To "Pagan" as I mentioned before, Massachussetts also has one of the
lowest marriage rates. If the people there don't believe in getting
married, how can they get divorced?To "Maudine" go to the
Utah Health Department's web site and look at the document "Utah's
Vital Statistics Marriages and Divorces". They explain that marriage rates
and divorce rates are measured in events per 1000 people in the population.If you look at Utah's marriage rates in terms of the population and
taking into account the fact that Utah has more kids than most states, Utah
probably has better marriage rates than the rest of the country.
'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest
state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest
divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate
was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'
Let me guess. The consistent and constant low divorce rate of
Massachusetts AFTER gay marriage is 'not' due to gay marriage... almost a decade, after it has been going on....?
Muk,Please. I was not addressing that issue in any way shape or
form. Also, I think comparing the two is beyond a stretch.
@ RedShirt: You are right - we should look at the full statistics - which,
coincidentally, donahoe posted. For your reading enjoyment, I will
repost them here with a little emphasis added in the hopes of clarifying the
issue:"US divorce rate is 3.4 PER 1000 MAR[R]IAGES.Utah is
higher at 3.6; Idaho is 5.0; Wyoing is 5.2; Nevada is 6.7.Massachussets is only 2.2."To restate - for every 1000
marriages in Utah, there are 3.6 divorces. For every 1000 marriage in
Massachusetts, there are 2.2 divorces. The divorce rate in Utah is 164% higher
than the divorce rate in Massachusetts.Now, you claim that Utah has
a higher rate of marriage than Massachusetts, but since you provide no source
for your numbers so I have no way to verify them - but, if we assume your
figures are right, it doesn't matter anyway - Utah still has a higher
number of divorces per 1000 married couples.
Still people fail to see the true message in the article.This is not
about marriage. This article is about selfishness vs. selflessness.The quote from Elizabeth Wurtzel says it all. She was still living for
herself at age 44, like she was at 24. She admitted that for 20 years she had
been leading a very self centered lifstyle, and had nothing to show for it.Now, compare that to Mother Teresa (as others have mentioned) in 20
years she helped hundreds if not thousands of people. Who do you think felt
more fulfillment?Ask yourself why a person who spends 20 years
focusing on themselves would feel less fulfilled than a person who spends
decades concerned about others?
Stalwart SentinelAs to whether the article is right or not (I think
there are merits), let us leave that alone for a moment.Reference
Mother Teresa and her vocation. I meant in the Catholic (and old, original
sense). A religious calling to a life dedicated to God.Whether or
not there is a problem here (see my comment above) I could not agree more that
calling folks names is not the answer.
Twin Lights:[Also, she was a nun. Whether one believes the Catholic faith
or not, she was, in her view (and after a certain manner), "a bride of
Christ" and married to her vocation.]Meaning she was in a
non-traditional marriage, right?A homosexual marriage between two
mortal, adult humans sounds a lot more traditional than a polygynous marriage to
an immortal, transcendent "God the Son".
procuradorfiscal - We know because she chose to become a nun. Twin
Lights - If that is the article's focus, then we can affirmatively state
that it hasn't negatively affected fertility worldwide. Despite the
articles claim that pockets of the world are falling below replacement levels,
this article seems to barely touch on correlation, not necessarily causation.
Further, if this article were honestly seeking truth, it would also
examine the unfortunate abuse, etc... that do exist within the realm of
marriage, plus the difficulty of divorce, especially when children are involved.
Finally, if one can be "married to one's vocation" then
people who pursue careers over marriage apparently fall into this category.Look, I'm happily married in the Temple and my marriage brings me
more joy than anything else in my life. However, I also recognize it may not
happen for others and others may choose not to pursue it. True, from my
perspective, it is their loss but I won't disparage them for it by calling
them weird, selfish, or wrong.
Stalwart Sentinel,Agree or disagree with the article, the focus is
whether or not we as a society are becoming more selfish and the possible
repercussions in family life (and fertility).I think few of the
folks the article is geared toward would qualify for the life Mother Teresa led.
A life of sacrifice for others and service to some of the most indigent folks
on the planet.Also, she was a nun. Whether one believes the
Catholic faith or not, she was, in her view (and after a certain manner), "a
bride of Christ" and married to her vocation.
Re: "Only in self-righteous conservative thought could someone such as
Mother Teresa be claimed as weird, selfish, and wrong for choosing never to
marry."And, you know she chose not to marry . . . how?
