Under 27s getting married - do you take them seriously?

ScumLord

JK91 wrote: »

nor did humanity for 99% of it's evolution,

that's a strange percentage. Are you saying 99% of our time as humans didn't have a formal marriage process or are you including the part of our evolution when we weren't humans?

Humans seem to have a marriage process for a very, very long time. Human children are hard work but essential to the survival of any human community. Prehistoric people knew this and demanded that children have parents that are obliged to raise the child in a manner that suited the entire community.

It's only when human communities start to expand to city sizes after farming brings in more food and religion creates the idea of super beings that we see harems pop up.

Malari

JK91 wrote: »

Then again, I'm an atheist and rationalist so perhaps that colours my view of this?

...umm...?

Dolbert

JK91 wrote: »

I'm well aware of the discrimination against single people in this country and I think it's BS. Just goes to show how the RCC and it's superstitious nonsense and rituals (including marriage) still has too much influence and sway over our decision-makers. Hopefully this country will finally enter the 21st century, any year now. Wouldn't hold my breadth though with all the conservative old farts still in charge, I guess people in my generation will change this country for the better one day.

As for the original question, 27 is just some arbitrary number, marriage at any age in my opinion is completely unnecessary and unnatural. Animals don't need marriage, nor did humanity for 99% of it's evolution, so what makes us any different? You can still love someone, have kids etc. without a piece of paper from the RCC.

Why are you going on about religion? It has zero relevance to the discussion on the legal implications of marriage, which by the way can be civil as well as religious (seemingly I do need to state the obvious here).

Here's the link again, you seemed to have difficulty reading it last time:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/how_marriage_changes_your_legal_status.html

Then again, I'm an atheist and rationalist so perhaps that colours my view of this?

Do go on

JK91

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So...now you see why the piece of paper means something, right?

Legally in this country with it's still strong RCC influence, yes it does. Where it matters, aka. when it comes to actual love (the purported basis of the institution), then no, it's an irrelevancy. Hopefully as we become more progressive, then all the legal malarky will be sorted out, hence rendering an already useless institution and piece of paper truly meaningless.

You like somebody, then just live with them, why the need for some big ritual, thousands of euros for a wedding, honeymoons, signing this and signing that..............seems very superficial to me tbh, true love shouldn't be seen as some meaningless piece of paper signed with the permission of the church or government bureucrats, and on top of that an event that costs as much as a mortgage down-payment. Anyway if you really did love somebody for 40-50 years then you would stay with them, most people are not naturally inclined that way however, hence the soaring divorce rate.

Important to remember that humans are still animals at the end of the day with instincts going back hundreds of thousands of years, a piece of paper like marriage is meaningless because it goes against nature, along with every other religious ritual.

Alf Veedersane

JK91 wrote: »

Legally in this country with it's still strong RCC influence, yes it does. Where it matters, aka. when it comes to actual love (the purported basis of the institution), then no, it's an irrelevancy. Hopefully as we become more progressive, then all the legal malarky will be sorted out, hence rendering an already useless institution and piece of paper truly meaningless.

You like somebody, then just live with them, why the need for some big ritual, thousands of euros for a wedding, honeymoons, signing this and signing that..............seems very superficial to me tbh, true love shouldn't be seen as some meaningless piece of paper signed with the permission of the church or government bureucrats, and on top of that an event that costs as much as a mortgage down-payment. Anyway if you really did love somebody for 40-50 years then you would stay with them, most people are not naturally inclined that way however, hence the soaring divorce rate.

Important to remember that humans are still animals at the end of the day with instincts going back hundreds of thousands of years, a piece of paper is meaningless because it goes against nature.

Yes, that's all nice but it's not much of a legal argument.

The soaring divorce rate is also a function of people rushing into a marriage that they're not sure they want because they have the safety net of a divorce.

theedude27

OSI wrote: »

Wow, I'm so glad I do live my life based on the thoughts of some rambling "superior intellect" on the internet. I'd never be able to do anything fun.

