People resist discovering they're wrong.  That's "natural."  Even a person of goodwill does not want to discover they're wrong.  Our minds are made for truth, so it is very difficult to come to terms that we've misapprehended what that is. 

A certain degree of resistance to correction is just "natural," virtually no one responds to correction with "OK great, thanks for telling me, wait here for just a second while I change my entire life."  But if the revulsion is persistent, habitual, and deeply engrained without any signs that it could be disrupted by kindness or good argumentation, better to just move on.

People resist discovering they're wrong.  That's "natural."  Even a person of goodwill does not want to discover they're wrong.  Our minds are made for truth, so it is very difficult to come to terms that we've misapprehended what that is.  

A certain degree of resistance to correction is just "natural," virtually no one responds to correction with "OK great, thanks for telling me, wait here for just a second while I change my entire life."  But if the revulsion is persistent, habitual, and deeply engrained without any signs that it could be disrupted by kindness or good argumentation, better to just move on.

Well that's the thing. I'd often tell her something like "I don't care if you disagree with me, but I insist that you look at both sides of an argument" I even apologized to her on multiple ocasions ( to try and ease tension )She'd blow me off, call me something ( racist, bigot, and even αnтι-ѕємιтє)  and say she was done arguing.  This is unacceptable and I can't (and won't) deal with it. I never yelled at her or called her names( I don't dare do that with women, not even crazy ones) I pray for her every day. ( it makes me more sad than angry)  My NeoCon male friends who disagree with me take what I say seriously, and are at least respectful.

Well that's the thing. I'd often tell her something like "I don't care if you disagree with me, but I insist that you look at both sides of an argument" I even apologized to her on multiple ocasions ( to try and ease tension )She'd blow me off, call me something ( racist, bigot, and even αnтι-ѕємιтє)  and say she was done arguing.  This is unacceptable and I can't (and won't) deal with it. I never yelled at her or called her names( I don't dare do that with women, not even crazy ones) I pray for her every day. ( it makes me more sad than angry)  My NeoCon male friends who disagree with me take what I say seriously, and are at least respectful.

.
Then she might not be the right one.  It's one thing to "compromise" due to a potential spouse showing a real potential for development, it's another thing to marry someone who is ardently committed against you on the grounds that "one day" you'll "convince her." 
.
Keep in mind the principles of St. Thomas for fraternal correction, too:
.

Whether a sinner ought to reprove a wrongdoer?

to correct a wrongdoer belongs to a man, in so far as his reason is gifted with right judgment. Now sin, as stated above (I-II:85:1; I-II:85:2), does not destroy the good of nature so as to deprive the sinner's reason of all right judgment, and in this respect he may be competent to find fault with others for committing sin. Nevertheless a previous sin proves somewhat of a hindrance to this correction, for three reasons. First because this previous sin renders a man unworthy to rebuke another; and especially is he unworthy to correct another for a lesser sin, if he himself has committed a greater. Hence Jerome says on the words, "Why seest thou the mote?" etc. (Matthew 7:3): "He is speaking of those who, while they are themselves guilty of mortal sin, have no patience with the lesser sins of their brethren."

Secondly, such like correction becomes unseemly, on account of the scandal which ensues therefrom, if the corrector's sin be well known, because it would seem that he corrects, not out of charity, but more for the sake of ostentation. Hence the words of Matthew 7:4, "How sayest thou to thy brother?" etc. are expounded by Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] thus: "That is—'With what object?' Out of charity, think you, that you may save your neighbor?" No, "because you would look after your own salvation first. What you want is, not to save others, but to hide your evil deeds with good teaching, and to seek to be praised by men for your knowledge."

Thirdly, on account of the rebuker's pride; when, for instance, a man thinks lightly of his own sins, and, in his own heart, sets himself above his neighbor, judging the latter's sins with harsh severity, as though he himself were just man. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): "To reprove the faults of others is the duty of good and kindly men: when a wicked man rebukes anyone, his rebuke is the latter's acquittal." And so, as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 19): "When we have to find fault with anyone, we should think whether we were never guilty of his sin; and then we must remember that we are men, and might have been guilty of it; or that we once had it on our conscience, but have it no longer: and then we should bethink ourselves that we are all weak, in order that our reproof may be the outcome, not of hatred, but of pity.

