|
|
|
|
|
| People under age thirty should not be allowed marriage.
Posted: 2/20/2008 1:31:48 PM | I think it depends on the person. I knew I wanted to get married when I was 10 years old. My parents were sitting at the kitchen table, my mother with her coffee and my father with his hot tea, and thought to myself how I wanted to have a family just like that when I grew up.
I got married the first time at the age of 16. I was more than ready, and loved married life. I thought then, and still do, that you can not truly be free until you are married. Sadly he didn't feel the same way, and ended our family two years latter. I thought we had it made, and would never have ended it.
The main reason people end up divorced is because they get married for the wrong reasons. The only real reason to get married is because both people truly love is other. I will never get married again until I feel all of the types of love for a person that you should and they also feel them for me. 1. True Love: The same unconditional love you feel for your children(no it doesn't mean you stay with an abusive person. It means you love them, even if you can't live with them.). 2. Friendship Love: The same kind of I will always be there love, you have for a friend. 3. Romantic Love: This is the least important of the three. This is the heart beating, can't wait to see the person. | |
|
| |
9 to 9
|
Joined: 12/12/2007
Msg: 53 | |
| People under age thirty should not be allowed marriage.
Posted: 2/20/2008 3:19:20 PM | And your point Dr. Lecture, is what exactly?
The decomposition of marrage for love began in earnest when it became a necessary social factor and economic incentive, well before the 90's. Look it up. Throughout recorded history, there are tales rife with unhappy partners for any reason at any age. Particularly when any agency forces them to externally ritualize their relationships, to grant sanction of that state being valid, hence respected and acceptable to ones society and peers. Thus also legally defendable, to intervention against as well. Protecting, supposedly, a man or woman via legal enforcement of that state from harassing persuers of their romantic person. "I'm married and your sexually harassing me" type laws. All good and well, but I'm not seeing the need for distinction or special protection, above and beyond what any person is entitled too.
but I digress, perhaps. ;)
Marrage really doesn't have an age limit. It has a maturity factor, a internal set of ethic and values that either a person has at any age, or not. Raising the age bar as the header of this subject would suggest, or even lowering the age sanction of "being married" will not alter the internal conditions of a persons ethics that allows a marrage or any other binding relationship to function.
Manifestly obvious is a state of two people being together in love and acting in that fashion. Requiring no special protections, sanctions, or incentives to do so. Or unjustifiable complications if a person isn't. Economic or religious. Neither obviously, keep "married" people together. Their internal ethics as being mutually acceptable does.
There really is no age limit on what a person holds true. A persons "morality" as they define it and hold it true via actions, speak much louder than any title or age limit or limitation does. In all things marrage being of no exception.
Complications of the young:
Now the only complication I can see in why younger people shouldn't marry for love is the sheer fact that they mostly are hideously undereducated to meet the challenges of an adault life. Housing and utilities, Jobs needs/wants, earning their way of independent life, etc. Posessing only a half hazard knowlege of, or complete oblivion about, those necessary knowleges needed to function . Thus gauranteeing their independance, and productivity to their own ends of having a "happy life".
Considering the sheer lack of investment in public education to teach important skill to function in society as anything other than physically mature children, is there any wonder? And really, is it solely the schools to blame? When public education is synonymous for many people as "daycare you dont get billed monthly for", is it any wonder why that lack of concern for the young persons future is reflected by the state institution? Especially when the subject matter being taught doesn't educate, train or really focus, the young people on the practical necessitys for attaining a functional self supporting life at graduation. If it was, only the truly foolish would hate going to school.
Now you may be wondering. How is this related?
Its simple, if a person of any age knows the how to's of self supported living, they wont have to "shack up" or "marry" people for all the wrong reasons. They will be abel to fully explore what this "love" thing is and discover why marrage or a relationsip may be a good choice they CAN make, not an economic incentive they HAVE to make, just to survive. Or a deceptive pretense that can be made to enjoy life at lower costs.
The governing idea is, "when a person can support themselves economically, they don't need to seek a relationship, or a pretense thereof to survive and do it well." Thus returning romance to its proper place, seperate from the money he or she makes or can get. And how does one do this? Either learning via experience or education. An "education" I note that is seperate from ones public schooling.
9 to 9 | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 