You can be assured that it is a superior intellectual man because most women in general love the whole marriage ceremony thingy regardless of what relationship issues await them along the way. It's just their way of saying "oooh look at me, I look absolutely amazing in my dress, even though I couldn't be bothered to dress up much or conduct myself with a bit of class at any other time of the week"!!!

Sligo1

theedude27 wrote: »

You can be assured that it is a superior intellectual man because most women in general love the whole marriage ceremony thingy regardless of what relationship issues await them along the way. It's just their way of saying "oooh look at me, I look absolutely amazing in my dress, even though I couldn't be bothered to dress up much or conduct myself with a bit of class at any other time of the week"!!!

Troll???

theedude27

Sligo1 wrote: »

Troll???

Nope just a valid opinion in my own opinion

Alf Veedersane

theedude27 wrote: »

Nope just a valid opinion in my own opinion

So most women don't dress up much or conduct themselves with a bit of class at any other time of the week?

theedude27

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So most women don't dress up much or conduct themselves with a bit of class at any other time of the week?

Not irish women anyway.....

witchgirl26

Woah some people have their knickers in a twist over this!
My parents got married within 9 months of meeting (no my mother was not pregnant). My mam was 24 & my dad 40. They had a happy life together up until my dad's death. So I think that covers on the getting married under 27, under 2 years of being together & older parents! Having an older dad wasn't that bad. He was 50 when I was born & it was ok - yes there was some slagging that he retired when I started secondary school but I actually didn't care coz it didn't stop him being an amazing dad & surprisingly we did actually have a lot in common.
I have friends who've gotten married in their early/mid-twenties because they knew it was what they wanted with the person they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with. I don't think their age came into the decision at all.
Likewise I've seen people who have been together years realise that it's not working & stepping away for a 6+years relationship. All in all, like everything in this life, it comes down to the individuals involved.

JK91

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The soaring divorce rate is also a function of people rushing into a marriage that they're not sure they want because they have the safety net of a divorce.

No, it's because our brains are hard-wired in certain ways through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and with very exceptional circumstances do people genuinely stay in love for the amount of time marriage requires. It goes against everything inherent in the natural world of which humans are still a part of, our brains are near identical to our hunter-gatherer predecessors who did not feel the need to force themselves into a monogamous arrangement. That is the reason for the high divorce rate, the institution is unnatural and is not found in nature and never can be natural, it's not how our brains are hardwired.

That is the reason for the high divorce rate, which is continuing to increase with each passing year, nothing to do with people "rushing in" to marriage. Anyways back in prior times when the RCC had even more sway in this country people were pretty much trapped into the institution, often at a very young age. That and before birth control, both male and female and with the belief that if pregnant that one had to get married in order to have "legitimate children" :rolleyes: would explain these so-called loving marriages of 40-50 years.

And probably what's worth considering is that when people reach 50 years of age, they probably feel they cannot meet anybody new at that age, so hence they stick to marriage, playing it safe and sticking to what one knows in other words.

And let's stop all of the talk about civil marriages (that's even more pointless) and just marrying "to consumate our love", the institution of marriage is clearly religious dogma and has canontations with the fundamentals of religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "growing up", or "showing one that you truly love them", all of which is nothing more than brain chemistry and development.

JK91

OSI wrote: »

Wow, I'm so glad I do live my life based on the thoughts of some rambling "superior intellect" on the internet. I'd never be able to do anything fun.

Yes because marriage is all sex, drugs and rock and roll isn't it, enjoy yourself.

Alf Veedersane

JK91 wrote: »

No, it's because our brains are hard-wired in certain ways through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and with very exceptional circumstances do people genuinely stay in love for the amount of time marriage requires. It goes against everything inherent in the natural world of which humans are still a part of, our brains are near identical to our hunter-gatherer predecessors who did not feel the need to force themselves into a monogamous arrangement. That is the reason for the high divorce rate, the institution is unnatural and is not found in nature and never can be natural, it's not how our brains are hardwired.

