack up in sin. Society is breaking down and good night.

[clive bradbury]

Well, that is the first time you have mentioned a problem with UK marriage laws, so it's difficult to understand your point there.

As for low birth rates, as I have already stated, that, in my opinion, is a good thing for the UK. We are a very small country, and considerably overpopulated. We could comfortably reduce our population by up to about one third - they might finally stop building houses on green fields then.

To what immigration problems to you refer? The current influx of (mostly) EU immigrants has meant that jobs in low paid service industries have finally been filled by people who work a lot harder than Brits for lower wages. This means that costs of service industries are reduced, which is good news for people like myself who use them. A recent example on UK television dealt with Polish migrant workers who effectively do all the manual labour in the fruit-picking industry. The farmer (british) went as far as saying that he could not function without them as British youngsters will not do the work for the wages offered. So again, a positive thing.

[Hakahura]

You are still not making the point of your post clear, though - at least to me - maybe I'm a bit slow...

Oh come on, the point of Subman's posts are always clear.

USA = Good
Rest of world = Bad
Muslim = Bad
Liberal thoughts = Bad

:rotfl:

I shouldn't laugh though,
The UK is doomed, :o DOOMED he tells us

:rotfl:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Marriage is looked upon as out of date by the young now

Not by this one

[SUBMAN1]

Oh come on, the point of Subman's posts are always clear.

USA = Good
Rest of world = Bad
Muslim = Bad
Liberal thoughts = Bad

:rotfl:

I shouldn't laugh though,
The UK is doomed, :o DOOMED he tells us

:rotfl:A pointless post. If you read above, I said the USA has a similar problem, but not as bad. Children, please get back on subject.

-S

[mrbeast]

I've got to hand it to you UK'rs, proving me right yet again. Anyway, your liberal policies towards marriage and your creation of unions instead has finally collapsed your institution of marriage. You now have a marriage rate of a slightly over 20 per 1000 people! Wow! That is an impressive number! Not for how high it is, but for how low it is. We have to go back to 1850 (Queen Victoria's time) or earlier to even touch it since you need a much smaller population so that you can have old people and young people to offset it!

Basically, nice knowing you, since your marriage rate directly translates into birth rates - you are dying. Oh, excuse me, the people keeping up your marriage rates are the Muslims, who will also have your children, and eventually own your country in the not too distant future.

Smart liberal laws and PC attitude you've got there. It's getting you far in this world! :up:

-S


Yeah because only married people ever have children. :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Well, that is the first time you have mentioned a problem with UK marriage laws, so it's difficult to understand your point there. read my first post.

As for low birth rates, as I have already stated, that, in my opinion, is a good thing for the UK. We are a very small country, and considerably overpopulated. We could comfortably reduce our population by up to about one third - they might finally stop building houses on green fields then. maybe it is, but the people replacing the population are not of UK origin. You have a shift in population happening and your original culture is in jepordy.

To what immigration problems to you refer? The current influx of (mostly) EU immigrants has meant that jobs in low paid service industries have finally been filled by people who work a lot harder than Brits for lower wages. This means that costs of service industries are reduced, which is good news for people like myself who use them. A recent example on UK television dealt with Polish migrant workers who effectively do all the manual labour in the fruit-picking industry. The farmer (british) went as far as saying that he could not function without them as British youngsters will not do the work for the wages offered. So again, a positive thing.That is not true. We have several McDonalds out here that are worked by normal native kids - no illegals to be found. I'm sure the same exists there. What you describe is propoganda from the farmers. Trust me, everything functioned fine before loose immigration entered the picture. This is greedy industry driving things if we are talking about immigration.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah because only married people ever have children. :nope:Hardly. Its actually the number of children and the number of stable children that is in question. Any study on the subject will show non-married societies in decline. Montreal has quite a few on the subject for example, and I beleive some of them are posted in this forum.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

50% greater birth rate than the UK is nothing to shout 'god bless america' :lol: about when you consider that's compared to the population of the UK being 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.) and the US 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
You missed the part about sustaining population. The US of A is still sustaining and growing via birth rates. THe UK however is only sustaining/growing due to immigration/longer life span. That is what is at issue. Though there is decline in the blue states in the USA. No doubt about that.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

We already know all of this.

