Why men won't marry you

[elohiym]

Why contradict your own actions, or did you just say 21 earlier, to distance yourself from your past support of young marriage?

What a loaded question.

On the thread that Anna started about young marriage I stated that if I was forced to pick a random age (that's all most of you are doing it seems) then I would pick twenty-one, but I also said I would prefer a test to determine if someone is qualified for marriage that could be given to younger persons.

What do you mean by "support of young marriage?" I live in a state that allows teens to get married. Sometimes teen girls don't say no and get pregnant. Of course we support them getting married if they want to be married, and the baby qualifies them for marriage as far as we're concerned.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What a loaded question.

On the thread that Anna started about young marriage I stated that if I was forced to pick a random age (that's all most of you are doing it seems) then I would pick twenty-one, but I also said I would prefer a test to determine if someone is qualified for marriage that could be given to younger persons.

What do you mean by "support of young marriage?" I live in a state that allows teens to get married. Sometimes teen girls don't say no and get pregnant. Of course we support them getting married if they want to be married, and the baby qualifies them for marriage as far as we're concerned.

No, you gave that number in this thread, i didnt quote from annas threads.

Keep backpedaling though, i love watching you try to.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Somebody is trying to set a trap. Does that remind anyone of some 1st century religious folks?

No need to set traps for liars, only need to show their own words, they tell on themselves. They trap themselves.

 

[elohiym]

No, you gave that number in this thread, i didnt quote from annas threads.

Does it make a difference that I said the same thing in both threads? It only proves my story is consistent.

Keep backpedaling though, i love watching you try to.

I'm not back-pedalling so you are only loving your evil surmising.

 

[BOLCATS]

No need to set traps for liars, only need to show their own words, they tell on themselves. They trap themselves.

Liar???????? Really? I've seen no evidence of that. I see a mind full of wild misandrist fantasy

 

[elohiym]

So you advocate waiting till 21 to marry but for the womans health, she should have kids before marriage now?

If she gets pregnant at age fifteen, should she get married?

I didn't say she should have kids before marriage.

I don't advocate waiting until twenty-one. Read more carefully. I said that if I had to pick a random age, I would pick twenty-one for everything, just like Town Heretic said. He may be advocating for that but I'm not just because I said that's what I would pick if I had to choose. My preference, which had been stated clearly before in my exchange with zoo on Anna's thread, was for an individual competency test for marriage.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

TH was trying to argue that the young who marry divorce more, which is true, but they also end up in unhappy marriages less often.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-happier-but-those-who-marry-later-earn-more/

 

[elohiym]

Liar???????? Really? I've seen no evidence of that.

I can't even imagine a motive.

What would I get from it? :idunno:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Also the 27-29 age group divorce more than a younger group.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

If you had a time machine and could erase all the births that happened before age 25, how big would our current population be?

 

[Angel4Truth]

If she gets pregnant at age fifteen, should she get married?

I didn't say she should have kids before marriage.

I don't advocate waiting until twenty-one. Read more carefully. I said that if I had to pick a random age, I would pick twenty-one for everything, just like Town Heretic said. He may be advocating for that but I'm not just because I said that's what I would pick if I had to choose. My preference, which had been stated clearly before in my exchange with zoo on Anna's thread, was for an individual competency test for marriage.

Nice try, but you said this and this is what i asked you about:

If you restrict child bearing to twenty-one and over, it would have disastrous consequences for women's health and society.

What does what you just said have to do with you saying 21 is the best age for marriage, and yet, a womans health is at risk, if she doesn't have kids before that?

See what i mean, you dodge and weave and are all over the map. You ostracized rusha for saying you advocated young marriage and then cited yourself in a demanding way, that you said age 21 is best, now you dont mean that either? :chuckle:

Rather than concede that I clearly stated a marriageable age of twenty-one you choose to obfuscate.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The human brain does not reach full maturity until around age twenty-five, so it's possible that my captain's brain was fully mature; but the same man was surely an officer before his brain was fully mature.

NCO maybe.

Any NCO will tell you a second-lieutenant's brain isn't fully developed. :chuckle:



I was twenty-eight.

I am not seeing any support for 18 year old officers.

You asked about officers being eighteen for a reason. Whatever your point was, I served under officers whose brains had not fully matured.

Yes, I did. The US military does not entrust significant leadership rolls to 18 year olds. They lack experiance, maturity and impulse control.

Not for all men. :chuckle:



Do you believe medals are given for poor impulse control instead of bravery, daring and skill?

In part, yes.

The decision to join the military, fight in a war, vote, drink, engage in sexual intercourse all effect other people, too. And marriage is not all about impulse control.

sometimes acting on impulse is okay. In general, acting on impulse cause more problems than it solves.