That is the reason for the high divorce rate, which is continuing to increase with each passing year, nothing to do with people "rushing in" to marriage. Anyways back in prior times when the RCC had even more sway in this country people were pretty much trapped into the institution, often at a very young age. That and before birth control, both male and female and with the belief that if pregnant that one had to get married in order to have "legitimate children" :rolleyes: would explain these so-called loving marriages of 40-50 years.

And probably what's worth considering is that when people reach 50 years of age, they probably feel they cannot meet anybody new at that age, so hence they stick to marriage, playing it safe and sticking to what one knows in other words.

And let's stop all of the talk about civil marriages (that's even more pointless) and just marrying "to consumate our love", the institution of marriage is clearly religious dogma and has canontations with the fundamentals of religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "growing up", or "showing one that you truly love them", all of which is nothing more than brain chemistry and development.

Wow. You seem to have done extensive research into the reasons for divorce. I did not know you had interviewed so many people to arrive at a statistically valid sample.

Or maybe you just like your theory better than anything else that could possibly be a reason.

Sligo1

theedude27 wrote: »

Not irish women anyway.....

You need to get out more.... And for the record... I'm not Irish....

witchgirl26

JK91 wrote: »

No, it's because our brains are hard-wired in certain ways through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and with very exceptional circumstances do people genuinely stay in love for the amount of time marriage requires. It goes against everything inherent in the natural world of which humans are still a part of, our brains are near identical to our hunter-gatherer predecessors who did not feel the need to force themselves into a monogamous arrangement. That is the reason for the high divorce rate, the institution is unnatural and is not found in nature and never can be natural, it's not how our brains are hardwired.

That is the reason for the high divorce rate, which is continuing to increase with each passing year, nothing to do with people "rushing in" to marriage. Anyways back in prior times when the RCC had even more sway in this country people were pretty much trapped into the institution, often at a very young age. That and before birth control, both male and female and with the belief that if pregnant that one had to get married in order to have "legitimate children" :rolleyes: would explain these so-called loving marriages of 40-50 years.

And probably what's worth considering is that when people reach 50 years of age, they probably feel they cannot meet anybody new at that age, so hence they stick to marriage, playing it safe and sticking to what one knows in other words.

And let's stop all of the talk about civil marriages (that's even more pointless) and just marrying "to consumate our love", the institution of marriage is clearly religious dogma and has canontations with the fundamentals of religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "growing up", or "showing one that you truly love them", all of which is nothing more than brain chemistry and development.

I really love how you dismiss marriages from years back as only having the pretence of being loving coz obviously everyone was forced into marriage at a young age by the church. :rolleyes:
And why stop the talk of civil marriages? I know many people who want to get married for the reasons you dismiss there. They want a small ceremony with their closest friends and family to declare publicly how much they love each other & that they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Nothing to do religion as the people involved are resolutely atheists.

Alf Veedersane

theedude27 wrote: »

Not irish women anyway.....

Marvellous answer.

You win the prize.

theedude27

Sligo1 wrote: »

You need to get out more.... And for the record... I'm not Irish....

I got out more a few years ago and it was the Irish women that drove me back indoors:P

Femme_Fatale

Wow, the rage at other people doing something that has no effect on the people expressing this rage.

Why are they so bothered I wonder...?

I'ma go with... jealousy.

Because being single and free and whatnot is waaaaay better than being so in love with someone you want them to be your next of kin. (Nothing terrible about being single - I'm single, it has plenty of good aspects, but I'd still prefer to meet a guy I'd love to marry; wouldn't care less about the wedding event, dress etc btw - it's only expensive and lavish for those who choose same). I'm also an atheist, but oh yeh... marriage can be a secular ceremony.

Alf Veedersane

theedude27 wrote: »

I got out more a few years ago and it was the Irish women that drove me back indoors:P

You must go through an awful amount of socks.

theedude27

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Marvellous answer.