[mrbeast]

OK then Subman, lets see whats propping up your countries' birth rate then..........Whoooops:

Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries-twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada, and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan.

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1207250874.html

Damn liberal policies! :nope:

[SUBMAN1]

OK then Subman, lets see whats propping up your countries' birth rate then..........Whoooops:

Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries-twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada, and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan.
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1207250874.html

Damn liberal policies! :nope:Sadly with our abortion rates, most or many will be terminated. :nope:

-S

[Tchocky]

Ah, immigrants. They're not real Britons now, are they?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

You still havent answered my question about what you expect us to do about it.

[antikristuseke]

It's easy, try to picture Subman wrapped in a british flag, yelling at a bunch of immigrants "victory will come from the womb of our women !", and urging young british looking boys & girls to marry each other and make babies. quick !

Are you sugesting that SUBMAN1 would be in the BNP?
By George, I think you might be right.:smug:

[mrbeast]

It's easy, try to picture Subman wrapped in a british flag, yelling at a bunch of immigrants "victory will come from the womb of our women !", and urging young british looking boys & girls to marry each other and make babies. quick !

Didin't the nazis try something like this, encouraging blond aryans to have as many babies as they could.

[PeriscopeDepth]

It's easy...to picture Subman wrapped in a british flag...
Maybe for you! :p

PD

[clive bradbury]

'Trust me, everything functioned fine before loose immigration entered the picture.'

Well, frankly, subman, I don't trust you. You seem to be expousing opinions about a situation you know very little about, and you definitely have a very naive view of British history. At what precise point in the history of the British Isles did we not have immigration? The nature of our culture as a trading, seafaring nation, has always meant that we have a relatively high rate of immigration, and very good for the country it has generally been, too. It is one of the reasons that we tend to have a more balanced world view, not leading to simplistic, black and white, arguments.

You appear to see all immigration as a negative thing - can I ask why? Is it based on some racist viewpoint, perhaps an outdated view of racial or cultural purity? Interesting, especially as you are living in a country which relied almost entirely upon immigrants to establish itself in the first place. You may be in danger of denying your own cultural heritage.

[XabbaRus]

Pointless drivel. I can't understand the point he is making. In fact when Subman1 posts about stuff to do with Britain it's in this sarcastic manner. Makes you wonder if he is anti-british.

AS for marriage in the UK. My opinion is that marriage is too easy and divorce is too easy. Coupled with the attitude that relationships are a commodity (this is in general not specifics) and disposable. I believe in marriage but at the same time realise it doesn't always work out, sometimes for good reasons but in my experience with my friends who are marriage and divorce statistics it was over silly things they couldn't be bothered working through.

My point is this. Why if you have been with someone for a long time eg >10 years you don't get married? Especially if you have children together. The thing that I found interesting for me with jumpy is he doesn't see why he shouldn't get to keep what is his. Well that is what marriage is about, a commitment and sharing your life ergo posessions with someone else. Now Jumpy's parents are divorced so that has affected his view on marriage. Fair do's I can respect that. However I think in general that society has become so consumed with the have it all when you want it that marriage has been eroded by government and society.

Saying that subman don't get what you are crowing about.

[SUBMAN1]

Pointless drivel. If thats you attitude, its about as pointless as anything else on this forum. Just because you don't like the message, doesn't make it pointless.

I should point out, my point is from the beginining is the loss of interest in marriage in the UK. Not sure where I lost people on that, but it seems to be only UK'rs that I lost. Maybe there is a point to be made here? :hmm: Pun not intended though.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Look what I found!

-S

The Demise of Marriage in Britain



According to a new report by Britain’s Office for National Statistics, the proportion of Britons getting married “has collapsed to a record low,” and that is a quote. One critic of the current government called it “a disaster for children, families, and society.” But, unlike natural disasters, this disaster is completely man-made.


In 2006, there were approximately 237,000 weddings in Britain—the fewest since 1895, when Victoria was still queen and Britain’s population was about half of what it is today. In fact, “the proportion of men and women getting married is below any level found since figures were first kept nearly 150 years ago.”


The marriage rate for British men is 22.8 per 1,000 and for women 20.5 per 1,000.
Clearly, British marriage is in trouble, and there is no shortage of suspects.


