Posted on 11/30/2004 4:02:40 PM PST by nickcarraway
The newly analyzed 2000 census data has revealed at least one shocker: The number of men and women 65 and older who choose to live together without getting married has nearly doubled since the 1990 census.
The AARP Bulletin reports that 266,600 unmarried partners over age 65 were cohabiting in 2000, and demographers think the numbers are much higher, since many are reluctant to report their living arrangements.
"What stops many of them from tying the knot is the prospect of financial loss, a worry that trumps any desire for the religious or social blessings of marriage," the Bulletin article states. "Remarriage may mean giving up a former spouse’s pension, Social Security and medical insurance." (Remarriage could also mean later responsibility for long-term care costs, no matter what a prenuptial agreement may state.)
Well then do away with SS and end the immorality.
Couples that are married 40-50 years are getting divorced because they can't afford to live if they don't.
Poor things, what a mess when you're old with no money. God bless them all.
That's not funny. They are poor and need every extra penny they can get. Afterall, they paid into the system all their lives.
It's the case with my MIL and her "fella" as well.
Neither my MIL nor her fella are libs.
You're right about that. Thanks for making the point. (But, still, there are aging boomers approaching elderhood who will choose to live together for the sake of sin, believe me.)
Geriatric erections are not worth anyone's life. Better spent on cancer or heart disease; you only suggest AIDS and hemorroids because you know they are practically non-issues.
Just going to ignore the fact that Viagra injected billions in profit for Pfizer? Profit is where the money for further research comes from.
Point taken. If it props them up, then hurray.
ROTF
Hey, wait a minute you just said that old people sex is icky.
Now you are asking "...why should people be forced to live lives without sex?"
Well, which is it? you can't have it both ways.
Unless it's your spouse of 40 years, I cannot support old people doing it. Find something else to enjoy.
Now you are asking "...why should people be forced to live lives without sex?"
Well, which is it? you can't have it both ways.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to do icky things?
Should an act's "icky factor" be reason enough to justify outlawing it? Of course not.
By the way, Viagra was originally being investigated as an antihypertensive. The ability to, ahem, put lead in the pencil, was picked up on when they were looking for side effects of the drug. One cardiac drug has a reported side effect of causing orgasm when the patient sneezes. I kid you not.
See #s 20 and 27.
Did you ever wonder why most Christians are ashamed of their bodies which God supposedly created in his image? Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? … snopercod
Because it's vile, sinful, and wrong! … They are all going to burn in hell for all eternity! … Because Jesus loves them … BritishBulldog
I don’t believe I know a genuine Christian who is ‘ashamed’ of her body. If anything, a Christian may even delight in her physical body as much as, or maybe more than, the average person – for the exact reason you cite, snopercod – because of the belief that it was created by Him, and modeled in His image.
‘Created in His image’ suggests that man, as opposed to animals, enjoys a principled dominion over all creatures, and is unique in all creation. It does not mean that man is ‘physically’ similar to an ‘unphysical’ God, but that man can function, in part, as God does, in that he is sovereign among all other earthly creatures, and yet sufficiently different from them that he knows the humility (a positive human trait, contrary to popular belief) of seeking the Creator's strength, wisdom and guidance.
There is a world of difference between 'shame' and modesty/humility. Modesty is simply a pattern of behavior that does not purposefully seek to call attention to itself through display of one’s body. It is, in effect, saying that one’s ‘worth’ is not reflected in one’s physical body, but in something much more valuable and eternal: in one’s goodness-centered, and integrity-centered, relationships and interactions with other people. None of us completely fulfills that goal, but Christians are called to at least seek to do so.
Your comment, Bulldog, is so off the mark that it doesn’t even remotely resemble anything found in scriptural teachings. And I believe (just my own subjective point of view, mind you) that it, too, represents a kind of anti-Christian sarcastic bias that is displayed here on this forum just as much as anywhere else.
A Christian reveres her body, and enjoys sexual intimacy, and physical passion, every bit as much as a non-Christian. As with dress, a Christian’s religious beliefs cause her to be completely comfortable with her body, and to enjoy unabashed sexual passion and intimacy, within the bonds of marriage – which, constrained by such scripturally monogamous bounds, I suspect may even actually contribute to making sexual intimacy even more precious, meaningful, and stimulating.
No genuine Christian would mock you for holding beliefs other than hers, and it saddens me when FReepers whom I otherwise deeply respect and admire choose to mock Christian beliefs – as in the two posts I was pinged to here. Of course, you have every right to disagree with the Christian faith (and I would defend to the death your freedom to do so, as I suspect most on this forum would). But please do not mock the sincere, non-threatening, and deeply-held convictions of others simply because you do not embrace them yourself. It is one thing to engage in an honest debate about differing principles. But when ridicule enters the picture, debate simply unravels into something mean-spirited, worthless, and non-productive.
~ joanie
Thank you, Joanie.
You can always be counted on to say the right thing the right way. :-)
"Your comment, Bulldog, is so off the mark that it doesn’t even remotely resemble anything found in scriptural teachings. And I believe (just my own subjective point of view, mind you) that it, too, represents a kind of anti-Christian sarcastic bias that is displayed here on this forum just as much as anywhere else."
I appreciate that my comment doesn't really reflect biblical script. I was just having a little laugh at the irony of the "burn in Hell fires" -vs- "Jesus even loves the sinners" messages that we often see. Don't take it too seriously.
Incidentally, I'm not in the least anti-Christian,although I'm not keen on any large scale organised religions, believing that spirituality should be more of an individual thing.
Anyway, please accept my apologies if I offended you & the same to any others.
(reaching for my Merck Manual and PDR...) Hmmm...
Biochemistry is funny, isn't it?
I agree. I don't see the point in getting married after a certain point in life.
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.