I think most of the commentors and the author have missed the key in the
article. To be fulfilled comes once you get over yourself and work as an
individual to serve your fellow man. You know, losing yourself in the service
of others. If you want to be fulfilled, worry more about your family, friends,
and neighbors and personally care for them.To "donahoe" you
are only looking at half of the picture. What is the marriage rate of
Massachussetts?Lets do some side by side comparisons. Utah has a
marriage rate of 8.7 and a divorce rate of 3.7.Massachussetts has a
mariage rate of 5.5, and a divorce rate of 2.2.Assuming that
populations are constant, that means that Utah has 42% of marriages end in
divorce, and Massachussetts has 40% end in divorce. That statistic really is
not that great, and not that different.
Only in self-righteous conservative thought could someone such as Mother Teresa
be claimed as weird, selfish, and wrong for choosing never to marry. Thank you, procuradorfiscal, for reminding everyone why modern
conservatism's viewpoints on society merit little credence in the public
sphere. Please, by all means, keep it up.
Coming from the "Virtue of selfishness" crowd, and the "I built this
by myself" business mantra of the neocons it seems a bit hollow to call
single people "selfish."Those attacking others who choose
not to breed simply because they can, doesn't make any sense. Both weird and wrong, is believing that "God has blessed us so much that
we can't afford to feed you any more."
procuradorfiscal:[Re: ". . . a constant barrage of people like you . .
. ."You're not related to my youngest son, are you?]Well, in your son's defense, you're obviously the kind of guy
who will take any opportunity to disparage him, even anonymously on a message
Re: ". . . a constant barrage of people like you . . . ."You're not related to my youngest son, are you?
@procuradorfiscalYou're doing a good job of explaining why Utah is #1
in the nation for anti-depressant usage. In a state where LDS women outnumber
men 3:2 in the 20-40 year old demographic, it's really no surprise that
hearing a constant barrage of people like you suggesting there's something
wrong with being single could lead to issues.
Look at the data provided in Table 133 online from "U.S. National Center for
Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSR), Births, Marriages,
Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2009, Vol. 58, No. 25, August
2010":US divorce rate is 3.4 per 1000 mariages.Utah is
higher at 3.6; Idaho is 5.0; Wyoing is 5.2; Nevada is 6.7.Massachussets is only 2.2. Why this difference? It is primarilly
due to better jobs in the blue states.
Andrew:[The article is not about gay marriage.]It's about
the rising number of singles. Some are heterosexuals who choose not to marry,
some are homosexuals who wouldn't choose to marry, but some are homosexuals
who would choose to marry, if they were allowed.If the goal of this
article is to encourage marriage, then all 3 groups need to be looked at. There
are probably a bunch of reasons why some gays and straights don't want to
marry, but there is really only one reason why gays who want to marry
aren't: the law. So we could quickly increase the number of married adults
if we allowed gay marriage.Liberal Today:[NO CHILD has ever
been conceived from a HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!]But plenty are
conceived in homosexual relationships, by use of a surrogate.Do you
deny the validity of the straight families who use surrogates or adopt, do to
infertility? If not, than why is a straight couple using adoption/surrogacy
anymore valid than a homosexual couple doing the same?
Re: "It is not, however, weird or wrong to choose not to form a
family."Yeah, it is. Both weird and wrong.It's
selfish and contrary to the natural order of the universe. It has negative
consequences for both the individual and for society.An actual
choice is not offered to some, and God is mindful of their hearts and desires.
But to CHOOSE to limit oneself to a selfish, solitary life is just wrong.
“The great error of the last 50 years is that conservatives think that
they should unthinkingly endorse laissez-faire economics, but as presently
conceived the free market destroys most of the things conservatives value; it
destroys traditions, family life, societies, cultures, and established ways of
doing things. The market place, as understood by contemporary neo-liberalism, is
something no genuine conservative should support or endorse.”--Phillip
Blond, conservative British author (Brits use the term neo-liberalism to
describe conservative economic policies)
Maudine"Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple
is provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising
children."Whether you believe in God, evolution, or mother
nature, you must surely realize that NO CHILD has ever been conceived from a
HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!Society hasn't made that choice; it is
natural law of this world. I don't think it is man's job
to overturn any of the laws of nature, from gravity to child conception or
anything in between.Furthermore, you claim to be standing up for
people who are homosexual, but it reality you are declaring that they are broken
by their inability to conceive children, and that it is society's job to
fix their brokenness. You are wrong on both counts.Respect would
dictate that if people choose a partner with which they know that they will
never have children, we honor their choice to not have children, and not tell
them they are broken and need fixing.
