[Tex Pro]

Record Number of Americans Are Unmarried:

http://www.livescience.com/17462-record-...rried.html

Quote:

Barely half of American adults are married, a record low for the country, a new analysis of Census data finds.

In the future, marriage will be more of a status marker among the religions and upper-middle class (if it isn't already). The end of marriage is near.

[Uzisuicide]

When marriage goes the family goes. When the family goes you can kiss Western civilization goodbye. There's a lot at stake here.

[Norset]

I am laughing at all the divorce lawyers and family courts that will be out of business soon.

... Which means cohabitation laws are coming. Be prepared.

[Kingsley Davis]

(07-31-2013 08:25 PM)Norset Wrote:  

I am laughing at all the divorce lawyers and family courts that will be out of business soon.

... Which means cohabitation laws are coming. Be prepared.

Along with the bachelor tax.

[karateka]

Average woman (or not so average) considers herself too good for the average guy, plus American ratios are close to being within standard deviation of China.

[Samseau]

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

[DLZ]

(07-31-2013 08:25 PM)Norset Wrote:  

I am laughing at all the divorce lawyers and family courts that will be out of business soon.

... Which means cohabitation laws are coming. Be prepared.

More like Bachelor Tax 2015

edit: beaten like tina turner

[Norset]

But the bachelor tax just creates more work and revenue for the IRS, the lawyers will still be unemployed. So my money is on cohabitation laws to come first. This group of people has a right to work!

[A War You Cannot Win]

One positive trend occurring is the leftists are almost unanimously not procreating, so their filth and corruption is on the downward spiral.

[Veloce]

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Not disputing that claim, but care to drop some stats and sources?

[Tex Pro]

(07-31-2013 08:25 PM)Norset Wrote:  

I am laughing at all the divorce lawyers and family courts that will be out of business soon.

... Which means cohabitation laws are coming. Be prepared.

Yep, cohabitation laws are coming. You can already hear grumblings on the right and the left about the low marriage rate and what to do about it, and so it is only a matter of time before whoever is in power decides to "fix" the problem by enacting strict cohabitation laws.

All the more reason to get the hell out of this country and renounce citizenship.

[Tex Pro]

(07-31-2013 08:41 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:25 PM)Norset Wrote:  

I am laughing at all the divorce lawyers and family courts that will be out of business soon.

... Which means cohabitation laws are coming. Be prepared.

Along with the bachelor tax.

Problem is a bachelor tax would hit women just as hard as men, and so it would be too unpopular to ever gain support.

My guess is if there is ever a "solution" to the low marriage rate, it will be strict cohabitation laws.

[Therapsid]

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Yup. And not only does increased welfare spending lead to higher tax rates, which by themselves lower GDP growth, but all those welfare queens who aren't working do nothing to contribute to the nation's economic output.

The result? The worst economic recovery of any recession in modern U.S. history.

They just announced last quarter's annualized growth rate - 1.7%. This pathetic number was actually reported as good news! It exceeded the number economists were predicting. This only confirms that economists have already concluded that America will never see the kind of growth we enjoyed as recently as the 1990's, and which our parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents enjoyed.

The decline of marriage means men become less industrious and more women go on welfare. The economy stagnates and the debt to GDP ratio skyrockets. The U.S. goes bankrupt. The end.

[NYJ]

(07-31-2013 10:14 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Yup. And not only does increased welfare spending lead to higher tax rates, which by themselves lower GDP growth, but all those welfare queens who aren't working do nothing to contribute to the nation's economic output.

The result? The worst economic recovery of any recession in modern U.S. history.

They just announced last quarter's annualized growth rate - 1.7%. This pathetic number was actually reported as good news! It exceeded the number economists were predicting. This only confirms that economists have already concluded that America will never see the kind of growth we enjoyed as recently as the 1990's, and which our parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents enjoyed.

The decline of marriage means men become less industrious and more women go on welfare. The economy stagnates and the debt to GDP ratio skyrockets. The U.S. goes bankrupt. The end.

And considering last quarter's number were "revised"(read: they took off the rose colored glasses while reading the report) down from 1.8% to 1.1%, lord knows how sugarcoated the 1.7% number is. 1.7% annual rate of growth isn't nothing to celebrating over. From the numbers they thought it was going to be it's pretty much like finishing 3rd from last in a race instead of last. Yeah it's better, but it still ain't no good.

[LowerCaseG]

Any sort of co-habitation tax would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as discriminatory based upon marital status which is a protected class so forget about that you are just being alarmist.

[Tex Pro]

(07-31-2013 10:36 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

Any sort of co-habitation tax would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as discriminatory based upon marital status which is a protected class so forget about that you are just being alarmist.

They could just "subsidize" marriage by give huge tax breaks to married couples. There already are tax benefits to being married, so this is not unconstitutional to do.

Also, as for cohabitation laws, there are already cohabitation laws (aka common law marriage) in some states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law...ted_States

[speakeasy]

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Seriously dude...Will you quit trying to reduce every topic under the sun down to a left vs right shouting match? It's simply does not apply here. At all.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2013 10:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Seriously dude...Will you quit trying to reduce every topic under the sun down to a left vs right shouting match? It's simply does not apply here. At all.

Samseau and others have a problem understanding that these are left-right or liberal-convervative divides. The left and right have conspired to destroy civilization.

