Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually, I think the fact the divorce rate was much lower actually says something.
Not in this sense in having to do with homosexuality it doesn't.
[Edit]
And, as BornToRule stated, it does not prove that people were happier in mariage back then either. My mother stayed with my father about 20 years longer than she should have since she though divorce was wrong back when she was a devout Catholic and she was a traditional stay at home mother. She was born in the1940's and was taught to obey your man and do not talk back. I have a feeling many women were programmed this way back then and this is the leading cause of lower divorce rates.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not in this sense in having to do with homosexuality it doesn't.
What do you mean?
People married for the right reasons back then. Not to say there were no shotgun marriages, sham marriages or repressed gays getting married in the 50's. But I don't know too many baby boomers who's parents divorced.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do you mean?People married for the right reasons back then. Not to say there were no shotgun marriages, sham marriages or repressed gays getting married in the 50's. But I don't know too many baby boomers who's parents divorced.
Actually the alarming number of divorce rates does say something, but not the message you think it does.
The liberation of Divorce strongly shows how many people are actually unhappy in marriages. It also shows that Marriage in itself is nothing valid, it is only as strong as the two individuals allow it to be.
Just because you get married it does NOT "validify" your union by any means. A marriage, whether it be between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman, is only worth as much as the two people make it to be.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do you mean?People married for the right reasons back then. Not to say there were no shotgun marriages, sham marriages or repressed gays getting married in the 50's. But I don't know too many baby boomers who's parents divorced.
(You replied before I finished adding to my original post)
This thread is about homosexual and Docb77 had mentioned that divorce was lower due to lower cases of homosexuality.
People got married for the wrong reasons back then more so than now. Back then if you happened to get your girlfriend pregnant, you were basically forced to get married, it didn't matter if you two were compatible as a couple or not as you mentioned. People were expected to be married by a certain age more so than now etc. etc. etc.
As far as baby boomers staying together. I explained it above, back then women were basically thought to shut up, obey their men and divorce was looked don't upon as an embarrassment and in some cases as a sin.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually the alarming number of divorce rates does say something, but not the message you think it does.
Yes it does.
I think the main reason divorce is so common today is because young people get married because they're horny, and then throw in the towel five years later.
And also, celebrities getting married for some extra publicity and drunk people getting married in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator doesn't help either.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes it does.I think the main reason divorce is so common today is because young people get married because they're horny, and then throw in the towel five years later.
And also, celebrities getting married for some extra publicity and drunk people getting married in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator doesn't help either.
Again, you are confusing the then and now... People got married back then more so than now just to have sex, since sex outside of marriage was extremely looked down upon in the 50's.
I do not think either of those qualify due too the very low number of examples. Britney Spears does not justify that statement.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you are confusing the then and now... People got married back then more so than now just to have sex since sex outside of marriage was extremely looked down upon in the 50's.I do not think either of those qualify due too the very low number of examples. Britney Spears does not justify that statement.
Vegas is the wedding capital of the country.
And those 2 examples still add to the percentage.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Love and to start a family, as opposed to what I stated in my above post.
What if a man and woman are in love, but don't want to start a family. Should they be banned from getting married ?
And why do you care? Someone else's romantic life is none of ur fkn business... ❌
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Love and to start a family, as opposed to what I stated in my above post.
Lol. To think they married for love. That's rich. Women were expected to be married by a certain age and stay married. If they got desperate and married a good looking guy who treated them like shit, too bad, divorce wasn't acceptable.
It's because divorce was seen as wrong that there are lower divorce rates in the past.
Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Lol. To think they married for love. That's rich. Women were expected to be married by a certain age and stay married. If they got desperate and married a good looking guy who treated them like shit, too bad, divorce wasn't acceptable.It's because divorce was seen as wrong that there are lower divorce rates in the past.
All those "expectations of women" aside, I seriously beleived more people married for love back then.
Marriage has seriosuly gone down the shitter.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And why do you care? Someone else's romantic life is none of ur fkn business... ❌
Never said it was.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Vegas is the wedding capital of the country.And those 2 examples still add to the percentage.
Vegas has nothing to do with it, your statement that people get married these days to just have sex is invalid. People are having sex far younger and outside of marriage more so then in the 50's.
Okay, technically they do add, but the percentile number is trivial.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Love and to start a family, as opposed to what I stated in my above post.
actuallt i would like to say that they where more likely pushed into marriage. Because a woman was supposed to have a man back then.
if they didnt get married they where just "fooling around". thats the impression i get bout it.
just like someone above already said.
Originally posted by docb77I didn't call you an idiot. I called you a bigot, which has been pretty clear from your sweeping generalisations about homosexuality, and a fool, which has been pretty clear from the romanticism you have for the days when all women did was cook and clean.
😠 😠 😠 😠OK, I'd like to address the people who are calling me an idiot for a moment. Would you like to see a real idiot? LOOK IN THE FREAKIN' MIRROR. You are so closed minded you wouldn't know a valid opinion if it were Labeled as such by a counsel of Scientists. Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot? Seems to me that that makes you the ignorant ones. You base your facts on a small number of cases of divorce or whatnot. I'm saying that there is plenty more evidence of happy marriages in the past than of troubled ones. I say that Porn contributes to homosexuality, sexual deviancy, and other monstrosities like child abuse. You accuse me of lumping all of those in together. FREAKING IDIOTS. If I wanted to say that Gays were monsters I would have said that. One cause CAN have multiple outcomes.
😠 😠 😠 😠
OK rant over.
"I say that Porn contributes to homosexuality, sexual deviancy, and other monstrosities like child abuse."
The thing about written parapraxia is that it can't really be covered up. At least after 15 minutes has passed.
Fact: You are lumping these things together. Having stated that to "stamp out" homosexuality one would have to execute all child molesters, you either believe that child molestation causes people to become gay, or that child molesters are intrinsically gay. Both of which are unfounded assertions.
You have no evidence for the multitude of happy marriages in the past. There are numerous reasons the divorce rate and marriage rate were lower and higher respectively in the past and by no means was it because people were oh so much happier.
Oh and if you want to bullshit about brain chemistry, try not to do it when someone who's studied neuroscience is here. Mmkay?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
All those "expectations of women" aside, I seriously beleived more people married for love back then.
And what basis do you have for such a claim ? You are making a wide generalization.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Marriage has seriosuly gone down the shitter.
And what do you care? All that should matter to YOU is YOUR marriage, not someone else's.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Never said it was.
So why argue about it ?