Posted on 06/10/2012 5:08:04 AM PDT by Conservaliberty
Okay folks, I’m just going to jump right into it. The Huffington Post just posted a piece asking for the government forbidding the practice of marriage for young people. The author writes, "couples should not be allowed to get married before age 25."
I know what you’re thinking…hipsters.
You’d be correct. No longer confined to the ever-changing world of ironically ugly fashion, hipsters are now applying their trendy outlook to their very own values, demanding that the government enforce them onto others in the process.
“Who knows? Maybe there are 20-year-olds that get married and stay madly in love for their whole lives… Maybe there is such thing as fairies and unicorns too.”
Yes, this is actually the crux of an argument that author Jennifer Nagy genuinely believes to be factually sound. Writing a rebuttal almost feels wrong, as one can truly sense how proud she was of her accomplishment. Clearly, she’s very pleased with herself...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
agreed.
Good for you guys. I guess they are saying that our parents and grand parents were wrong. How old were your parents and grand parents when they got married? It would be an interesting study.
This is absolute hypocrisy on the part of liberals. If a girl can have sex at 15 and a baby at 16, she should be able to get married at 18.
But I ran into this sentiment when married at 22, right after college graduation. I was asked it we were really ready. I said after a 3 1/2 year engagement, we’d lasted longer than people I knew who’d met, married, had a kid and divorced - so yes, we were old enough to get married.
We're all in our mid-50s. More than a few have been married 30 years or more. Some are becoming grandparents.
Our prep school was on a college campus and we got to see the hippies of the 1970s in action. Their fervor for social causes always seemed to peak the week before finals. We decided they were frauds and we should just work hard and see what happens. Turned out OK for most of us.
Get real, folks.
The proposed regulation isn’t about improving marriage.
The proposed regulation is about BANNING MARRIAGE.
And of course these hipsters are the very ones who always did, and continue to, say there should be no limits on live, and that anyone (or anything) can marry anyone (or anything) at any time... just not straight people and/or traditional marriages.
Yes, it's hard to square that with the demands of getting through life. And it doesn't seem any better for those who don't face the demands of putting food on the table or gas in the van: the "one-percent" are notable for quick divorces and "children from an earlier relationship." (I read "People" magazine in the checkout line at Walmart ;-).
The need for a constant emotional high in marriage is very dangerous. What happens, then, when a spouse is sick or depressed, or in Japan on business for six weeks or in Iraq or on a ship for year? Adultery is what happens.
Mrs BN (”Luscious Babe”) has been married for 41+ years to “a 12 year old, trapped in a 64 year old body!”
Her “mighty hunter, fine figure of a man” is no longer either, but she still loves me! And vice versa!
She was 22 and I was an old man of 23 when we married. However, I’d been through a tour with the Marines in Vietnam and she was a senior in college and one of 8 kids.
We made a vow “before God and these assembled witnesses”, including families.
‘Nuff said!
All these chick articles on marriage can basically be condensed to one sentence: “I waited too long and now the good guys are all gone. Boo Hoo.”
bttt
I got married at 38.
When you read all the statistics about how half of all marriages last forever... That’s frightening!
Forever is a long time.
>>This will not stop non-Bible people from breeding illegitimate babies who will more than likely be Liberal voters in 18 years.<<
Or maybe covenant marriage will come into vogue. Take the government out of it completely.
A Pastor says that he will officiate as a couple pledge a covenant to each other. Then everything that the cohabitators do, they do, only with vows to eachother and a piece of paper signed and kept at the church. All contracts are made with the two names, birth certificates, house deeds. At 25 they pay the government for the privilege of the legal piece of paper.
Tell me again why the government is involved with marriage?
We got married when 21...44+ years ago. That anyone (especially the government) should tell anyone else how to live their life is anti-American. Whatever happened to freedom? The writer of the article is a bitter loser...so what? That is the result of her choices. I bet there is at least one very happy guy who had the chance to marry the monbat writer who chose not to.
LOL! You know, you’re not truly complete until you get married - and then you’re finished.
I was 20. my wife was 18, we have been married for 49 years the 29th. of this month.
I am the luckiest man in the world to have her.
It’s just a passing fancy every now and then.
Have your 17 year old get his GED now. I’d tell him that as soon as he has that in hand, he can drop out of public school. I’ve been amazed by how many boys in this area have gone the GED route just to get out of school.
The classes are available thru any ‘adult ed’ program. Don’t torture him by making him stay in school. The GED will provide the equivalent when/if he wants more education. The community colleges offer trade classes as well as academic. At some point he may want to transition that way.
From the very same people who are pushing homosexual “marriage”.
Because inheritance and property ownership (or division) are legal matters, and they end up in the courts no matter what previous arrangements are made. If there is a stable law regarding marriage, which makes inheritance and property division "pro forma," rather than infinitely negotiable, then matters are both more predictable for everyone up front and less of a trial (literally) to the whole world at the end.
One might imagine a situation in which marriage was strictly a contractual agreement - any number of parties with any conditions they chose to agree upon. However, the first one would end up in court, with one or more parties claiming the contract was invalid because they were coerced ("He said he'd leave if I didn't sign!") or that the agreement was morally negated. Back to square one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.