You win the prize.

Yay prize:)

What is the prize? a two week relationship with a non-irish woman?:pac:

theedude27

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You must go through an awful amount of socks.

Correct

Alf Veedersane

theedude27 wrote: »

Yay prize:)

What is the prize? a two week relationship with a non-irish woman?:pac:

A year's supply of socks.

theedude27

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

A year's supply of socks.

Nice. Where can I pick em up? or should I just PM you my address??

JK91

ScumLord wrote: »

that's a strange percentage. Are you saying 99% of our time as humans didn't have a formal marriage process or are you including the part of our evolution when we weren't humans?

Humans seem to have a marriage process for a very, very long time. Human children are hard work but essential to the survival of any human community. Prehistoric people knew this and demanded that children have parents that are obliged to raise the child in a manner that suited the entire community.

It's only when human communities start to expand to city sizes after farming brings in more food and religion creates the idea of super beings that we see harems pop up.

But all that has nothing to do with the current institution we have, and they managed to have children and stay together without the need for some superficial ritual like marriage. Homo Sapiens appeared in Africa about 150,000+ years ago, the institution of marriage we have now only dates back to the Middle Ages and was brought forth by Church, hence it has always and always will do have religious connotations which have nothing to do with why two people actually stay together.

JK91

Malari wrote: »

...umm...?

Basically means that I don't believe in the need for a piece of paper to confirm the love two people share, anymore than I believe in crying statues, apparitions, bread with suppposed magical properties or any other such religious nonsense which conflicts with the natural world and common sense.

JK91

Dolbert wrote: »

Do go on

I was looking to post that meme in one of my messages but couldn't find it anymore, much appreciated.

rubadub

Preston Repulsive Stipend wrote: »

I was 26 and my wife 25 back in 1974 when we married.

Aestivalis wrote: »

I'd say most of your parents got married before 27 and a lot of them are still together.

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of my friends got married under 27. They're all still together, mostly happy, with growing families.

I would have to list them all, but I do think most I know who married under 27 are now split up. The difference is in the 70's people were likely to marry earlier and then have kids, the friends I am thinking of had unwanted pregnancies and married because of it, and split many years later. The earliest guy I can think of who married is still together, but they married first and then had kids.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

JK91 wrote: »

Basically means that I don't believe in the need for a piece of paper to confirm the love two people share, anymore than I believe in crying statues, apparitions, bread with suppposed magical properties or any other such religious nonsense which conflicts with the natural world and common sense.

It's not just a piece of paper. It's a legal agreement between two people which means that they are now next of kin with all the legal ramifications that go with that. For people to whom their religion is a fundamental part of their lives, it is also important to them to make their vows in a Church and to have God witness those vows. No one is forcing anyone to get married, or to include a church ceremony as part of their wedding day. So I don't get why you are so angry about it. There's nothing to rebel about here. Don't get married if you don't want to.

Sligo1

theedude27 wrote: »

I got out more a few years ago and it was the Irish women that drove me back indoors:P

Lol... You obviously weren't going to the right places...

JK91

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Why are they so bothered I wonder...?

I'ma go with... jealousy.

No, just no. That is all.

ScumLord

JK91 wrote: »

No, it's because our brains are hard-wired in certain ways through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution,

The human body is more or less exactly the same as it's been for the last 100,000 years (as far as we can tell) but the human brain is a different kettle of fish altogether. The main advantage of the human brain is that it's not hard wired, it's born into the world almost a blank slate ready to adapt to the world its born into. It's why humans can go to any type of environment and have adapted to it within a few generations, no evolution needed. It's also probably why parents don't understand their children, it's because their children have a brain that developed to deal with a different world from their parents.

So while we're using the same hardware our software is probably as different as the original programing in the first calculator is to Windows 8.

JK91 wrote: »

the institution of marriage we have now only dates back to the Middle Ages and was brought forth by Church, hence it has always and always will do have religious connotations which have nothing to do with why two people actually stay together.

