The Sad Consequences of 'Shacking Up'

Recently that Hollywood scholar Cameron Diaz gave us an illustration of the secular/godless worldview on marriage: "I do [think marriage is dead]. I think we have to make our own rules. I don't think we should live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don't suit our world any longer."

The current generation in America is shunning marriage for cohabitation at an unprecedented rate. According to the 2010 edition of the State of Our Unions report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values, "The number of unmarried couples has increased dramatically over the past five decades. Most younger Americans now spend some time living together outside of marriage, and nonmarital cohabitation precedes most new marriages."

According to the report, between 1960 and 2009, cohabitating couples in the U.S. increased more than fifteen-fold. Also, "About a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago."

Now, those of the worldview of Miss Diaz might ask, "so what? Why shouldn't we make our own rules?" As is often the case, when we go our own way, ignoring the wisdom of the One who made us, there are tragic consequences. According to a recent federal study, the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, according to W. Bradford Wilcox, "one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself is in a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend -- especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself."

According to the study, children who live with their cohabitating biological parents don't fare much better. In these circumstances, children are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused and they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. Again, according to Wilcox, "a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents' relationship does not enjoy the legal, social and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships."

Also according to the study, not only does cohabitation do little to prepare couples for marriage (which is often the excuse for cohabitating), but "a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage."

The solution to this travesty goes far beyond simply uttering "I do." However, the solution does begin with a simple step of recognizing that marriage is not a man-made institution that we are free to redefine using "our own rules"-at least not without devastating consequences.

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/the_sad_consequences_of_shacki.html at May 29, 2011 - 05:18:28 AM CDT

We pay people to not marry - just look carefully at the tax law and welfare benefits. My father was an IRS agent and when I told him I was going to get married at age 28, almost in a panic, he asked me if she was pregnant. I said no and he said, “my God, do you know what this is going to do to your taxes? Don’t tell the government your married, just your mother-in-law”.

I figure getting married has cost over $250,000 in extra taxes over the past 34 years. I lost all the benefit of income averaging and we had to pay highest rate on most of my wife’s income.

We figure early, keeping our incomes separate and sharing the cost of shared expenses gave us both a great deal of freedom and eliminated excess haggling over BS. If I want a new toy and could afford it, it was mine, she wanted new clothes, she could afford it, fine. The only rule, no debt.

The cause for marital discord are children and money, which are highly interrelated. Most of our friends who had children after 30 seemed miserable and would have give us there’s if we had asked. So we chose not to have kids. Everyday we hear about the expense of college, cars, abortions, STD’s, unemployed (unemployable) kids moving back in with their fatherless kids, etc., etc.,.

Everyday we look at each our, after nearly 35 years of marriage, and say “God I am glad we did not have kids, aren’t we smart!!” We have a little code with some one is dumping on us about some problem with their kid/grandkid - “Have I told you today (rest unspoken) how glad I am we did not have kids”.

People with kids say I don’t know what I missed. What I am blind and deaf? I tell them what they missed - sunsets on the Zambesi river listening the the elephants; the aurora borealis on the Stellar Glacier watching the bears; fishing the Prince William Sound; Dining with the aboriginals in the Aussie Outback; dropping rocks 11,000 feet into the ocean from the Southern Alps in New Zealand.

Yep, an extra fancy safari costs 2 months tuition at a private university. I know exactly what I would have missed..., Early retirement. If I had listened to my father, I could have retired even earlier, that $250,000 would be $1.5 mil now and I suspect I would still be with the same Lady.

Best thing my wife and I ever did (and we are approaching a quarter century of a nearly flawless marriage) was to maintain a comfortable distance from the families we came from. The closest family member is about 30 miles away and most of them are at least a time zone away. We only see them on special occasions.

Can't agree more.

I'm sure as the sun will come up tomorrow my mother in law (now on her third divorce) lived anywhere near us our 30 year marriage would have be a living hell with her butting in every day.

Still after 30 years and raising six kids she warns my wife I might leave her so she better be prepared (whatever that means)

Thankfully she lives 2,000 miles away.

...and it only took me 15 years to convince my mother I'm not a doctor or lawyer became I married her. She actually sort of likes her now....sort of LOL

I think the first comment at the article gets it very close. Telling guys that you have to risk EVERYTHING to get married, whereas the girl can walk out the door with the kids any day she chooses, and into a life of luxury (i.e., no-fault divorce), pretty much assured this outcome.

