Search for individual fulfillment has costs for both singles and families

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    '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....?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 4, 2013 8:53 p.m.


    Please. I was not addressing that issue in any way shape or form. Also, I think comparing the two is beyond a stretch.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    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?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 4, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel

    As 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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    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".

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Feb. 4, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 4, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    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?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Feb. 4, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    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."

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    [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 board.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Re: ". . . a constant barrage of people like you . . . ."

    You're not related to my youngest son, are you?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    You'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.

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    [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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    “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)

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 9:01 a.m.


    "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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 4, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    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 solution?

  • Andrew American Fork, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 4, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    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?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 5:42 a.m.

    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 relationship.

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:23 p.m.


    "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 have.

    Great article!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    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.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    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.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    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.

    Feb. 2, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    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.