Would more people get married if the Government wasn't involved?

[coachTanthony]

yes I think so

Nah marriage sucks

see poll ( Coach will you marry me )

[Exterminatore]

Undoubtedly. The government’s involvement in marriage and feminist influence on the government regarding marriage have become a serious reasons to avoid marriage for men. Divorce has been weaponized to extract everything a women can get in terms of security from a man she is no longer with, and no longer provides benefit to of any type.


Frankly women should not be allowed to vote. Do a very careful and through assessment of history and you will find in America once women were allowed to vote, which also meant they could hold office, they did not use these newly acquired rights to add input to better the country. They ONLY voted for things that benefited and voted in the direction they thought they country should go on any given policy as it relates to them. So, this new right was ALL about how it benefited them ONLY. Additionally they sought public office and political power NOT for the benefit of the country but for themselves.


100 years later we have men paying for a vagina they no longer have access to…simply because they once used it and women feel entitled to compensation for this. Women greatly desire security and will gladly weaponize laws to extract security from men whom they were once associated with.


Let the “strong and independent” women fend for themselves and strip from them any ability to have authority and any ability to influence politics as they have proven they only use such for themselves and NOT for the greater good.


I say all this in that I’m speaking generally. That not ALL women are like this, but the overwhelming majority are. So strip them all of the right to influence those in power or obtain it.

[KlinkyCoder]

So all women should be banned from voting because of a few are evil?

[Exterminatore]

I didn’t say a few were evil. I said historically and currently the majority vote purely for what benefits women.

Look, I don’t care how bad it sounds. I don’t care about women s rights at all. Yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

[KlinkyCoder]

Okay... but how are you going to make your case for that if it sounds bad to so many people?

[Exterminatore]

Objective reality. I just stated the facts. Things are what they are. We can look at all the legislation that benefits women at the expense ot men. We can look at the political changes Feminism influenced. We can look at the ideology of Feminism. We can look at things historically regarding acquisition of voting rights, acquiring of power and how women voted and for what. We can look at what legislation they initiated and endorsed. We can look at what cases they tied and what judgments were rendered and read their notes on such.

We can understand women reason emotionally and relationally. We know they are weaker in every way than men.

We can understand God created them not to lead in the manner they do currently in society.

If we can do all this than we can leave our emotions at the door and objectively conclude a solid case can be made that maybe they shouldn’t vote or hold office.

At the end of the day, I don’t care if it sounds bad. I work off of is it actually bad? Or is there a lesson here and facts to distribute?

[Adam_INTJ]

"Objective facts"

Big claims from a guy who provides no data. Where's the male-to-female breakdown of these bills that only benefit women? What are said bills/executive orders?

What is the demonstrated difference between how men and women vote? Is this difference unjustified?

E. g. maybe women advocate more for the interests of children, while men generally don't. I hope that you also would share that concern.

You say that women would only vote for their interests, yet contrast that with a more utilitarian agenda. Why wouldn't men also disregard utilitarianism in favor of taking advantage of women? That's essentially what Muslim countries do. I hope you don't aspire to them.

Get data before making claims man.

[Exterminatore]

@adam---

Don’t tell me what to do. You want facts? It’s called Google. Go look them up.

Go look at the history of feminism. Look up the decisions of female judges. Look up the legislation drafted by female politicians.

Laws favor women to mens expense.

I did not say women would only vote for their interests, I said they did that already. This is why we don’t have fair divorce proceedings. It’s why ALL women regardless of race get affirmative action. It is why we talk of equality, but equality only means rights and privileges for women at the expense of men. Where are all the women campaigning women be drafted for war just like men? Where are all the women who are interested in equality but are fine with men receiving harsher sentences than women when prior record is taken into account for the same crimes? Oh. They’re not interested in that equality. Why? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT BENEFIT THEM. I don’t see one woman motioning to get more men enrolled and graduating from college because that area completely favors women. I don’t see anyone campaigning for fairer domestic violence laws. know why? Because women initiate domestic violence more often than men, but men get arrested more than women because women get the worse of the exchange almost exclusively.

I applaud the Muslims for doing that, and probably nothing else.

Great idea, let’s let emotional reasoners draft legislation and lead our nation and choose our leaders. Hell, why stop there? Let’s let kids vote too.

1919 women got the right to vote. By 2022 we’re hearing how they let losers impregnate them and make the rest of us pay for their children through taxes, yet women are strong and independent.

[Adam_INTJ]

Get your proof. I'm nor going to do your research for you.

Hitchen's razor: That which is asserted with little evidence can be dismissed with little evidence.

You failed to meet the burden if proof, so your claims are dismissed until you bring evidence
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[Exterminatore]

I don’t have to prove anything to you. You want proof? Look it up yourself. Idc if you agree or believe me.

[Adam_INTJ]

My point I'd that you have no foundation for what you believe. At best you're wasting your time screaming into the wind because no one will believe your unsubstantiated claims.