Should wisdom be required to marry?

Yes. But as a society, we are not that wise. In fact, we have people advocating for 15 year old children being fully trained for marriage! That is not wisdom, that is pure idiocy.

 

[BOLCATS]

Nice try, but you said this and this is what i asked you about:



What does what you just said have to do with you saying 21 is the best age for marriage, and yet, a womans health is at risk, if she doesn't have kids before that?

See what i mean, you dodge and weave and are all over the map. You ostracized rusha for saying you advocated young marriage and then cited yourself in a demanding way, that you said age 21 is best, now you dont mean that either? :chuckle:

He is talking aggregation in one post and personal choice in the other. 21 would best suit his needs if he had to marry all over again. 21 would be disastrous for society if everyone waited until 21 to have children. The negative health consequences would be greater as a whole. It doesn't mean any one particular woman should have children before 21 if they don't want serious illness. Surely you can clear the hate out of your mind to understand this?

 

[CabinetMaker]

He is talking aggregation in one post and personal choice in the other. 21 would best suit his needs if he had to marry all over again. 21 would be disastrous for society if everyone waited until 21 to have children. The negative health consequences would be greater as a whole. It doesn't mean any one particular woman should have children before 21 if they don't want serious illness. Surely you can clear the hate out of your mind to understand this?

Biggest load of waffle I've seen in a while. My wife didn't have kids until our mid thirties. Mother and children were perfectly healthy.

 

[BOLCATS]

 

[elohiym]

Biggest load of waffle I've seen in a while. My wife didn't have kids until our mid thirties. Mother and children were perfectly healthy.

Your wife developed breast cancer, according to your previous claims.

From www.cancer.gov:

Studies have shown that a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is related to her exposure to hormones that are produced by her ovaries (endogenous estrogen and progesterone). Reproductive factors that increase the duration and/or levels of exposure to ovarian hormones, which stimulate cell growth, have been associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. These factors include early onset of menstruation, late onset of menopause, later age at first pregnancy, and never having given birth.​

 

[elohiym]

Nice try...

You are dodging the question.

If she gets pregnant at age fifteen, should she get married? Yes or no?

What does what you just said have to do with you saying 21 is the best age for marriage,

I never said it was the best age for marriage.

and yet, a womans health is at risk, if she doesn't have kids before that?

I just proved her health is at risk (see above for example). Her chances for developing breast cancer increase.

You ostracized rusha for saying you advocated young marriage ...

I don't advocate young marriage or even know what you mean by "young marriage." She ignored what I had actually said on that thread and misrepresented me on this thread.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Not significantly for a very long period of time and not in a way that begins to reach the impairment we're speaking to.

A simple rear-ending accident can do enough damage to mess with that part of the brain. And senility can start as early as the 30s, so what do you mean?

An unknown number of adults suffer from mild cognitive impairment. People may still fall in love with and marry these individuals. Definitions of limitations to marriage should be sound or else people will be unfairly discriminated against.

 

[BOLCATS]

A simple rear-ending accident can do enough damage to mess with that part of the brain. And senility can start as early as the 30s, so what do you mean?

An unknown number of adults suffer from mild cognitive impairment. People may still fall in love with and marry these individuals. Definitions of limitations to marriage should be sound or else people will be unfairly discriminated against.

The only impairment that matters is the ever so slight increase in development of the pre frontal cortex from 16 to 25. ....and it only matters in marriage. It doesn't impair them for anything else really important in life. We just cant get in the way of young life sexually test driving potential mates. That is just barbaric.


tongue in cheek

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your wife developed breast cancer, according to your previous claims.

From www.cancer.gov:

Studies have shown that a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer is related to her exposure to hormones that are produced by her ovaries (endogenous estrogen and progesterone). Reproductive factors that increase the duration and/or levels of exposure to ovarian hormones, which stimulate cell growth, have been associated with an increase in breast cancer risk. These factors include early onset of menstruation, late onset of menopause, later age at first pregnancy, and never having given birth.​

Yes, she did. Her family also has a rather high rate of cancer which is also an indicator for developing cancer. We live in America which seems to increase our risk for developing cancer. We live in Colorado which entails a higher cancer rate. Would she have avoided cancer had she pennant in her teens? We will never know. And that's okay. Would we do anything differently if we knew it would prevent cancer? Probably not. Because it would change the people we were and we might not ever have gotten married and we like being married.

Here is a link for the Susan Komen breast cancer site. The link points out that "later age at first pregnancy" is after age 35. Interesting that you "missed" that point.
Women who give birth to their first child at age 35 or younger tend to get a protective benefit from pregnancy. http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/NotHavingChildrenorHavingFirstAfterAge35.html#sthash.C8w67qTA.dpuf