The church didn't invent marriage in the middle ages though, they were just continuing the ceremonies that had been taking place for as long as we have records. People have seem to have always wanted their relationship officially recognised by their peers.

From a legal standpoint I have no problem with civil marriages, inheritance is a bitch without it. Big weddings were young people spend thousands on a fairytail occasion just seems like a giant waste of money just when you really don't need to be wasting money, especially if you're going raising a family.

In my mind the real union is having a child, for better or for worse the two people are stuck with each other for the foreseeable future. I think the marriage contract should focus on child rearing over the love shared between the two getting married.

Czarcasm

JK91 wrote: »

No, it's because our brains are hard-wired in certain ways through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and with very exceptional circumstances do people genuinely stay in love for the amount of time marriage requires. It goes against everything inherent in the natural world of which humans are still a part of, our brains are near identical to our hunter-gatherer predecessors who did not feel the need to force themselves into a monogamous arrangement. That is the reason for the high divorce rate, the institution is unnatural and is not found in nature and never can be natural, it's not how our brains are hardwired.

That is the reason for the high divorce rate, which is continuing to increase with each passing year, nothing to do with people "rushing in" to marriage. Anyways back in prior times when the RCC had even more sway in this country people were pretty much trapped into the institution, often at a very young age. That and before birth control, both male and female and with the belief that if pregnant that one had to get married in order to have "legitimate children" :rolleyes: would explain these so-called loving marriages of 40-50 years.

And probably what's worth considering is that when people reach 50 years of age, they probably feel they cannot meet anybody new at that age, so hence they stick to marriage, playing it safe and sticking to what one knows in other words.

And let's stop all of the talk about civil marriages (that's even more pointless) and just marrying "to consumate our love", the institution of marriage is clearly religious dogma and has canontations with the fundamentals of religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "growing up", or "showing one that you truly love them", all of which is nothing more than brain chemistry and development.

Somebody's in dire need of a good **** tbh.

PUA horse shìte is the new porn, or did you honestly think your ill informed opinion hasn't been spouted by thousands of frustrated virgins before you?

JK91

Czarcasm wrote: »

Somebody's in dire need of a good **** tbh.

PUA horse shìte is the new porn, or did you honestly think your ill informed opinion hasn't been spouted by thousands of frustrated virgins before you?

The hell you on about, because I'm against marriage and consider it silly at any age that I'm a frustrated virgin? Yeah, whatever you say.

Femme_Fatale

JK91 wrote: »

No, just no. That is all.

But why such anger?

It's one thing to disagree with marriage (it confers next of kin rights and increases fathers' rights though, that's why I'm in favour of it; it can still be a tiny secular ceremony with just the witnesses, and minimal expense - nobody has to have a particular type of wedding) but it is another to be really angry about it and to get so annoyed by other people, who have nothing to do with you, getting married. Nobody is forcing you to get married whatsoever.

Femme_Fatale

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nobody is forcing you to get married whatsoever.

Perhaps that's part of the issue.

JK91

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But why such anger?

It's one thing to disagree with marriage (it confers next of kin rights and increases fathers' rights though, that's why I'm in favour of it; it can still be a tiny secular ceremony with just the witnesses, and minimal expense - nobody has to have a particular type of wedding) but it is another to be really angry about it and to get so annoyed by other people, who have nothing to do with you, getting married. Nobody is forcing you to get married whatsoever.

My problems with marriage are as follows,

(a) People, smug religious types in particular who act like it's the only genuine way that two people can show their love for each other.

(b) The insinuation that once you reach your 30's that you should just give up your freedom and independence and settle down with one person for the rest of your life, who you may end up hating them only a year later.

(c) The societal expectation that one gets married and societal peer pressure when it comes to getting married.

(d) The blatant discrimination against those who wish not to get married, including those who are not religious.

(e) It is not a necessity by any means, but it is deemed so by many, a lot of women past a certain age in particular.


