Posted on 12/11/2003 7:55:35 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
A pair of magazine articles recently revealed some intriguing facts about marriage and singleness in America. U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT notes that Americans are getting married later in life. And, according to reporter Michelle Conlin in BUSINESS WEEK, "The U.S. Census Bureau's newest numbers show that married-couple households . . . have slipped from nearly 80 percent in the 1950s to just 50.7 percent [of the population] today. That means that the U.S.'s 86 million single adults could soon define the new majority . . . What many once thought of as the fringe is becoming the new normal."
As a result, the way we view many things -- singleness, marriage, friendships, and institutions -- is changing dramatically. For instance, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT's article focused on the so-called "Tribal Culture," in which single friends form highly organized groups that serve as a kind of substitute family. One such group, in Denver, has 110 members. But that number pales in comparison to some of the groups that are forming online at websites like Friendster.com where literally thousands of people meet to form social networks.
The existence of these "tribes" and these statistics tell us something about ourselves, the way we're wired. We are social beings: We need family and community -- even in a culture that prizes autonomy above all things. But BUSINESS WEEK's reporter sees a quite different meaning in the trend she calls "the new normal." Conlin argues that benefits like insurance and Social Security, which have always gone to married couples, should also be extended to singles, cohabiting couples, and homosexuals living together. She writes, "Just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded social benefits are."
Now, first let me say that it's important for Christians, when examining this trend, to avoid pointing fingers or acting as if singles are somehow inferior to married people. Surrounded by a culture fearful of commitment and more interested in "hooking up" than dating, even those who are interested in getting married often have a hard time finding anyone who shares their interest. Also, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, not everyone is called to be married.
However, there's a genuine cause for concern when people cite widespread singleness as an excuse to promote policies that denigrate traditional families. The benefits we give to two-parent families should have nothing to do with how many families there are. It's a recognition of the great importance of a stable family structure to our society, in all kinds of areas -- the strength of the workforce, the emotional health of kids, and even the physical health of adults. These benefits are one way that we encourage standards that reflect the way we were designed to live -- standards like lifelong faithfulness to one person and a committed mother and father for every child. The more we insist on ignoring these standards, the weaker our culture becomes.
Marriage already has enough strikes against it in a culture that largely considers it just one more "lifestyle choice." We don't need to discourage it even more. "The new normal" so-called may change a lot of things, but it shouldn't change the way we look at a God-ordained, time-tested institution. Tribes may have their place in the chaos of postmodern culture, but they are no substitute for marriage and the family.
Seriously, I'd like to have this.
Gonna jump down, Turn aroun', pay da alimony.
Gonna jump down, turn aroun, pay da chile support!
Oh Eliza, no mo' visitation!
Oh Eliza, gotta go ta court!
Yep. And once they get in, they'll have to actually work at it, not just cut and run as soon as things get a little dicey.
Out where? I think I'm stuck in the broccoli aisle...
I knew someone in Arkansas who met someone, married her and divorced her in less than 2 months. That's crazy, dumb and stupid.
Regular sex? what's that..........we've got a 5yo...........
And I'm nearly as tall as he is, so I can reach the top shelf myself!!!
But all kidding aside.......everyone's situation is different, even if there are some similarites, which is why all the woman bashing that goes on in these threads drives me nuts.
If some of these mysoginists would sit back and look beyond their hatred they would see they are part of the problem. For generations women were expected to stay home and keep the house and family. then when hubby decided to go through male menopause or midlife crisis and dump her - she had nothing because he had always controlled everything. Over the years the courts and laws have evolved in an effort to right some of the past wrongs. while I agree that in many cases they do go overboard in punishing men, there is an historical background to why the courts seem to favor the woman.
I'm not saying it is right and that there aren't some women who abuse the system, but by and large that is the exception rather than the rule.
I meant to say a three day wait for the regular license.
I have no data on how many married women are parasites; but I do have the facts that the law is flat-out biased in favor of women; without regard to the reasons for divorce. The article stated that people are not getting married, and I offered several reasons why. Among them is that the law allows (thereby encourages) women to be parasites.
Now, you may not know of any examples of this; but I do. But examples are simply our 'versions' of what happened between a couple to cause the divorce, and there are 2 sides to that story. And the truth is that outsiders will never 'really' know the true causes.
My beef is with the law that effectively makes man a piece of property that may be owned, have liens placed against, and used without redress, recourse or fair representation. As I previously stated, a wife can get the most expensive laywer her husband's income can afford; he can get what ever is left over. Either way, he will pay for both attorneys at the end of the day. The wife will walk away with the house, kids, car and a portion of his retirement, his savings and in some states, a lien against whatever he earns for the rest of his life. If that isn't legally santioned slavery, what is? Then, women wonder why men are not hesitant to sign their lives away to a lifetime of marriage/slavery.
Have kids ... they are going to be the ones that pick your retirement home ... or would you prefer the government to do that for you ?
I'm not saying it is right and that there aren't some women who abuse the system, but by and large that is the exception rather than the rule.
Thanks for making this point.
Those times were unfair, in that a woman had little choice but put up with life or be homeless and penniless. But, now the law is in 'retaliation mode' against men who have done nothing wrong. Men today did not commit these sins, and are not capable of spinning time backwards to rectify the past transgressions. However, we are being punished today. So, what is the only avenue left open to men? Avoid the system whenever possible. And men are doing exactly that.
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.