Conservative Tories point to politically correct tax policies and government benefits that treat all living arrangements as equal—civil unions. The idea has been to shift “the tax burden away from families” and “provide incentives for all couples to get and stay together.”


Well, maybe there is some sound economic reasons for that, but what is far more important is how these policies shape cultural attitudes toward marriage. And, as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, while culture does precede politics, politics can and does influence culture. And the law, after all, is a moral teacher.


In Britain’s case, this politically correct politics “for a decade maintained that all kinds of families are equally valuable.” Government officials “have campaigned for all references to marriage to be removed from state documents”; and a plan for helping British children “does not even mention marriage once.”


This is why researcher Patricia Morgan says that “[the marriage numbers are] what [government policies] have tried to achieve, and they ought to be congratulating themselves.”


According to Morgan, the government has encouraged the creation of marriage substitutes, what she calls “Marriage Lite.” The best-known of these legally recognized cohabitations is “civil unions.” What started out as an accommodation for same-sex couples has become an alternative to marriage for millions of heterosexual Europeans.


As Peter Wehner of the Ethics and Public Policy Center says, what is going on in Britain is “part of a broad, on-going trend.” Wehner remembers the same Senator Moynihan saying the biggest change he had witnessed in 40 years of politics was “that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world.”


Bad news—very bad news—because the links between crime and family breakdown are so well-established nobody could deny them anymore. Likewise, the link between marriage and children’s well-being is not a subject for debate—it is documented. And as marriage declines, so does the birth rate.


So, why do societies persist in this? Their worldviews demand it. Their commitment to personal autonomy and sexual freedom will not permit them to make the needed sacrifices to promote healthy families.


And by “them,” I also mean us. The state of marriage in America will be the subject of the president’s meeting with the Pope this week. And it will be the subject of tomorrow’s “BreakPoint.” Be sure to tune in.


This is clearly a case of “be careful what you wish for,” because, sadly, the consequences will not be limited to those doing the wishing.http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7757

[SUBMAN1]

And things are not perfect on thsi side of the pond either -

Study: Divorce, unwed parenting costs billions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24119052/

-S

[Tchocky]

BreakPoint have a rather large investment in the idea of lower marraige rates endangering society, I would think.

[antikristuseke]

OH NOES, the world is changing, everyone run!:roll:

[mrbeast]

And things are not perfect on thsi side of the pond either -

Study: Divorce, unwed parenting costs billions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24119052/

-S

And this atricle hardly strengthens your case that marriage is the answer to societies ills, half of it is from an expert who not only casts doubts on the financial cost of low marriage rates but also suggests that 'marriage stenthening' programs would make a marginal impact, stable weel paid jobs would be better.

[Herr_Pete]

really subman! what do you want us to do, do tell.
or are you going on a pintless rant on some statistics.

[SUBMAN1]

And this atricle hardly strengthens your case that marriage is the answer to societies ills, half of it is from an expert who not only casts doubts on the financial cost of low marriage rates but also suggests that 'marriage stenthening' programs would make a marginal impact, stable weel paid jobs would be better.Read the whole article. There are two sides presented there.

-S

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Pointless drivel. If thats you attitude, its about as pointless as anything else on this forum. Just because you don't like the message, doesn't make it pointless.

I should point out, my point is from the beginining is the loss of interest in marriage in the UK. Not sure where I lost people on that, but it seems to be only UK'rs that I lost. Maybe there is a point to be made here? :hmm: Pun not intended though.

-S

No, I've followed from the start, its just old news to me.

[XabbaRus]

I concur with Kaptain here. It's the way you wrote it subman with all your vitriole and sarcasm. I think that is what put people#s backs up.

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm - sorry. Not the intended way I am trying to put it. My diplomatic skills must be off today.

-S

[mrbeast]

And this atricle hardly strengthens your case that marriage is the answer to societies ills, half of it is from an expert who not only casts doubts on the financial cost of low marriage rates but also suggests that 'marriage stenthening' programs would make a marginal impact, stable weel paid jobs would be better.Read the whole article. There are two sides presented there.

-S

But Tim Smeeding, an economics professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, who was not involved in the study, said he's seen no convincing evidence that the marriage-strengthening programs work.
"I have nothing against marriage -- relationship-building is great," he said. "But alone it's not going to do the job. A full-employment economy would probably be the best thing -- decent, stable jobs."


