Americans hesitant to marry or have more kids? So then stop
condoning illegal immigration, Deseret News. It is pertinent to the
present story. Because of illegal immigration, many American families suffer
financially in a way that severely limits them in their ability to marry with
confidence and have as many kids as they would like.
"The report, released earlier this month, found that 48 percent of women are
living in cohabitation with a significant other outside the bonds of
marriage."=========== I've never been dicorved,
but I know plently of men who have.Let's see....Men
get financially ruined in divorce cases.They are ALWAYS deemed guilty
until proven innocent.And after found innocent, they are still held
financailly liable.Marriage puts men in a no-win situation.There's an old saying:Burn me once shame on you, Burn
me twice, shame on me.===========BTW, I'm
curious....After many divorces, Some women heterosexual women
enter lesbian relationships.I'm curious as to how many of that
48% represets them?Being denied marriage and all....
@frugalfly --"Gay marriage ....isn't the foundation for
society because it can't reproduce society and it doesn't have the
sexual/gender diversity of traditional marriage."Gay unions
"reproduce society" in the very same way that infertile straight couples
do. More than 100,000 gay couples are **already** raising children in this
country alone.Multiple national groups of child-development experts
have announced their support for gay marriages. They -- the **experts**, mind
you -- realize that children grow up just fine in gay-run families. NO groups of
child-development experts oppose gay marriage.Gay couples offer just
as much to society as infertile straight couples. If you dismiss gay couples as
supposedly offering nothing to society, you'll have to dismiss the
infertile couples as well."The danger of Gay marriage isn't
destruction of traditional marriage it is the endangerment of the first
amendment and the right to free religious expression/practice."Gay marriage doesn't endanger the right to free religious expression any
more than legalized alcohol does. If you think drinking alcohol is a sin, then
don't do it. If you think gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one.
It's really very simple.
@justamacguy --"80% of gay partnerships dissolve in the first 5
years."Actually, in states and countries where gay marriage is
legal, the gay divorce rate is usually the **same as** or *lower than* the
straight divorce rate.A few facts from wikipedia:"The vast majority of gay marriages in Denmark are male-male, and only 14
percent of these end in divorce, compared to 23 percent of female marriages.
" (Remember, the divorce rate in the US is **50%**)"The
divorce rate of same-sex couples within 30 months of the introduction of legally
binding civil partnerships was slightly less than one percent in the United
Kingdom.""As of 2011, for states with available data,
dissolution rates for same sex couples are slightly lower on average than
divorce rates of different-sex couples."From other sites:"in 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates
recognized same-sex marriages, with Iowa having the lowest divorce rate in the
nation."" About 1% of the total number of currently-married
or registered same-sex couples get divorced each year, in comparison to about 2%
of the total number of married straight couples."
Not all marriages are equal. Gay marriage will never be equal to heterosexual
marriage because it isn't the foundation for society because it can't
reproduce society and it doesn't have the sexual/gender diversity of
traditional marriage. This article treats an even more important danger to
marriage and thus society and that is divorce, cohabitation and resultant impact
on children. The danger of Gay marriage isn't destruction of traditional
marriage it is the endangerment of the first amendment and the right to free
religious expression/practice. The real endangerment to traditional marriage is
cohabitation, divorce, children born out of wedlock, abuse, and abortion. In a
free society you can't force or punish those who freely chose to not
participate in a traditional family. But that shouldn't stop society from
teaching the ideal and presenting the facts. The ideal building block of
society is committed heterosexual marriage that encourages/practices committed
heterosexual marriage and the responsible creation/upbringing of the next
generation. No government, no program, no institution, no religion can replace
what a functioning family (or the closest thing possible to a traditional
functioning family) can do for society.
Wastintime - I was advocating for marriage, not uneducated women. I have a
college degree, my husband has a college degree. We both have jobs. We did not
go into very much debt for our educations. We worked and paid as we went, like
my kids are doing now. Waiting to settle down is not the issue.
Living together before marrying or just living together without getting married
is and I reject The Scientist's characterization on marriage being "a
no-win, high-risk proposition" for women. Women need to be wise
about who they choose to marry and they dramatically up their chances of winning
the "marriage lottery"- if you want to categorize it that way.
