Political Crossfire Forums

He is right but obtuse.

Since divorce can be expensive I don't think he's right.

What's with the metric "child poverty". Don't they mean "single mom poverty"?

He's right. It's just that the state can do very, very little to force/keep people married.

Marriage is the ticket out of poverty. Polygamy is the ticket to wealth. If you look through history, the polygamists like kings and emperors tend to be rich, while the monogamists, like peasants, tend to be poor.

Shitlib here. I fundamentally don't understand how people can come in here and say marriage is not beneficial for a child, on average. Not only does this go against common sense, but it goes against just about every economic indicator we have. In general two parent homes are better for children, and economically more secure, than single parent homes.

Surprisingly, marriage does more for men than anyone, especially if marriage involves kids. This may come as a shock to you, but men stop their juvenile bullshit when they get married. Gang banging with your homies or getting drunk and driving home every Saturday suddenly doesn't have the same sort of appeal when you have a wife or children. Spider says marriage doesn't seem to do much of anything, when in reality the numbers all indicate that a married guy will not only be more likely to get that McJob, but he will be more likely to be a good employee, not get fired, get promoted, etc when he is married. It's not as simple as just aggregating incomes. All parties act more responsible and do better work when they are beholden to a family instead of themselves.

IMO divorce should be harder. Economically marriage makes the least sense for the group that we want to get married the most, wealthy men, because they stand to lose so much in divorce. Not to mention the toll it takes on kids. We need to get back to a culture where marriage means more than a legal obligation you can opt out of for a hefty legal fee. But government can and should encourage its citizens to get married.