And, no-doubt, that was the goal of the feminists from and the liberals overall from Day 1.

As I always tell a guy when he’s trying to figure out if he should marry a particular girl...ask himself what the girl’s friends and family would advise her to do if things get rough. Would they say “stick it out, make it work, that’s how we do things”, or would they say “I told you so, he’s a jerk, leave him”? And the best way to answer that question is to look at her friends and family. Are they still married to their first spouse?

For me it was an easy call. My wife is an immigrant with many siblings, all are married to their first spouse - same for her friends. And that’s the typical case still for her culture. My advice to guys is always the same, you can marry who you choose to, but there’s a 50% chance of future divorce if they’re born here, versus maybe a 10% chance of future divorce if they’re born in a country that still values marriage.

“Likewise, if you feel you need to address pre-nuptials in any way, shape, or form, you are better off not getting married in the first place. In order for a marriage to work, there should be no concept of “his money” and “her money” as that is recipe for disaster.”

Perhaps in yesterday’s America. I told my (future) wife to sign or find someone else. She signed...never a problem after that. To tell a guy with any money that he has to put it all at risk, given the vultures out there, and the enabling court system, just about assures he will NEVER marry.

In yesterday’s world, when marriages were intended to be permanent and women needed a reason to divorce and clean you out, then pre-nups may have been overkill. In today’s world, I’d be still be single (after 20 years) and same for my wife (per her admission), had she not signed that paper.

I long for the day that men feel they have a chance at a fair deal in marriage, as that would GREATLY improve our society...but we are nowhere close to that, and not even moving in that direction (even in states like Texas).

“Whatever my wife and I have is “ours” - no matter who makes it. In fact, we don’t even buy each other presents anymore because as it’s coming from “our” money, it’s rather pointless. Instead, we go on vacations together or out to eat when we want to celebrate something. “

Having blasted you in the prior post, I now agree with your next sentence. After we were married a few year, it was obvious she wasn’t a gold-digger, and that was the end of keeping things apart, or even thinking about separate finances.

You part about not buying presents is EXACTLY what we do also. It’s silly. 15 years ago, I spent $200 on something...only to be told to take it back. Now nothing changes hands. If she wants something reasonable...she buys it - same for me. Much easier than stressing. No flowers or jewelry. If she wants it, she can buy it - heck she’ll like it more anyway. A lot less stress than spending hours trying to read each others’ minds.

“I’ll never understand married couple celebrating the fact that they have no kids. Look at all these fancy vacations we get!! Too bad your parents didn’t feel the same way. Enjoy your next trip to Tahiti. I’ll be back here contributing to the human race teaching my sons to read, ride their bikes, baseball, swimming...and yes soothing a skinned knee or taking an occasional trip to the ER. At least I’ll have a legacy other than a fancy photo album filled with pictures of me dancing with the flavor of the month savages....”

I’m with you. And with the coming collapse of the dollar, Social Security, and Medicare, it will sure be nice having people to look out for us as we age, just as we are doing now for our parents.

Thanks for clarifying. With regard to distance between relatives, we are living in a world that is much smaller than it was in previous generations. For example, one of my in laws moved to the Chicago a few years ago. Yet with Facebook, email, etc., we are very much up to speed on what is going on with each other and when we do get together, once or twice a year, the visits are much more pleasant as we are basically in “vacation” or “holiday” mode. Had Thanksgiving with them in Chicago last year and it was the best time we ever had with them - mainly because I knew we’d be hitting the road in just a few days! So we tended to get along rather nicely, despite our political and philosophical differences.

Regarding the pre-nuptials, I don't blame you one bit for protecting yourself. My point I was making was that if you even have to think about pre-nuptials, than maybe the person you intend to marry is not the right one. Keeping separate finances in a marriage can be a source of friction that can damage or unravel a lot of marriages. However, if both marriage partners are mature enough and come into the marriage already having established financial independence for themselves, perhaps pre-nuptials can be made to work.

My wife and I share the same philosophy concerning "presents" to each other. If either of us want something for ourselves, we tend to go out and get it. However, we agreed early on that either one of us would have "veto" power on any significant purchase. This tends to keep the both of us from wasting our money on something stupid or frivolous.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.