Those that are pitching gay marriage as a stable solution had better look at the
statistics for gay partnerships. 80% of gay partnerships dissolve in the first 5
years. If stability is the important factor. Gay partnerships are statistically
a colossal failure.
@ jeanieOn the outside chance that a girl doesn't hit the
lottery and latch onto a "quality man", doesn't it make sense for
her to go to college and get a quality education? And even if she does find
that quality man, doesn't it make sense to still get that education,
because middle class wages have stagnated for the past couple decades and that
quality man might not be able to do it all himself? And if she does, and then
graduates with massive student debt (because as we all know, while wages were
stagnating, tuition was skyrocketing) isn't it prudent to work a few years
to pay it down before having several kids?My obvious point is that
the world has changed dramatically since most of the posters here were young and
there are many pressures and situations today that make waiting to settle down
an understandable (and perhaps wise and prudent) thing to do.
A Scientist - aren't you married? It seems you have stated that you are in
previous posts. Is your wife exploited by such a no-win, high-risk proposition?
You do your gender a dis-service. There are many men out there who
are loyal and appreciative and truly see the money they bring in as belonging to
the family and not to them. They love their wives and find happiness in her
comfort. I believe our popular culture fails to teach women how to
find a quality man or what one even looks like. This may account for the
"marriage penalty", not marriage its self. If a woman makes
a wise decision in a marriage partner her life is more stable, rewarding and
happy than she could imagine. She has a best friend by her side through the
challenges and joys of life. She is not alone when she grows old. Why would a self-respecting woman not take advantage of such a fulfilling
In an article not long ago, it was reported that married men earn more than
unmarried men: a "marriage premium".Mostly ignored in that
same article was a statement about a corresponding "marriage penalty"
for women: married women earn less than unmarried women.Sociologists
and other observers have long decried how marriage "oppresses" and
"subjugates" women.In the name of marriage, women forego
educational and career opportunities, and subordinate themselves to their
husbands by subordinating their educations and careers to their
husbands’.In many “traditional” marriages, because
men “earn the living,” women are placed on an allowance, while the
men spend on their own hobbies and interests: motorcycles, golf, workshops, big
trucks, boats, guns, horses, hunting, etc.Women often get married,
work to support their husbands through college, break themselves down and wear
themselves out having babies, then their husbands run off with a younger woman
from the office, leaving them high and dry.Why would any
self-respecting woman want to get caught in and exploited by such a no-win,
Our moral credibility and well-being rests not only with our understanding of
the responsibility we have to our families, but also with our application of
that knowledge.Without adhering to building codes we would have
structurally unsound and unsafe buildings. The same is true of morality. We are
losing confidence in our belief in that which is right. This needs to change if
we are to succeed. President Boyd K. Packer reminded us recently
that the world we live in is ever dangerous, where even the most fundamental
organization of our existence is under attack. I agree. The building block of
human happiness is being threatened. We must apply ourselves and reinforce our
moral structure as a people in order to foster happiness for the human
family.Tolerating the constant buffeting against the family and the
weakening of laws to permit immorality "does not reduce the serious
spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of
chastity." We have the choice to misuse our agency. We can tear down the
laws, codes and morals that have sustained us and erect the opposite... but we
cannot pick and choose the consequences.
The population of the United States has gone up 100 million since I was a kid
and I'm not that old. I don't think underpopulation is a problem at
this point and expect to see this country reach half a billion in population
should I live to be old.
Gay marriage is 'off topic' when it comes to the topic of marriage? Ok. When you talk about marriage do you make the
distinction between 'white' marriage and 'interracial'
@banderson --"Ignore everything in the article by proposing
something that is ironic indeed, gay marriage, as a way to strengthen families.
Think of it, solve a problem with something that can't by its nature
contribute to solving it. "The strength of families is about a
whole lot more than biological relationships. If you don't believe it, just
ask some of the millions of infertile straight couples who have created strong
families over the years, through adoption or other means. Family
strength is about love, and commitment, and stability, and supporting those
around you. And those things have nothing to do with your gender or sexual
orientation.More than 100,000 gay couples in this country are
**already** raising children. Those ARE families, whether you wish to
acknowledge them or not. We have the power to help those families -- to help
them become stronger and more stable -- by recognizing the right of those loving
gay couples to be married. Marriage helps to make families stronger. And making
families stronger makes society stronger. That's true whether you are
straight or gay.