When we have 7 billion people living on a relatively small planet of scarce
resources, am I the only one that thinks single (or married) people choosing to
not to have children is not only NOT a problem, but may actually be part of the
Selfishness is destructive and tends to the ruin of one's life over time. I
think that is the point of the article. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
If we share our lives with others including raising a family we and society will
be better off in the long run. I am a much better person since I have been
married and raised children. I think if we see the value in other people
and our interactions as more than functional but genuine we will be happier.
FWIW. The article is not about gay marriage.
I guess I still don't get if there are thousands of years of experience
with one man and one woman committed, child producing, God sanctioned marriages
as our successful model, why Joseph Smith and Brigham Young tried to change that
model. Question; how many people are we really talking about here.
How many people actually choose to remain single their entire lives..or is the
article actually just exaggerating a tiny group to push the world is getting
more morally corrupt agenda?
What about the hundreds of thousands of citizens who would like to get married
and have children but are denied that by their state government? It's a bit
disingenuous to focus so much on the decline in marriage rates while at the same
time calling on a marriage ban for those who actually want to get married and
start families.We reap what we sow. If we tell one group that they
don't need--even deserve--marriage, others will listen. If you want to save
and revive marriage, open it up to any two adults who chose to be in a committed
Maudine"Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple
is provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising
children."Homosexual sex does not produce children, ever!
Society does not deny homosexual couples the ability to have children. It is a
law of nature. That law was in place long before any society formed.What you are suggesting is that these people are broken and society needs to
find a way to fix that. I say it is not society's role to fix that. I
suggest instead that we honor their choice to engage in relations that do not
produce children. The point of this article is that many are
choosing not to spend their precious time and money on marrying and raising a
family, in order to seek personal fulfillment in their life, and what they are
finding is that they are coming feeling empty, while those who have gone the
family route are far more personally fulfilled.It is an important
piece of information for our young people, who are making life decisions, to
John Charity Spring, 7 billion humans on earth. Gay
marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for almost a decade. The
reason backers of traditional marriage are loosing the fight is because they
have to fabricate things. Your claim is disproven.
Victor Hugo once said, "Human meditation has no limits. At its own risk and
peril, it analyzes and digs deep into its own bedazzlement. "That is exactly the problem here. Rather than listening to thousands of years
of history which prove that marriage is an essential institution for a strong
society, the left-wing has sought to bedazzle itself with its own theories.
These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage, and are decidedly
wrong.But that is what the left wants: the destruction of marriage
and family. Then, the population will have no one to turn to but the government,
which in turn gives the left more power.
We think we're so smart because we have electricity and space travel. Yet
we ignore our Creator and think we can change family norms to what seems
pleasing to our own short-sighted interests. When families deteriorate, so will
society. Unless the United States and our fellow developed nations acknowledge
our debt to traditional religious moral standards we will lose power to other
nations who haven't forgotten them. If we have no children we have no
future. If we have children without stable home lives we still have no future.
Promiscuity precludes any possibility of a stable home life.
It is not weird or wrong to choose not to form a family. The point is that it is
unnatural and leads to our demise individually and collectively. The same can be
said of other aberrations, such as same-sex "marriage". We have a model
that has worked for thousands of years and got us where we are today. Why are we
messing with it?We enjoy a wonderful standard of living in this
state and in this nation. Even our poor are rich by historical standards. What
got us here? A large part of it was the baby boom, as human beings are the most
valuable natural resource.
We're individuals first, the building blocks of society and a family, if we
choose. It is not, however, weird or wrong to choose not to form a family.
It's a big decision that requires a lot of consideration, and thankfully
one people are not making based solely on religion anymore.
If you want more people to get married, than stop telling people that marriage
is unnecessary or that only certain types of families need or should be allowed
to marry. Every benefit provided by a married heterosexual couple is
provided by a married same-sex couple - including having and raising children.
Every argument used to prohibit or discourage same-sex marriages
works equally well to discourage heterosexual marriages. And while prohibiting
same-sex marriage keeps couples in same-sex relationships from marrying, that is
all it prevents - it does not keep the relationships from forming, it does not
prevent them having kids, it does not prevent them living in your neighborhood,
attending your church, or sending their kids to your kids' schools. By not allowing same-sex couples to marry, you are not only denying them
and their children the benefits of marriage, you are denying those benefits to
society and sending the message that marriage is unnecessary.