Another expert not connected to the study, University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock, suggested that bigger investments in education would pay long-term dividends -- improving economic prospects even for children from fragmented, disadvantaged families.

"Providing a global number doesn't give us anything to go on," said Smock, who was skeptical of the study's $112 billion estimate.

Blankenhorn said it was "fair criticism" to note that the study made multiple references to marriage-strengthening programs while not proposing other strategies for reducing the cost of family fragmentation.

I read all of the article and as I stated before it doesn't really strengthen your argument much.

It seems to suggest that its not unmarried families that cost public money but fragmanted families.

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?

[SUBMAN1]

...Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Does this even exist? Read the proceeding article to get an answer.

-S

[mrbeast]

...Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Does this even exist? Read the proceeding article to get an answer.

-S

Yes

[mrbeast]

So whats the answer?

[Jimbuna]

Pointless drivel. If thats you attitude, its about as pointless as anything else on this forum. Just because you don't like the message, doesn't make it pointless.

I should point out, my point is from the beginining is the loss of interest in marriage in the UK. Not sure where I lost people on that, but it seems to be only UK'rs that I lost. Maybe there is a point to be made here? :hmm: Pun not intended though.

-S

No, I've followed from the start, its just old news to me.

Same here.....don't pick on us Brits if you please. http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img134/9742/angry8se2.gif

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif

[STEED]

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif

One of the dying breed there jim. Long term marriage is heading for extinction.

[SUBMAN1]

So whats the answer?Let me help you:

...Bad news—very bad news—because the links between crime and family breakdown are so well-established nobody could deny them anymore. Likewise, the link between marriage and children’s well-being is not a subject for debate—it is documented. And as marriage declines, so does the birth rate....Thats the tip of your iceberg.

-S

[antikristuseke]

Guess I'll just have to come and break up your marriage to advance the atheist evolutionist worldwide conspiracy in the destruction of the institution of marriage which is only a small part of the plot to ultimately destroy the world with godlessness.:shifty:
SUBMAN1
I should point out, my point is from the beginining is the loss of interest in marriage in the UK. Not sure where I lost people on that, but it seems to be only UK'rs that I lost. Maybe there is a point to be made here? Pun not intended though.

-S
To answer your question, you didnt loose people at the part where you stated that there is a loss of interest in marriage in the UK, but at what conlusions you drew for that. And this is all the seriousness I am willing to provide to this nonsensical thread.

[SUBMAN1]

Same here.....don't pick on us Brits if you please. http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img134/9742/angry8se2.gif
Sorry! You just happen to be at the forefront of everything I'm reading today! :D No one is spared!

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gifCongrats!!! :up::up::up:

-S

[Jimbuna]

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif

One of the dying breed there jim. Long term marriage is heading for extinction.

She still likes to try on the spare set of cuffs on occasion http://www.satellites.co.uk/satellite/images/smilies/a115[1].gif

[Jimbuna]

Same here.....don't pick on us Brits if you please. http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img134/9742/angry8se2.gif
Sorry! You just happen to be at the forefront of everything I'm reading today! :D No one is spared!

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gifCongrats!!! :up::up::up:

-S

Yeah, it's a British trait I'm afraid........we still like to draw attention to ourselves, but sadly, often for the wrong reason http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7975/gigglebigtb9fg3.gif

[Kapitan_Phillips]

For the record....I'm in my 24th year of a happy marriage....now there's an oditty http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6324/uowyaydh5wc2zm2.gif
One of the dying breed there jim. Long term marriage is heading for extinction.
She still likes to try on the spare set of cuffs on occasion http://www.satellites.co.uk/satellite/images/smilies/a115%5B1%5D.gif


:lol::lol: Good for you :up:

[Trex]

I'm very sorry to have to say it, but British marriage seems like British cuisine. The Brits seem happy with it, but nobody else can figure out why.

Enough already.