But mostly it's probably the smug types who believe they are somehow superior to single couples and that the only true type of relationship and love that one can have is that of marriage. Eh no, that was just their decision and something they chose to do, it doesn't make their arrangement any superior to people who choose a different path. Marriage is just that, a piece of paper and if people want to go ahead with it, then so be it. But don't go around pontificating on how marriage is the "only true way", "growing up" and other such nonsense to people who disagree.

6781

JK91 wrote: »

My problems with marriage are as follows,

(a) People, smug religious types in particular who act like it's the only genuine way that two people can show their love for each other.

(b) The insinuation that once you reach your 30's that you should just give up your freedom and independence and settle down with one person for the rest of your life, who you may end up hating them only a year later.

(c) The societal expectation that one gets married and societal peer pressure when it comes to getting married.

(d) The blatant discrimination against those who wish not to get married, including those who are not religious.

(e) It is not a necessity by any means, but it is deemed so by many, a lot of women past a certain age in particular.


But mostly it's probably the smug types who believe they are somehow superior to single couples and that the only true type of relationship and love that one can have is that of marriage. Eh no, that was just their decision and something they chose to do, it doesn't make their arrangement any superior to people who choose a different path. Marriage is just that, a piece of paper and if people want to go ahead with it, then so be it. But don't go around pontificating on how marriage is the "only true way", "growing up" and other such nonsense to people who disagree.

You get smug types in all different situations in life... I've travelled the world, I've a great job, I've done this and that and so on. I don't couldn't care less. I feel sorry for those who get annoyed by them. Just do what's right for you and what makes you happy. Don't spend your life been bitter about other peoples "smugness".

JK91

JK91 wrote: »

My problems with marriage are as follows,

So tell me if the person you love for years and years has an accident and you are told "sorry family only" when you try to visit how will you react.

Or if your partner was killed and you had a young child, the child grandmother takes the child and you have no say in it? Marriage is not so stupid now is it....

I could go on with more examples for you... But you really need to stop with the "just a piece of paper". Marriage is a very important legal entity.

Also most people like the idea of marriage, they want to get married in a church etc so its going nowhere, so you might as well just get used to it.

Ihatecuddles

JK91, are your parents divorced by any chance?

Is 91 the year you were born? You come across very immature. I was born in 91 and I'm getting married this year! For legal reasons, as well as being disgustingly in love

caustic 1

JK91 wrote: »

My problems with marriage are as follows,

(a) People, smug religious types in particular who act like it's the only genuine way that two people can show their love for each other.

(b) The insinuation that once you reach your 30's that you should just give up your freedom and independence and settle down with one person for the rest of your life, who you may end up hating them only a year later.

(c) The societal expectation that one gets married and societal peer pressure when it comes to getting married.

(d) The blatant discrimination against those who wish not to get married, including those who are not religious.

(e) It is not a necessity by any means, but it is deemed so by many, a lot of women past a certain age in particular.


But mostly it's probably the smug types who believe they are somehow superior to single couples and that the only true type of relationship and love that one can have is that of marriage. Eh no, that was just their decision and something they chose to do, it doesn't make their arrangement any superior to people who choose a different path. Marriage is just that, a piece of paper and if people want to go ahead with it, then so be it. But don't go around pontificating on how marriage is the "only true way", "growing up" and other such nonsense to people who disagree.

I am married. I didn't get married for religion, or for anyone but him and me. It had nothing to do with age, ceremony, or anything else you spouted on about. I am not superior to anyone married or single.
It sounds to me like you have a major chip on your shoulder about married couples. What's it to you? Feck all same as you being single is feck all to me. Is anyone dragging you up the aisle, I can't imagine anyone would want to with views you have about women, however you have a choice just like I had so you decide just like I did, that does not mean you slate everyone else because the decision is not the same views as you. :mad:

JK91

mauzo! wrote: »

JK91, are your parents divorced by any chance?