Action? Doing what? Telling people to go get married? So when that's
failed, what's your plan?There is a direct correlation between
marriage and education, and marriage and poverty. And the income gap in our
country is huge, and getting bigger. So let's talk about income equality.
It is not that the familial unit is weakening, it is that it is being
redefined.Not longer is the "family" a mom, dad, kids and
grandparents.Now, the new "family" is a breeding female, one
or more sperm donors, a litter of offspring that no one really cares for or
raises, but the patriarch of this "family" is the beneficent government,
all caring and all providing with no strings attached. Of course, the taxpayers
funding all of this have no way to set any standards of behavior, or judgmental
old-fashioned criteria like used to be applied in traditional families.No, times are changing, and not for the better.
Hutterite and others: Ignore everything in the article by proposing something
that is ironic indeed, gay marriage, as a way to strengthen families. Think of
it, solve a problem with something that can't by its nature contribute to
solving it. I doubt we will get beyond that question until God returns and or
society is in such chaos that people will begin the process of returning back to
So many of these comments are off course. This is not a discussion about gay
marriage and it is starting to seem like this topic is becoming a hammer that
knocks its way into almost any discussion. Now back to the real issue,
co-habitating before marriage.For years, as I studied in my field, I
searched for what I believed was the bottom line of reality in everything from
science to the success of a family and the society that was built on families as
cells are built from atoms. I finally put my finger on it (as have many others).
The bottom line of reality is 'Order versus Chaos'. Our society will
fail if there is chaos in its most basic foundational structure...the family.
Things are not built top down, but foundation first or all will crumble.
@Salsero - yes, the divorce rate is at 50% but did you know that it is 50%
greater for those that marry that once lived together? Thus, increasing the odds
of divorce significantly. I grew up in a single parent family because of a
death. For those of you who think that one parent is enough in the household you
just don't get it because you just haven't lived it.
Some people in America are sill trying to make marriage a life-long
commitment.Others, work against gay marriage.
"Women with a bachelor’s degree or higher were less likely to be
currently cohabiting and were more likely to be currently married for the first
time compared with womenWomen who had a premarital birth and men who
fathered a birth before their first marriage had lower probabilities of marrying
by age 25 compared with women and men who had a first birth after first
marriage. Similarly, women who had a first birth before first marriage and men
who fathered a premarital first birth had a lower probability of their first
marriage lasting 20 years than women and men whose first birth came after their
first marriage. These findings support other research that show the rise in
premarital births is associated with the decoupling of marriage and fertility
over the past several decades "(National Health Statistics, March
2012)Areas with higher rates of poverty have lower levels of
educational attainment, lower age of first marriages, higher divorce rates, and
more out-of-wedlock births. The degree to which we address poverty and
education can have a big impact on society.
@banderson --"Marriage between a man and a women is still an
institution that you can't meddle with because it is from God."Which marriage would that be? Would that be the polygamy that is
practiced by so many in the Old Testament? Would that marriage be the Biblical
directive to marry your wife's servant when your wife can't get
pregnant? Would that marriage be the Biblical order to marry your brother's
wife when your brother dies? Or are you perhaps talking about those
traditional wedding vows, the ones that say "whither thou goest, I will go;
and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God
my God"? You know, the vows given in the Bible by Ruth **to Naomi**??Do you plan on following each and every one of those directives? They
were from God, after all, so you can't meddle with them -- right?If you think gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one. But especially
in a world where marriage is declining, it is stupid to deny marriage to people
who desperately want it.
What about personal choice here? Should people be forced to get married if they
don't want to? Let's face it, If the marriage institution does not
look like the most desirable choice for many, it is married people who are at
fault.Regarding dwindling population, immigration is the answer. If
our schools can catch up in quality with the rest of the world, people will want
to come here and our problem will be solved.
Our world population has grown continually since the 1300s. It is still growing
at roughly 1% every year. The human race is hardly in danger of extinction
through under-reproduction.Our population **already** endangers the
planet's ecosystem. Why in the world would we want to increase population
growth even further?As for the societal benefits of marriage --
great. I'm all for marriage. But why deplore the trend away from marriage,
while at the same time denying marriage to citizens who desperately WANT to get
married? How does that make any sense at all?