[jumpy]

My point is this. Why if you have been with someone for a long time eg >10 years you don't get married? Especially if you have children together. The thing that I found interesting for me with jumpy is he doesn't see why he shouldn't get to keep what is his. Well that is what marriage is about, a commitment and sharing your life ergo posessions with someone else. Now Jumpy's parents are divorced so that has affected his view on marriage. Fair do's I can respect that. However I think in general that society has become so consumed with the have it all when you want it that marriage has been eroded by government and society.
Just to clarify: I'm not against marriage for others, but from a purely personal standpoint I don't see the need to ritualise the ties of a relationship in that way. I know we have civil and religious marriage so you don't have to be a follower of a faith to consummate in law a union between two people. But apart from how this presents a couple in the eyes of the law, and as I have no personal religious attachment to such an act, for me it seems like a bit of a non starter. I know I love and want to be with my partner and she with me; put simply what more can be derived from the situation by formalising it with a ceremony?

And also it's not just about stuff and possessions, though there is that element to it, but ours is a partnership of equals - what we bring to a relationship and how we live and earn and build our life together is a meeting of two individuals, and whilst we share financial responsibilities for living costs, by no means do we share our incomes like some couples I know; they both have their salary paid into a joint bank account. :eek: Unless the couple is mature enough (and I don't mean by age) to deal with this I've seem more relationships break up over financial troubles than I care to think of, leaving aside all of the other issues like fidelity and honour and love, with which some seem to struggle so.
We are together, but separate. Indeed forgetting this has led me to much pain and confusion in years gone by. But I came to understand how powerfully such emotional bonds can impact so many other aspects of a relationship, distorting them beyond all recognition of what you originally started with. Adding money and possessions to the mix of who's is who's when the chips are down, can be really foolish, not to mention expensive. I have my things and she hers and for the most part we meet happily in the middle on much everything else.

It is true I have a fairly dim view of the institution of marriage and this is largely due to seeing it fail so spectacularly so many times with those who are close to me. The pain of failed unions that soldier on for the sake of the children can be exquisite. In my case had I been old enough to understand fully at the time, I would have urged my mother to go with a divorce the first time she found out my father had played away from home, but instead she chose to stay for my sake. A decision that has permanently marked her as a whole individual despite her eventual separation and divorce some 18 years ago. Am I better off for it? I'll never know. But I can see the consequences of that in the lines on my mothers face every time I look at her.

My cousin was married for less than a year before his wife decided she was too young (they are both 3 or 4 years younger than me) and didn't want to look after their son or accept the fact that he had to work many long hours to support them doing something he hated. She felt neglected and board, so she left. He's a nice guy and there's nothing he wouldn't do for his son, and his then wife. But you can only do so much on your own. He's aged five years in the last one, to look at him today. What's worse still is despite emphatic declarations that he'll never 'do that again' (get married) he's now planning a wedding with his new GF for some time in september and he's not even divorced yet!

I think the trouble is many people fall at the first hurdle and rush into something with no clear insight into what they are really undertaking and as a result it all goes horribly wrong. They are emotionally immature and lacking the honesty with ones self as to what you truly want.
I don't need a piece of paper to remind me of the commitment I make to my other half, nor do I need one to emphasise the longevity or honour that is required through all of the years we are together. This must be implicit in any lasting relationship, something that many seem to expect will magically appear with the anachronism of marriage.
I think it's a measure of my feeling that if she really wanted to be married than I'd go along with such formalisation for her sake alone, but honestly neither of us are particularly conventional in that respect so I doubt she would force the issue, knowing my feelings towards it. Besides which, she's convinced her dad would 'ruin everything' lol.

For the most part my main goal in life is to be happy. I have some good friends and some not so good friends. I have a few bits of stuff that I worked hard for. I have a beautiful woman who makes me glad to be alive every time I wake up next to her in the morning (or afternoon hehe) even after a relatively fleeting seven years together. What more could I possible want or need in that sense? Certainly no state or ecclesiastical approval formalised by marriage certificate can improve upon what I already have or want in life.
I know it works for some and all luck to them, but it's not for me.

To sum up how I look at all of this in a kind of old-fashioned school motto sort of way, I say this: "With love, trust and honour unyielding." 'Per diligo, fides quod veneratio adamans' or something like that, my latin is not very good.



wow, I rattled on a bit there didn't I? :oops: :lol:

[mrbeast]

So whats the answer?Let me help you:

...Bad news—very bad news—because the links between crime and family breakdown are so well-established nobody could deny them anymore. Likewise, the link between marriage and children’s well-being is not a subject for debate—it is documented. And as marriage declines, so does the birth rate....Thats the tip of your iceberg.