Is 91 the year you were born? You come across very immature. I was born in 91 and I'm getting married this year! For legal reasons, as well as being disgustingly in love

What has age got to do with this? There are still blokes in their 50s, 60's and 70's these days who are living freely as in their youth, the 1960's did happen you know. And they are my role models as far as I'm concerned.

Czarcasm

JK91 wrote: »

The hell you on about, because I'm against marriage and consider it silly at any age that I'm a frustrated virgin? Yeah, whatever you say.

Well you're spouting the same ill informed pseudoscience that's been debunked time and again and yet you still stick to your guns despite how many times you're told that marriage is a legal contract that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion (mine was a civil marriage, €20 tip to the registrar for keeping it short and simple, none of your religious clap trap), and while we could happily have lived together without getting married, there were a number of reasons we chose to get married.

Think about it this way - if marriage was "only a piece of paper", and Ireland are so backward because of the RCC, etc (admittedly that was a particularly Irish twist on the usual PUA crap), then why is there an ongoing campaign at the moment for same-sex marriage? Because marriage is MORE than "just a piece of paper". It confers a number of rights on the individuals involved ("discrimination against single couples"?? WTF?), as well as a number of responsibilities.

Marriage isn't for everybody, but the only people who seem to get so bent out of shape about it are indeed immature frustrated virgins. You may or may not be an immature frustrated virgin, but you certainly sound like one when you come out with your misunderstood nonsense about human evolution and sociology.

JK91

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well you're spouting the same ill informed pseudoscience that's been debunked time and again and yet you still stick to your guns despite how many times you're told that marriage is a legal contract that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion (mine was a civil marriage, €20 tip to the registrar for keeping it short and simple, none of your religious clap trap), and while we could happily have lived together without getting married, there were a number of reasons we chose to get married.

Think about it this way - if marriage was "only a piece of paper", and Ireland are so backward because of the RCC, etc (admittedly that was a particularly Irish twist on the usual PUA crap), then why is there an ongoing campaign at the moment for same-sex marriage? Because marriage is MORE than "just a piece of paper". It confers a number of rights on the individuals involved ("discrimination against single couples"?? WTF?), as well as a number of responsibilities.

Marriage isn't for everybody, but the only people who seem to get so bent out of shape about it are indeed immature frustrated virgins. You may or may not be an immature frustrated virgin, but you certainly sound like one when you come out with your misunderstood nonsense about human evolution and sociology.

Right second message in a row with personal abuse, consider yourself reported pal. And don't post while drunk, it's making you look highly irrational and overly-sentimental. And as for your PUA/ virgin nonsense talk aside, I'm sticking to my guns regardless, marriage is a load of sh!te regardless. And p.s. a €20 well spent, there is absolutely no way you could have proven your love for your OH. So apparently marriage - the one and only true love - is now cheaper than 3 boxes of cigarettes..................true love :rolleyes:

maguic24

Czarcasm wrote: »

.
Marriage isn't for everybody, but the only people who seem to get so bent out of shape about it are indeed immature frustrated virgins. You may or may not be an immature frustrated virgin, but you certainly sound like one when you come out with your misunderstood nonsense about human evolution and sociology.

Ouch Czarcasm, seriously ouch.

maguic24

I think everyone needs to take a chill pill.

caustic 1

Some folk just not worth the effort.

JK91

caustic 1 wrote: »

Some folk just not worth the effort.

Indeed, particulary those losers who are tied down to a woman after 20 years they lost interest in after the first 2 years, stuck with kids they probably never wanted to have, with all sorts of obligations, while some of us even at 50 are still enjoying our bachelor years and the independence it brings. Good luck with your sappy marriages, I've too much to live for to ever get bogged down in all that old man stuff

zyanya

Hey but the "Alpha Males" sites say if we're female, over 25 and single, we have hit the wall and we are caca and must lose all hope!

W.Shakes-Beer

Serious amount of bitter, closed-minded, judgemental tripe being spouted out here. It's pathetic.