[Nyororin]

First;

Well, MMM and Nyororin seem to be, for one.

I don`t recall even once saying marriage was necessary, or even that it held inherent meaning other than that of a legal contract. However, I have said a number of times that I do not think that marriage is the cause of the issues you cite - and that I don`t really think abolishing marriage would have an effect on those problems.

I never said that. I said the ones who can be tend to be, and that the current system of legal contract union (marriage) encourages this. I'm also only talking about in America. I know for a fact that other countries such as in latinamerica are not so lavish towards women in a divorce and the divorce rate is lower. Coincidence? Let the people decide.

You have basically said that, even if it`s not your intention. You have stated that it is natural for women to want jerks, to make that choice for a mate... And that women like this are those who will screw men over if given the chance. It adds up to all women (minus exceptions) ready to screw men over if the opportunity is given to them.

In the case of Latin America - marriage is much more religious, with a large majority of people having very strong beliefs about the consequences not just in this life but in the next. I don`t think that the differences in the legal end of the procedure have that much of an effect.

The difference is that I have presented some tangible evidence while the they have presented "works for ME" and "I don't like it, you're wrong", opinions. And even if their experiences count as evidence, then so do mine and I presented those, too.

You have presented the divorce rate as evidence. This doesn`t necessarily add up to what you are saying. It doesn`t say that women are screwing over men any chance they get. It doesn`t say how many marriages ended in a huge ball of flames. It also doesn`t tell how many marriages were "messed up at a chapel in Vegas" either. (Nevada doesn`t have the highest divorce rate in the US for nothing...)
Getting married has become easier, as has getting divorced. The attitudes toward both have changed drastically. Unless those attitudes change, I don`t think much would even if "marriage" was abolished.

I agree that the system favors the woman but this is not going to change so the source must be attacked, that being the marriage contract, and since I know it's not going to change, my advice against marriage stands.

You are completely welcome to choose not to get married and to advise others against it based on your figures and experience. I don`t think that anyone is going to tell you that you shouldn`t. But people DO take offense at being told they were stupid for agreeing to a marriage. People do take offense at others expressing disgust at their life choices - particularly if those choices are working for them and making them happy.

And it's not hate, it's love, if anything. Because clearly the women are screwing themselves by acting stupidly without direction after all the supposed freedoms feminism has earned them. I encourage the guys to seize control of the situation through whatever relatively ethical means available; that's what most women inherently prefer anyways. Or to put it another way, if women can put on fake eyelashes, the guys should put on fake attitudes. Besides that, things will work themselves out once the delusions are discarded by enough individuals. The actual actions are flexible.

And this is different in what way from a woman leading a man on if the end result is one side getting screwed over? I very much doubt there are women out there (healthy ones with a normal mental state) who want to have a man screw them over. The result we should be aiming for is a solid relationship founded on trust and love, not one side in control of the other through deception.

ETA;
My personal feelings on marriage, as there seems to be some misunderstanding of them here...
I believe that it is a legal contract for financial purposes and for stability. It isn`t necessary to reaffirm love, but without love it would be a pain to uphold.
To me it falls in the same category as stable housing - both things I consider prerequisites for having a child.
Marriage being a guarantee that - even if I trusted him completely not to do so - my husband could not just up and leave without legal consequences. Also a guarantee that I would have some level of support after giving up a career to have a child even if he did decide to do so. With that comes the right to part of the household - bought mostly with money he earned.
You may see that as an open invitation for me to screw him over - that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. It is, for the most part, an agreement designed to protect the side contributing less to the partnership in terms of money (in most cases the wife as she is far more likely to be the one staying at home or earning less). I also imagine it would be quite a burden to upkeep an agreement without a trusting and loving relationship.

The fact is, I would never agree to give up a huge chunk of my future for raising a child if there was not some sort of guarantee that I wouldn`t be left with nothing should the father decide he no longer wants a family. From a female perspective, this is common sense. Love just reaffirms that agreement, and leads people to decide to enter into it in the first place.