Marriage: Two Is More Than One

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,093
60,647
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
The anti-religion fervor of the secularist overlooks the basis for biblical wisdom. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

" The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible to that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.”

It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture."

The restraint and behaviors that serve as the foundation of society is found in the Bible. Here is one more example of the deleterious effects of ignoring the lessons of that book.





1. "... scholars like W. Bradford Wilcox at the University of Virginia and Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute have been telling us that marriage is becoming an upper class phenomenon.... lower-income Americans have been progressively abandoning marriage for the last two decades.

2. ... Derek Thompson, writing for The Atlantic, ... points to an analysis of census data that reveals the vast economic consequences of this abandonment. Put bluntly, the failure to marry dramatically increases the likelihood of poverty and continued economic retreat.

3. ...the average American family with married parents and at least one child under age 18 living in the same home earned $81,000 last year... almost all of the actual growth in this average family’s income in recent years has come from the wife working.

4. ... our marriage crisis is making income inequality worse. Those who are getting married and staying married are, on average, moving ahead in the economy. In contrast, those who are not married are falling behind—fast.

5. “In a strange twist, marriage has recently become a capstone for the privileged class. The decline of marriage, to the extent that we’re seeing it, is happening almost exclusively among the poor.”





6. Unrelated evidence for the importance of marriage comes from The Journal of Clinical Oncology. Researchers have documented the fact that on average married cancer patients live longer than unmarried patients.... emotional support from a loved one may be far more critical to cancer care than previously recognized.”

a. You will not be surprised to know that unmarried men are at greatest risk. ....married women also survive longer than unmarried women with the same disease.






7. Interestingly, Derek Thompson ends his article with these words: “This is the marriage crisis behind our inequality crisis. It is not complicated. It requires no regressions. It is the simplest math equation in the world. It says: Two is more than one.”

8. “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Gen 2:18 ESV).

a. “Two is more than one.”
Two Is Better Than One?Who Knew? ? AlbertMohler.com






I challenge any not to see that it is not capitalism that causes economic inequality....it is the precepts of Liberalism, seen in the failure to marry, to form a family, that is largely responsible for poverty in America.

9. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37.1 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 82 percent. American FactFinder - Results *

10. 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers.
Jason DeParle, “Raising Kevion”, New York Times, Aug. 22, 2004
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?


Well, if you find it a 'symptom,' you might find support in the excuse filled article of the Liberal professor in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/321012-liberalism-poverty-and-babies.html


In "Coming Apart," Charles Murray indicts the elites, Liberals, who advance the idea that marriage is unnecessary....yet they continue to marry.
He coined the phrase 'Preach what you practice.'





In 1960, when over 90% of children were born in marriages, there were some who where wealthier than other, but there were no class distinctions as far as cultural determiners. Today, the differences are clear and dramatic: how much TV watched, reading books, drinking, the communities of each are more homogeneous, and, the amount of education.

Ask yourself what changes occurred from the '60's on....and....what political philosophy was responsible.



"...but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?"
Yup.
The middle-class proves it.
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?

I think my sociology teacher would say it is both.

I believe I am still together with my wife because we are married. Marriage kept us together.
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?

Third:

The OP has committed a cum hoc fallacy by jumping to the conclusion that lower rates of marriage contribute to poverty, and ‘blaming’ liberals for those lower marriage rates.

The thread fails accordingly, as its premise is idiocy.
 
" It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed-"

This is total bullshit.
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?

Third:

The OP has committed a cum hoc fallacy by jumping to the conclusion that lower rates of marriage contribute to poverty, and ‘blaming’ liberals for those lower marriage rates.

The thread fails accordingly, as its premise is idiocy.

A lot of poor women don't make enough so they're looking for favors from men and some of them end up pregnant as a result. They make themselves poor and they were already poor.

I met a few single mothers and they kind of wanted someone to be a father to their child before they would give someone a relationship.

Its almost discriminatory towards the guy. He has to be a father and take on a load.

A more correct way of looking at life is school, college, career, house then marriage in that order.

People ask, "What do you have to offer."

A lot of kids in Ivy league colleges look at relationships as a four credit course so they are just having premarital sex and saying "see you later".
 
" It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed-"

This is total bullshit.

Actually, you are.
In fact, as such, you represent the product of government schooling.


Let's see how easily that can be proven.

1. The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law....This term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."
Law of the land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.

In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18:21: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women.

Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


3. Behaviors that allow society to work are found throughout.
 
I met a few single mothers and they kind of wanted someone to be a father to their child before they would give someone a relationship.
Determining whether kids are involved BEFORE you get tangled in a relationship is very important. If you are looking for a fling, find a single woman.
 
Last edited:
" It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed-"

This is total bullshit.

Actually, you are.
In fact, as such, you represent the product of government schooling.


Let's see how easily that can be proven.

1. The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law....This term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."
Law of the land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.

In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18:21: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women.

Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


3. Behaviors that allow society to work are found throughout.

Most of the Christians I know who don't teach in church couldn't teach anyone any of this. Thank you.
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?


Well, if you find it a 'symptom,' you might find support in the excuse filled article of the Liberal professor in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/321012-liberalism-poverty-and-babies.html


In "Coming Apart," Charles Murray indicts the elites, Liberals, who advance the idea that marriage is unnecessary....yet they continue to marry.
He coined the phrase 'Preach what you practice.'





In 1960, when over 90% of children were born in marriages, there were some who where wealthier than other, but there were no class distinctions as far as cultural determiners. Today, the differences are clear and dramatic: how much TV watched, reading books, drinking, the communities of each are more homogeneous, and, the amount of education.

Ask yourself what changes occurred from the '60's on....and....what political philosophy was responsible.



"...but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?"
Yup.
The middle-class proves it.

The middle class proves that people marry only for economic and health reasons, and those marriages endure? :confused:
 
The middle class proves that people marry only for economic and health reasons, and those marriages endure? :confused:

If you take a vow to God, have included Him in your marriage planning then it is not just a piece of paper. Some people know they shouldn't pick someone, look at people they shouldn't have married and think divorce is the opt out clause because to them, marriage is just a piece of paper. That is the wrong kind of planning.
 
" It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed-"

This is total bullshit.

Actually, you are.
In fact, as such, you represent the product of government schooling.


Let's see how easily that can be proven.

1. The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law....This term was used in 1787 to write the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."
Law of the land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.

In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18:21: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women.

Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


3. Behaviors that allow society to work are found throughout.

Most of the Christians I know who don't teach in church couldn't teach anyone any of this. Thank you.


That was very kind of you, Chucky....thank you.
 
Two things.

First, could it be that the lower rate of marriage in the poor is not the cause but a symptom?

Second, this post almost seems to be promoting marriage as an economic and health boon, but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?


Well, if you find it a 'symptom,' you might find support in the excuse filled article of the Liberal professor in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/321012-liberalism-poverty-and-babies.html


In "Coming Apart," Charles Murray indicts the elites, Liberals, who advance the idea that marriage is unnecessary....yet they continue to marry.
He coined the phrase 'Preach what you practice.'





In 1960, when over 90% of children were born in marriages, there were some who where wealthier than other, but there were no class distinctions as far as cultural determiners. Today, the differences are clear and dramatic: how much TV watched, reading books, drinking, the communities of each are more homogeneous, and, the amount of education.

Ask yourself what changes occurred from the '60's on....and....what political philosophy was responsible.



"...but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?"
Yup.
The middle-class proves it.

The middle class proves that people marry only for economic and health reasons, and those marriages endure? :confused:


I don't know where you found that.


Marriage is essential for a whole host of reasons.
 
Well, if you find it a 'symptom,' you might find support in the excuse filled article of the Liberal professor in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/321012-liberalism-poverty-and-babies.html


In "Coming Apart," Charles Murray indicts the elites, Liberals, who advance the idea that marriage is unnecessary....yet they continue to marry.
He coined the phrase 'Preach what you practice.'





In 1960, when over 90% of children were born in marriages, there were some who where wealthier than other, but there were no class distinctions as far as cultural determiners. Today, the differences are clear and dramatic: how much TV watched, reading books, drinking, the communities of each are more homogeneous, and, the amount of education.

Ask yourself what changes occurred from the '60's on....and....what political philosophy was responsible.



"...but do you think if people took that view and got married just for those reasons, such marriages would endure?"
Yup.
The middle-class proves it.

The middle class proves that people marry only for economic and health reasons, and those marriages endure? :confused:


I don't know where you found that.


Marriage is essential for a whole host of reasons.

The second part of my original question to you was if you think promoting marriage for economic and/or health reasons is enough. :) A little confusion here I think. And you answered here anyway, so no worries! :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top