-S

Wrong answer, this was the question I wanted a response to:

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?

[Foxtrot]

Marriage sucks, and she may get around half of what you earned even before marriage.

[SUBMAN1]

Wrong answer, this was the question I wanted a response to:

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Disfunctional married family. At least the support structure of a man and a woman still exists with ties between the two. Too many studies on un-married families all say the same thing. These include increased crime rates, to children who grow up and have absolutely no ability to have a relationship, which further leads to single parents once again, turning into a vicious cycle.

I take it you never looked up anything on the Montreal studies like I asked. It shows.

-S

[DAB]

So your saying that a battered wife, with a child who has been abused by the father / husband is better off staying with the said husband!!!

[SUBMAN1]

So your saying that a battered wife, with a child who has been abused by the father / husband is better off staying with the said husband!!!That wasn't the question.

[DAB]

It appears to be your answer

[XabbaRus]

Agree with DAB. Although I back marriage a dysfunctional family is definately worse than a single parent family.

I'll give you an example.

The British Royal Family.

[Jimbuna]

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1456/popcorncowxl6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[SUBMAN1]

It appears to be your answerNo it doesn't and you are implying something here. Please stop implying and get with the discussion. THanks.

You are free to ask me that question if you wnat however. THe answer is no - physical abuse is not allowed in my book. But unmarried is equally as bad.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

christian BS.Hardly! :D Try common sense which seems to be lacking here I see. :p

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here is a paper on it, though I am not aware how to obtain the full paper yet. THe abstract however is probably all you need to get the jist:

Exploring the Relationship Quality of Unmarried Couples with Children

Abstract:This analysis uses qualitative interview data from the Time, Love and Cash in Couples with Children study to explore the dimensions and evolution of relationship quality for parents who were unmarried when their child was born but still together four years later. I compared relationship quality over time for parents who went on to marry or were still together four years after their child’s birth. I found couples who married had higher levels of relationship quality at baseline and these differences persisted over time. Couples that married exhibit more supportiveness, love and trust in each other and experienced fewer serious problems such as infidelity, domestic violence, substance abuse and illegal activities or jail than the other couples. They also exhibited several positive trends in relationship quality over time. Couples that did not marry, but remained together comprised a heterogeneous group with varying levels of relationship quality, although the majority experienced poor or declining relationship quality over time. I discuss implications of the findings for the relationship between relationship quality and union formation for unmarried parents.http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/4/7/3/p94732_index.html

[bradclark1]

Wrong answer, this was the question I wanted a response to:

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Disfunctional married family. At least the support structure of a man and a woman still exists with ties between the two. Too many studies on un-married families all say the same thing. These include increased crime rates, to children who grow up and have absolutely no ability to have a relationship, which further leads to single parents once again, turning into a vicious cycle.

I take it you never looked up anything on the Montreal studies like I asked. It shows.

-S

christian BS.
:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

Here is a paper on it, though I am not aware how to obtain the full paper yet. THe abstract however is probably all you need to get the jist:

Exploring the Relationship Quality of Unmarried Couples with Children


Abstract:This analysis uses qualitative interview data from the Time, Love and Cash in Couples with Children study to explore the dimensions and evolution of relationship quality for parents who were unmarried when their child was born but still together four years later. I compared relationship quality over time for parents who went on to marry or were still together four years after their child’s birth. I found couples who married had higher levels of relationship quality at baseline and these differences persisted over time. Couples that married exhibit more supportiveness, love and trust in each other and experienced fewer serious problems such as infidelity, domestic violence, substance abuse and illegal activities or jail than the other couples. They also exhibited several positive trends in relationship quality over time. Couples that did not marry, but remained together comprised a heterogeneous group with varying levels of relationship quality, although the majority experienced poor or declining relationship quality over time. I discuss implications of the findings for the relationship between relationship quality and union formation for unmarried parents.http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/4/7/3/p94732_index.html
That may very well be but the reality for the young ones nowadays in the U.S. are that a large segment of the coming to marriage age population are from broken homes so my guess is that they see it as something to be avoided. Most of all my kids high school friends were from broken homes or single parent homes. I have noticed however that I am seeing more lesbian families. Well three to be exact so times are changing and remember this whatever starts in either continent will always make it's way to the other. It's happening here and if you had school age children you would see that unless it's just an east coast phenomenon.