At worse you're filling yourself with lies via confirmation bias, and will endure a lot of suffering as you stumble into obvious mistakes as a result of your intellectual carelessness.

In both scenarios, many people will think that you're stupid, resulting in a poir reputation that will bite you.

[USLegionary]

Most religious people only care if their church sanctified the marraige but other than that there's a real push to get cohabitation couples and domestic partnerships to be considered as legally the same as marraige by feminists for obvious financial reasons when the relationship ends.

It's generally women that want to get married in the first place and generally women who initiate divorce.

Marriage is a serious risk for men and women wait too long to decide to marry.

[letuswaltzforthedead]

I don't think so, society looks like it has moved in a direction too far from what people are adapted to. The rates of marriage are at the lowest they've ever been, even those that do marry, at least half of them will fail. If the government wasn't involved, less people would probably marry since there wouldn't be a safety net anymore for women, since it's usually the women inciting the divorce, and there isn't any pressure to commit. Single motherhood is being destigmatized, divorcing/breaking up is normalized, and many are growing up in stepfamilies (at the risk of the children themselves).

[RiseofArtemis]

You know what usually follows those trends of single motherhood and no marriage. Look at ancient Romes downfall. You'll be eating squirel meat and your society is going to crash down and morals will be gone. Breaking traditional culture is never a good idea.

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

The government isn't why I don't get married again... More people on bullshit, people who don't get what relationships/marriage is about is why I avoid dating/relationships, etc..

[coachTanthony]

Wonder if anyone has ever gotten married at Burger King? LOL

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

Wouldn't surprise me if they did LOL

[coachTanthony]

Bahahahaha your fans are so charming

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

@VaasMontenegro the fact you call people "material" ... People can and do fall in love at any age.. my sister found someone past her mid fifties, my neighbor just got married past her 60's... And the fact you assume I haven't had offers. It's just since lost my husband almost 9 years ago, haven't been interested. Some people really are single by choice... Me, didn't become single by choice, more the death did us part thing, but I've "stayed" single by "choice"
Again, you should stop throwing that " not marriage material at a certain age" bs out there. Maybe that's the way "you" see it, don't mean everyone does🤷🏼‍♀️

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

@VaasMontenegro he was sick and couldn't work for 13 years, so no not a bum, but also not the provider/sole provide, I was as well as caregiver the last year, not being high and mighty, stating my facts/real truth instead of the bs assumptions slung around on here🙄 Not all women are with men just for their money, being provided for, but you can keep making those false assumptions/accusations about women all you want, that don't affect me or my life

[OlderAndWiser]

Would more people get married if the government was involved in regulating marriage, or if the government did not get involved in regulating divorce?

[coachTanthony]

However you see it. Divorce is part of marriage unfortunately.

[FreedMan]

A lot of the women responding to this don't understand men or their motivations. Granted men typically don't understand women either which is to be expected given the different life experiences and hormonal motivators of the sexes. For men I think the risk of losing everything via child support, alimony, dispensations, etc. are a huge hurdle to overcome. On average men are the ones who get demolished in family court. I'm aware that women pay alimony too but it's rarer and child support rarely gets awarded in appropriate amounts or enforced when they're forced to pay. Further, men are by and large kept from their children due to false abuse allegations or outright withholding in violation of a court order and the police and courts do nothing about it. Not saying the abuse doesn't happen but the reported incidents don't match up with reality and are frequently found to be unfounded in court. So that's a bunch of the material risks and the emotional risks are far far more extensive, what are the benefits exactly?

1. Companionship can be attained from a friend.

2. Sex has been cheapened to the point of a simple physical transaction thanks to Tinder and other apps.

3. ?

I JUST went through a divorce and thankfully we came to a compromise because she knows no court is going to make me homeless or keep me from my children so 50/50 custody was the alternative to more drastic measures and I wish her all the best. And before anyone says I'm jaded or bitter, we frequently cut up about the kids and do our best to keep our shit out of their lives. We're both dating-ish other people now and things are civil if not outright friendly.

[KelleyNice]

Of course there would be more marriages, everyone, girls included, know it is government laws and courts that has greatly increased the penalties, risks, and rights men face and have if they get married. Even women are realizing it is the state that owns their children. Therefore, they can be penalized for giving children the freedom and play and go places unsupervised that children have had for millions of years.

[Smoke-n-Growls]

I mean, the government involvement is namely to make sure they know to change your tax status.

So would the implication of the gov't no longer being involved be that marriage no longer gives tax benefits? Cause that's not gonna be popular.

I don't think gov't involvement is the reason marriage isn't as popular.

[Aerissa_Jade]

I don't think there should be any tax benefits to getting married. That is part of the unneeded government control people do not want, the government punishing single people and rewarding married people.

Its like saying, your single you don't need to keep as much of you money as married people.

[Smoke-n-Growls]

That's totally fair, I'm behind that, too.

