TLHLIM

what percentage of adults in 1900 never married

ChatGPT said:​

Historical data on marriage patterns in the United States around 1900 shows that a significant majority of adults did eventually marry, but a measurable minority never did. Based on census data and historical demographic studies:

  • Around 10–15% of U.S. adults in 1900 had never married by the end of their childbearing years.
  • The exact percentage varied by gender: more women tended to remain single than men, especially in rural areas where migration patterns and economic conditions influenced marriage opportunities.
  • The proportion of lifelong singles was higher in urban areas with more economic independence for women, but overall, the vast majority of adults married at some point.
If you want, I can give a more detailed breakdown by gender and age cohort for 1900—it’s quite revealing. Do you want me to do that?
 
sturg33 said:
do y'all really think in your heart of hearts that there has been no change in the rate of people believing they are gay?
Click to expand...
Zero change whatsoever? No. But not a living soul has ever tried to persuade me to be gay, and I’ve never once wondered if I were gay simply because other people are. You're either attracted to someone or not. I don’t buy this notion that people are so easily convinced otherwise.
 
Yeah. I don't see any great societal pressure on people to be gay or trans. There is still a fair amount of residual stigma.
 
sturg33 said:
don't think that's really relevant to gen z and you can clearly see the trend. society is cooked if 20% of people aren't gonna procreate
Click to expand...
That’s actually exactly my point, though. Gen Z isn’t participating in that game, and instead will just tell you if they’re gay.

Also, we have no reason to suspect every LGBT person won’t procreate. For one, that includes bisexuals who, if you can believe this, frequently have babies the old fashioned way. And it also includes gay people who use modern tools and processes to have kids if they aren’t participating in the requisite child-making activities.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
ha! Society has bent over backwards (forwards?) To celebrate being gay as virtuous resistance to the intolerant fascists.
Click to expand...
If you live your entire life in a same-sex relationship despite your lack of attraction to the same sex simply so that people will think you’re a virtuous resister of fascism, I don’t think we need you procreating if I’m being honest.
 
I mean there's been tons of data saying that people in blue areas... and rich college campuses, have a massive outsized proportion of people claiming they're gay. The response is always that it is more acceptable to be open about it. But I think that's nonsense. What did Brown university have? Like 47% LGBTQ or something?

cmon now

then there's other things I'd make some healthy wages on. things like:

- blue counties have a higher % than red counties
- rich people have a higher % than poor people
- white people have a higher % than non white people
- kids with no father in the home have a higher % than kids with a father in the home
- kids who's parents are gay are a higher % than kids whose parents are stragith

which of the above would you disagree with?
 
sturg33 said:
I mean there's been tons of data saying that people in blue areas... and rich college campuses, have a massive outsized proportion of people claiming they're gay. The response is always that it is more acceptable to be open about it. But I think that's nonsense. What did Brown university have? Like 47% LGBTQ or something?

cmon now

then there's other things I'd make some healthy wages on. things like:

- blue counties have a higher % than red counties
- rich people have a higher % than poor people
- white people have a higher % than non white people
- kids with no father in the home have a higher % than kids with a father in the home
- kids who's parents are gay are a higher % than kids whose parents are stragith

which of the above would you disagree with?
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with any of that, but you seem to be taking the position that this trend is one-sided and not a combination of blue-state and red-state influences. Why must it be that blue states are churning out fake gays and not that red states are churning out fake straights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top