[SUBMAN1]

That may very well be but the reality for the young ones nowadays in the U.S. are that a large segment of the coming to marriage age population are from broken homes so my guess is that they see it as something to be avoided. Most of all my kids high school friends were from broken homes or single parent homes. I have noticed however that I am seeing more lesbian families. Well three to be exact so times are changing and remember this whatever starts in either continent will always make it's way to the other. It's happening here and if you had school age children you would see that unless it's just an east coast phenomenon.You may be right. I'm seeing more a polorized US though, a split right down the middle, and its almost along party lines. I think your ideas hold true in the North, but the South, its just the opposite (excluding places like California). Am I thinking right?

-S

[bradclark1]

That may very well be but the reality for the young ones nowadays in the U.S. are that a large segment of the coming to marriage age population are from broken homes so my guess is that they see it as something to be avoided. Most of all my kids high school friends were from broken homes or single parent homes. I have noticed however that I am seeing more lesbian families. Well three to be exact so times are changing and remember this whatever starts in either continent will always make it's way to the other. It's happening here and if you had school age children you would see that unless it's just an east coast phenomenon.You may be right. I'm seeing more a polorized US though, a split right down the middle, and its almost along party lines. I think your ideas hold true in the North, but the South, its just the opposite (excluding places like California). Am I thinking right?

-S
Yeah, that probably sums it up.

[SUBMAN1]

You may be right. I'm seeing more a polorized US though, a split right down the middle, and its almost along party lines. I think your ideas hold true in the North, but the South, its just the opposite (excluding places like California). Am I thinking right?

-S Yeah, that probably sums it up.Divide and conquer. We are no longer one people.

-S

[Fish]

Well, considering how often the Yanks get divorced and remarried, its no wonder we're behind you.

:rotfl:

PS: We - my wife and me, married for 42 years - have three children, none is married, and we have three grandchildren.
Mariage is out.

[mrbeast]

Wrong answer, this was the question I wanted a response to:

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Disfunctional married family. At least the support structure of a man and a woman still exists with ties between the two. Too many studies on un-married families all say the same thing. These include increased crime rates, to children who grow up and have absolutely no ability to have a relationship, which further leads to single parents once again, turning into a vicious cycle.

I take it you never looked up anything on the Montreal studies like I asked. It shows.

-S

A pervese answer if ever there was.

BTW what did you think I mean't when I said dysfunctional?

Would not an abusive married family be classed as dysfunctional.

[SUBMAN1]

A pervese answer if ever there was. In response to yours.

BTW what did you think I mean't when I said dysfunctional?

Would not an abusive married family be classed as dysfunctional.I can be, but you never made anything that specific. Dysfuctional can also mean poor communication, but maybe you don't even know that.

-S

[mrbeast]

A pervese answer if ever there was. In response to yours.

BTW what did you think I mean't when I said dysfunctional?

Would not an abusive married family be classed as dysfunctional.I can be, but you never made anything that specific. Dysfuctional can also mean poor communication, but maybe you don't even know that.

-S

Well I've had enough of your mission to 'save' us 'UKrs' from ourselves

Good night.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Wrong answer, this was the question I wanted a response to:

Whats better a disfunctional married family or a functional unmarried family?Disfunctional married family. At least the support structure of a man and a woman still exists with ties between the two. Too many studies on un-married families all say the same thing. These include increased crime rates, to children who grow up and have absolutely no ability to have a relationship, which further leads to single parents once again, turning into a vicious cycle.

I take it you never looked up anything on the Montreal studies like I asked. It shows.

-S

Why cant there be a support structure in co-habiting couples?

[Konovalov]

It appears to be your answerNo it doesn't and you are implying something here. Please stop implying and get with the discussion. THanks.

You are free to ask me that question if you wnat however. THe answer is no - physical abuse is not allowed in my book. But unmarried is equally as bad.

-S

Huh? How can you possibly equate physical abuse between a husband and wife with an unmarried couple?