[razelove]

Marriage as it is exists as a contract more so than any other aspect. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to get married at the justice of the peace, as it is supposed to represent a monogamous religious commitment, otherwise polygamy and gay marriage would not have been such big deals.

If it existed as a construct within your church, community, family, what have you more people would go for it I think. Also considering that in many states alimony is a very real sword of damocles, that's very un-sexy. Anyway, that's unlikely to change, the trend of less marriages, more divorces, and more kids with single moms will accelerate in my opinion. Regardless of regulations and consequences, we all want to love and be loved.

[Aquariusmystery]

I think it’d be a better question if you asked

Would you still get married if divorce wasn’t an option

because I think a lot of people marry because they see it as a stepping stone they have to follow and think it’s easy cos divorce is accessible

[RiseofArtemis]

Most men today don't marry exactly because of divorce. They don't want all their hard earned money to be taken by an ungrateful woman who only thinks about herself. Fix the divorce problem so maybe men will marry again.

[Aquariusmystery]

@RiseofArtemis maybe they’re just choosing the wrong women

[RiseofArtemis]

The government is the sole reason why people are unwilling to marry in the first place. Too many negatives and too little positives. Why they have a say in marriage in the first place is beyond me anyway. Religion and state is separate so should be their influence to one another which means no government should dictate if the religion allowed divorce or not and how people are to live. Government and religion are in direct opposition to another. If religion states no divorce but the government does what would you do?

[Aerissa_Jade]

Certainly, since marriage has nothing to do with love and it a legal contract. People can do all the things that marriage provides without that.

Marriage should be between people and each other, no government involvement. Notice I didn't say two people cause any number of consenting adults should be allowed to get married, rather than have government controlling who can and can't get married and rewarding those that do.

[IAteTwoFullHams]

If the government wasn't involved, and the Church wasn't involved, you could do this:

"Hey, bro, wanna get married?"

"Shit yeah bro!"

"Nice, I now pronounce us husband and husband. Wanna get divorced?"

"Sign me up!"

"Rad, now you're my forty fifth ex."

... so yeah, I think a lot more people would get married.

[U4ea0]

More people would get married if government protected the interests of men better. As it stands over 90% of women want marriage bur less than 40% of men. Marriage is too risky. 70% of divorces are filed by women for very flakey reasons such as "communication", "incompatibility", "don't love him anymore". Infidelity is a distant 4th place.

No fault divorce must go. Marriage is a contract that the government is constitutionally required to protect. Women who file for divorce for stupid reasons (husband didn't do anything wrong), needs to no get primary custody and no alimony. If there was no financial incentive for divorce women would only do it if it was absolutely necessary. She can't be allowed to live like a parasite off of her ex.

[RedThread]

There are financial benefits to being married and having children that wouldn't exist if the government wasn't involved in marriage. Why even get legally married if we're not getting anything out of it. It would just be a word in that case. We're already free to have all the ceremonies we want and not get legally married. Nobody is stopping anybody from doing that.

If people want to have a marriage ceremony without the legal implications of a marriage then by all means go for it.

[Jessica405]

I doubt it very much. I would never want a marriage. It is irrelevant to having a happy life with someone. Even as a Pagan, I don't want a Handfasting. I am quit happy just to live with my guy.

[monorprise]

The institution has to mean something, as long as it us defined as being about a 'feeling' rather than securing family and has no fault divorce it the institution doesn't mean anything at all nor does it secure anything at all.

[ObscuredBeyond]

The purpose of government involvement is to lend state-enforced legitimacy to the union, and as a check against sexual anarchy. Which is why defending the traditional definition of marriage was so important.

Now that government uses it as just another tax scheme, it's not marriage that needs changing. It's the government.

[Adam_INTJ]

Women initiate most divorces, and are the Pickler person when it comes to dating. So without government involvement to ensure that she gets alimony or custody in the event of divorce, many would be too scared to marry.

[Reaper1985]

it's possible to get a spiritual marriage that does not involve any form of government. typically it's a commitment ceremony based on the couples religious believes. though it means neither person is legally responsible for the others wellbeing. which also means if they break up neither are legally required to pay or give the other anything.

[Bratsondanielle]

I'm not sure the government is too involved. We flew to Vegas and got married. Elvis was involved thou...

[GlassTop]

Marriage used to be religious ceremony for monogamous relationship and have children. People don’t practice monogamy. They stopped believing in God. And they don’t want children, or use children to get tax benefits and welfare. Not to mention divorce is such a bad deal for the wealthier partners. Imagine having to pay your ex 20k a month because you were wealthy? That’s absolutely insane…

[TheFlak38]

More men would be involved. Or should I say "willing" to get involved. Because women would run away from it since they can't get all the special benefits the government offers under present circumstances.

[Anonymous]

The government programs of the past several decades have been to encourage illigitamacy, and divorce, rather than to encourage marriage. Instead of discouraging marriage and encouraging divorce the government should be involved subsidising marriage, and stable families.