But if we find that we are guilty of the same sin, we must not rebuke him, but groan with him, and invite him to repent with us." It follows from this that, if a sinner reprove a wrongdoer with humility, he does not sin, nor does he bring a further condemnation on himself, although thereby he proves himself deserving of condemnation, either in his brother's or in his own conscience, on account of his previous sin.

Whether one ought to forbear from correcting someone, through fear lest he become worse?

It is written (Proverbs 9:8 ) "Rebuke not a scorner lest he hate thee," where a gloss remarks: "You must not fear lest the scorner insult you when you rebuke him: rather should you bear in mind that by making him hate you, you may make him worse." Therefore one ought to forego fraternal correction, when we fear lest we may make a man worse.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 3) the correction of the wrongdoer is twofold. One, which belongs to prelates, and is directed to the common good, has coercive force. Such correction should not be omitted lest the person corrected be disturbed, both because if he is unwilling to amend his ways of his own accord, he should be made to cease sinning by being punished, and because, if he be incorrigible, the common good is safeguarded in this way, since the order of justice is observed, and others are deterred by one being made an example of. Hence a judge does not desist from pronouncing sentence of condemnation against a sinner, for fear of disturbing him or his friends.

The other fraternal correction is directed to the amendment of the wrongdoer, whom it does not coerce, but merely admonishes. Consequently when it is deemed probable that the sinner will not take the warning, and will become worse, such fraternal correction should be foregone, because the means should be regulated according to the requirements of the end.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article5

Don't worry about it, you are only 19. Study, learn about life, get a good job, save money and let God sort out the rest. A man can marry at 80 and still have children, so there is no hurry.

.
A man might want to actually have and raise a family.  A man who has a child at eighty produces an heir and that's it.  He's not going to be around to raise him, and marriage's primary end is the begetting and educating of children.  You can only inferiorly and incompletely educate a child you have at eighty.

I agree, except, today, an 18 year old girl does not know enough about life. In the USA I'd say over 22.

I think a girl is endowed with natural abilities to know how to take care of her husband and children, if she is not corrupted (by feminism, for example). I don't think a girl needs to know much about life in order to get married and start having babies. God has given women the natural ability to nurture and take care of small children. Have you seen a little girl play? Hopefully, this girl will marry a good man, who will be her leader and she can then learn from him. There is much time for her to" learn about life" in the years to come, whereas to have children, time is very limited for women. If a woman lives 80 years (only 20 of them or so she is fertile, so it is better not to waste these precious years).  

I think an unselfish disposition and the ability to sacrifice is what is most required to be a good wife and mother. In light of this, I think most modern egocentric girls today are absolutely in no way suited for Marriage. In general, women have lost their ability to find husbands, or keep them. Unfortunately, women are not listening to men; what men want, but other women. It is the case of the blind leading the blind. I don't see this situation changing until a new generation of virtuous and chaste, high-value women re-appear.  What incentive is there for men to marry nowadays?

I realize that my thoughts are not very popular; but this is what I will be teaching my daughters.

A man can marry at 80 and still have children, so there is no hurry.

  talk about robbing the cradle...
He would have to marry a woman at least 45 years his junior to maybe have children. 

The man generally should be the same age or older, but if there's only a couple years in it then it shouldn't be an issue. I still wouldn't recommend marrying up just because you feel women your age are too immature or whatever else. In that case you should just work a few years, earn up some money, and then marry a younger woman.

Also the younger your wife the more likely she's chaste. Sadly these days even most Catholic women sleep around in college. And the only women who stay chaste generally get married young, so you'd be very hard pressed to find a single trad Catholic woman over 25.

Well I probably should've said this upfront. The women I'm interested in are members of the Society parish, and very Traditional.