From Pew:"The postponement of many markers of adulthood also
plays a role. A rising share of young adults, especially women, are pursuing
advanced degrees, and waiting for marriage until they are done with their
education and established in the workplace. The choices of these young adults
are in large part responsible for the growing share of Americans who have never
married.Still, so far, the vast majority of Americans do marry at
some point. Among those ages 45 and older, about nine-in-ten have been
married.Is Marriage an Important Goal?Marriage is an
important goal for most Americans, although it may not be their top priority.
Having a successful marriage is “one of the most important things”
in life for 36% of adults, according to a 2011 Pew Research survey. An
additional 48% said it is “very important but not the most”
important. Being a good parent was seen as “one of the most important
things” by a larger share of adults (53%)".Women with more
education and better economic prospects are more likely to delay first marriage,
but are more likely to become married and to stay married.
All valid concerns and, as the OP says, "they should energize people of
understanding everywhere to action". But no concrete actions are suggested.
How willing are we to pay more taxes for school programs that educate teens
toward marital responsibility? And for programs sustaining those single moms
with "limited financial and educational resources"? How about better
programs for their children to lift them out of their circumstances?And while while it is true that "40 percent of these women get married
within three years of cohabiting, 32 percent continue in that unmarried
relationship and 27 break up and move on", these figures are relative when
compared with divorce rates in married couples. The misery that divorce brings
must be weighed against the possibility of less dramatic partings.Finally, there is the irony that the call for same-sex marriage has enhanced
the image of marriage desirability, with positive effect on more hetero
marriages in countries that allow SSM. Perhaps we need to support the
"lesser evil" of committed gays and lesbians to serve as impetus for the
value of marriage?
The traditional concept of marriage is aptly described in the quote often
applied to one’s wife and a “ball and chain”. If we would
save marriage for the good that it does we may have to redesign and rethink
marriage to eliminate the unpleasant parts. Part of the
confusion comes from our governments, political and religious, touting marriage
and commitment and from those same governments the demand and promotion of being
independent and self reliant.Restructuring the rules of marriage
might be a hard pill to swallow, but if the medicine helps the problems, it has
to be done. Possibilities might include:Separating the rules for
child production and keeping from the automatic notion of natural parents. Remove the restrictions such as one man, one woman.Provide
for a specific unique contract for the marriage. Allow for the end
of the marriage contract, either as the passage of time of the conclusion of the
commitment. Let the concept of marriage be a two party agreement
that ends when the agreement is lost.
And we have the religious right to thank for legally barring some loving,
consenting-adult couples from getting married.
Nothing lasts forever. We all have an expiration date. The first time in history
that the younger generation is expected to expire before their parents.
The connection between individual behavior and societal problems? Go ahead,
defend it some more. Marriage between a man and a women is still an institution
that you can't meddle with because it is from God. Cohabitation is just one
unfortunate reality of the tidal wave coming that the Federal Government
won't be able to resolve. Of Course, as marriage becomes
tranqualized, children suffer and babies are either disposable or viewed as an
unintended consequence worthy of disdain. Thus, even the over population
explosion hoax becomes even more apparent. 40 years ago, and in intervals even
before that, the world was supposed to be having massive starvation now because
of overpopulation, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. It has been a hoax from the
beginning. In regards to cohabitation, lets be honest. Women are the pawns
here. Women are the princess pawns, leaving behind only heartbreak and tears.
Marraige and chastity would be a good place to start. How can any thinking
person think othewise. A blind man can see what is happening.
Very good and significant article. However, just wait until the new trend of
women cohabitating with women hits the statistical "fireplace".
The reference to the catastrophic effects of population decline is inadequately
described here, and needs to be greatly expanded. The documentary,
"Demographic Winter" shown on BYUtv explains these problems in great
With divorce rates running above 50% for first-time marriages, the issue of
co-habitation stands as minor compared with the problems of a broken family.Perhaps it should be more difficult to enter into a marriage than to
leave a marriage. In this way, both participants will have a very clear
perspective as to if marriage is realistic and something both want to commit to.
Too many young people get married early and then spend many unhappy years
learning that they are not compatible.
And while this is going on, gay couples are moving in the opposite direction.
So the story is not entirely correct. There are those in our society who want
very much to have the right to validate their commitment.
There's a whole segment of society who are committed to marriage in spite
of public and private ridicule, yet they are denied. Can we really fret about
marriage yet offer it on such a discriminatory basis?