I'd put the War on Drugs and no-fault divorce laws well ahead of welfare for destroying marriage.

War on Drugs removed a large swath of the black population from the black community. One might even say that welfare resulted from the War on Drugs. With so many black men in prison, who else is going to take care of black babies?

More guys are realizing that marriage is a scam, too. There's a reason that the average age of marriage is raising. Guys are trying to put it off for as long as possible.

[LowerCaseG]

(07-31-2013 10:46 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 10:36 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

Any sort of co-habitation tax would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as discriminatory based upon marital status which is a protected class so forget about that you are just being alarmist.

They could just "subsidize" marriage by give huge tax breaks to married couples. There already are tax benefits to being married, so this is not unconstitutional to do.

Also, as for cohabitation laws, there are already cohabitation laws (aka common law marriage) in some states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law...ted_States

Marriage is already subsidized, and there are already huge tax breaks for married people. Common law marriage and a tax on single people are two different things, they have nothing to do with each other.
There is a big difference between giving a protected class a tax break or benefit(SBA loans for minority businesses, married filing jointly,) and affirmatively taxing people because they are (insert protected class). Giving one group benefits is not discriminatory. Taking away benefits (property) from one group IS discriminatory.

[Fredster]

If co-habitation laws come in, then we just won't live with a girls. All men will live single with pimped out houses/apartments.

Then you will see a new pick up movement for women looking to get co-habitation...but they will end up being unsatisfied since the only men they will get are beta providers who are desperate for sex while the alphas know better. but that won't last since women are human and want to have sex too, lol, jokes.

Red pill wisdom is beautiful, love this forum.

[Suits]

(07-31-2013 10:46 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 10:36 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

Any sort of co-habitation tax would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as discriminatory based upon marital status which is a protected class so forget about that you are just being alarmist.

They could just "subsidize" marriage by give huge tax breaks to married couples. There already are tax benefits to being married, so this is not unconstitutional to do.

Also, as for cohabitation laws, there are already cohabitation laws (aka common law marriage) in some states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law...ted_States

Except for Quebec, these are very common in Canada. I think its just three months of living together in Ontario and you're officially hitched.

[j r]

(07-31-2013 11:11 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 10:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 08:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

There is a direct causation between the welfare for the poor that started in the 1960's and the falling marriage rates.

How do the left-wing members of the board reconcile these two points? I am genuinely curious to know.

Seriously dude...Will you quit trying to reduce every topic under the sun down to a left vs right shouting match? It's simply does not apply here. At all.

Samseau and others have a problem understanding that these are left-right or liberal-convervative divides. The left and right have conspired to destroy civilization.

I'd put the War on Drugs and no-fault divorce laws well ahead of welfare for destroying marriage.

War on Drugs removed a large swath of the black population from the black community. One might even say that welfare resulted from the War on Drugs. With so many black men in prison, who else is going to take care of black babies?

More guys are realizing that marriage is a scam, too. There's a reason that the average age of marriage is raising. Guys are trying to put it off for as long as possible.

The welfare state, the warfare state, the police state, the surveillance state, the crony capitalist state, they are just all finger of the same fist that's tightening it's grip around the individual.

[j r]

This, by the way, is one of the reasons that I support gay marriage. The breakdown of the family is important, but there's no going back. There's not going to be any apacolypse that takes us back to what we imagine that family was in the 1950s.

Instead, hopefully marriage as a romantic endeavor will remain for those who want it, but will be augmented by some form of domestic partnership for people who just want to form some kind of family unit. It could be two guys. It could be a guy and three wives. It could be two unmarried straight women who want to raise their kids together.

When people are part of a family unit, they are better able to weather the ups and downs of a tumultuous economy. If someone loses their job, there's someone else who can pitch in and help out. If a single person hits a rough patch they have to go to the government for support or to the bank for credit. For obvious reasons, there are lots of interests that like the latter arrangement.

[MrXY]

Oppressive cohabitation laws are coming I think there's no doubt.

We've always had them in the form of common law marriage, but the time required is going to be greatly reduced-maybe eventually two years or even one year will be enough to put a guy on the hook for property division and alimony.

I expect that there will be a change in the child support laws also, such that if a man lives with a woman who has children that are not his, if he supports them in any way-and it will be almost impossible to prove he didn't support them if he so much as paid the utility bill-he will be on the hook for at least a portion of child support as well.

[Tex Pro]

(08-01-2013 02:45 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 10:46 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 10:36 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

Any sort of co-habitation tax would be a violation of the 14th Amendment as discriminatory based upon marital status which is a protected class so forget about that you are just being alarmist.

They could just "subsidize" marriage by give huge tax breaks to married couples. There already are tax benefits to being married, so this is not unconstitutional to do.

Also, as for cohabitation laws, there are already cohabitation laws (aka common law marriage) in some states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law...ted_States

Except for Quebec, these are very common in Canada. I think its just three months of living together in Ontario and you're officially hitched.

I just looked it up and you are right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada

Man, I guess you can't live in Canada with a chick or risk getting into a common law marriage. That is crazy. How come the Canucks on this board don't mention this? Seems like something that should be changed ASAP.

I also notice that common law marriage only exists in anglophone countries. Athlone is right: the worst marriage laws exist in anglo countries.