The Giant Jam Samwitch

WHAT THE FUCK THUCY?!
"main thing is that people who are not financially stable do not enter marriage because they are unable to attract a spouse in that conditon"

So now do you think I could sew some gal over charges of inequality of marriage, if she rejects my courtship on the basis of me not being wealthy enough? That's just being shallow : D How about, if she rejects me, cause I'm ugly? Damn, what if she rejects me for being short? There is literally nothing I could do, except for some really invasive procedures. Damn, what if a girl would reject you for having your ass so far up your ass it's possibly it most likely has to obstruct your breathing. I mean, it is most likely result of some environmental factors, and even if she find you mental and absolutely unsuitable to be a part of a family she should not discriminate you by rejecting you, right? Because it would be marriage inequality. For fucks sake, you should get your own flag mate!

Thucy, I'd support any rational movement targeting social and economic differences. I believe, especially today, one of government's main responsibilities is ensuring that every every citizen has equal chances of succeeding in live, whatever such success may be for him. However, I also deeply believe that people like you who just go around propagating views the kind of the ones you presented on this forum in recent month do are much more dangerous to such movements than the greedy, bad-bad establishment you think you're fighting with. How do you think anyone will treat such movements seriously while identifying them with you and reading such views (and have in mind this is just creme de la creme, and sorry for paraphrasing but that's what a bystander get's from your posts, IMO)
- You feel disenfranchised by your government? Don't vote - that will make them appreciate your opinions more
- Hey, remember when people where fighting for being able to marry a person of different race? Hey, remember the same struggle of people of the same sex? You know what we should do next? Make sure that not a single person is left without a spouse just because he's poor af.

I just... I don't... I mean... For fucks sake, Thucy, your arguments are so extremely fucking bad... I just cannot close the browser now. I'm gonna be late just because you are so incredibly stupid. As to not repeat myself though I will just make another, fun IMO, argument:

You say that poor people don't have the awareness about contraceptives. You say we should change that? Would you, say, have a whole campaign promoting contraceptives among poor, and since there is a correlation (IMO not causation, but correlation nevertheless), among racial minorities? Do you realize that this could be perceived as a (mild, but nevertheless) for of eugenics? Wanna do some social engineering here? Sound a little bit fascisty to try to get poor people to have less children, as you yourself stated.

Thucydides is right (btw, I like the way this phrase sounds).

The institution of marriage emerged to solve the issues of private property inheritance and succession. Marriage provides a guarantee to the wife (and the woman's family) that she and her children would receive the share of the property necessary for survival, and that her sons would inherit the man's property. Marriage distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate heirs, and legitimate spouse from illegitimate concubines. For the man, marriage provides a guarantee that his heirs are actually his children (this was provided by other institutions to guarantee the fidelity of women). Romantic love as a basis for marriage is a fairly recent creation, it emerged in the period of Romanticism, and it is not universal - by far. Many cultures still don't accept romantic love as a valid reason for marriage.

So, within this logic, if there is no property to take care of, there is no reason to get married. The people of the urban poor, for instance, in the West (e.g., Britain) never got married.

@ yassem your third post is an absurd straw man. Way to put words in Thucy's mouth and then attack him for them.

"So now do you think I could sew some gal over charges of inequality of marriage, if she rejects my courtship on the basis of me not being wealthy enough"

Hahahaha THAT's what you got from my comments? You're adorable

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/marriage/etc/poverty.html

That's an excellent paper, Kuta

@captain tomorrow:
Marriage didn't have to do with anything about passing on property when a man dies. When a man and a woman are married, a man then has a duty to his wife to provide for her needs. Women, for thousands of years, didn't work outside the home, didn't work, didn't own property, didn't take part in economies or law or battle. They cared for the home and children.
When a woman gets married to a man, she came under his protection and provision. In fact, when the man died, the woman received no part of the inheritance. Instead, she had to be cared for by another man, often a brother of the husband, so marriage had nothing to do with inheritance rights because women were not privy to them as property passed from father to sons.

Marriage had, and still has to do with provision and protection. I am obligated, under God, to care for my wife and children, both spiritually, emotionally and physically. Simply because women have the right to work and own property (and so they should) doesn't negate my God - ordained and God - decreed command to care for those under my charge and in my house.

Well, TN, that's the thing. If you're poor and know you can't take care of a spouse; you don't get married. It's why I've never considered marriage at my age, for instance.

Money has nothing to do with marriage. Never has. I don't have anything to say about your situation. People marry for different reasons (and don't marry for others) and whether you get married or not is your personal decision. From what I've seen, I believe that you will make whatever you feel I'd the best decision for yourself. I would encourage anyone thinking about marrying or not marrying wouldn't use finances of robbing them of what could be a great blessing.

If money has nothing to do with marriage, why is marriage linked to affluence?

It's perceived to be expensive, for one. The upper class make a big show of it and it's a means of spending exorbitant amounts of money. Also understand that socioeconomic status comes, many times, with a different culture that may not be as expressive supportive of marriage. If you come from a single parent household, you probably have a higher percent chance of not being married--After all, what's the use if your parents weren't married.

Simply to say that because there is a trend between economic status and marriage status does not imply causation.

You should have a look at the paper that was linked by Jeff Kuta

Money has everything to do with some marriages. Money is certainly a factor in every marriage in the sense that the couple pools resources and reserves. And finally money matters because we all pay taxes and the federal government makes marital status a priority.

Someone with low economic prospects is less marriageable in one sense. But, they still experience biological drives toward procreation. In fact, Lionel Tiger (read up on him if you haven't) posits that it is precisely due to these low prospects that men and women latch onto mates more readily if they exhibit any signs of genetic value, be they physical, social or economic. This leads to more children out of wedlock and contributes directly to the cycle of poverty.