Posted on 08/13/2003 9:40:36 AM PDT by ddodd3329
Why do fewer people marry?
According to a 1999 National Vital Statistics Report from the CDC, 7.4 per 1,000 Americans married in 1998. From 1990 to 1995, the marriage rate dropped from 9.8 to 7.6. Different sources render other statistics but the trend remains sharply downward.
There is never a single or comprehensive explanation for complex phenomena that are rooted deeply in human psychology. Non-marriage is a particularly difficult issue to address because, as a recent paper from Rutgers University entitled "Why Men Won't Commit" explains, official sources are scarce. "The federal government issues thousands of reports on nearly every dimension of American life. ... But it provides no annual index or report on the state of marriage." Much of the discussion of the motives surrounding non-marriage must be anecdotal, therefore, relying on statistics to provide framework and perspective.
In examining reasons for the current decline of marriage, one question usually receives short shrift. Why are men reluctant to marry?
The Rutgers report -- admittedly based on a small sample -- found ten prevalent reasons. The first three:
They can get sex without marriage;
They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,
They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.
As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts, the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward. (Such feedback is anecdotal evidence but, when you hear the same response over a period of years from several hundred different sources, it becomes prudent to listen.)
In a similar vein, the Rutgers report finds: "Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce. They say that their financial assets are better protected if they cohabit rather than marry. They fear that an ex-wife will 'take you for all you've got' and that 'men have more to lose financially than women' from a divorce."
Increasingly, men are stating their reasons for not marrying on the Internet. In an article entitled "The Marriage Strike," Matthew Weeks expresses a sentiment common to such sites, "If we accept the old feminist argument that marriage is slavery for women, then it is undeniable that -- given the current state of the nation's family courts -- divorce is slavery for men."
Weeks provides the math. One in two marriages will fail with the wife being twice as likely to initiate the proceedings on grounds of "general discontent" -- the minimum requirement of no-fault divorce. The odds of the woman receiving custody of children are overwhelming, with many fathers effectively being denied visitation. The wife usually keeps the "family" assets and, perhaps, receives alimony as well as child support. Many men confront continuing poverty to pay for the former marriage.
>>>Continued<<<
(Excerpt) Read more at dondodd.com ...
Nope. Although I was raised in beautiful Beaufort, I have spent the past 35 years in California, where my ex's family has deep (for California) roots.
Sadly, the type is ubiquitous...
Because they are guys???
Former Christians who inhabit the United States in dwindling numbers can take solace for a while in two-salary cohabitation and no children.
Yeah, but then they'll want to settle down with women in their early 20s. ;)
Yes, it would. Then walk through the door and shut it in her face.
There are those of us women still out here who value the male of the species and think chivalry is wonderful.
With such a winning attitude, it's hard to understand why such a charmer hasn't found a wife...
Perhaps; but you are still ignoring scripture that rather explicitly says that your position is incorrect. I suppose your definition of "deliberately" could be different than most.
You may consider the teaching of Jesus on divorce and adultery (Matt 5:32) to be irrelevant to the discussion of divorce and adultery
That is called a strawman argument. I never said it was irrelevant to the discussion of divorce and adultery, I said it was irrelevant to the qualifications of church leadership; the requirements of which are more than (but include) the requirement of marital fidelity.
The standards for Church leaders are indeed more stringent than those for others, and as I said before, it is certainly possible to interpret the Scriptures in restrictive ways. Do you, for example, maintain that a widower who remarries cannot be a church leader?
The marriage vow is generally "till death", so this would be a bit more flexible. But in such a case where the person is devoting his life to the church, he should not re-marry, and such re-marriage is an indication that the candidate may not be suitable.
Do you prohibit someone who smokes (addiction to modern drugs are surely the modern equivalent of the prohibition in 1 Cor 6:10 on 'drunkards').
Yes, smokers, or at least those addicted to smoking (which is probably the majority of smokers) should not have such positions of leadership in the church.
If a father of several faithful children has one child 'go bad' does that disqualify him?
Definitely. The requirement is that his house be in good order, and this would disqualify him just as much as a divorce.
Perhaps it does in your doctrine, and perhaps it should. But I will continue to believe that true repentence, and commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, can overcome sin
The issue of church leadership roles is not simply an issue of sin. There is no corruption of blood for sin, as in the case where a father has a disobedient child (i.e., the sins of a disobedient child are not those of the father). Nevertheless, such a situation disqualifies the father from a church position. The requirements for church leadership positions are clearly stated; that they are often ignored by the pseudo-churches in no way changes those requirements.
I would not consider that a cause for disqualification for leadership within the Church for someone who has demonstrated true repentence and honestly desires to serve Jesus
God's word disagrees with you. Just because you refuse to accept God's word in no way changes those words.
My original point was that men who quit on their marriages short of the point of giving up their lives to preserve them have committed a sin. There is no 'no fault' divorce. I offered the sole exception of adultery, strictly because Jesus did.
The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles. Just because God may allow you to divorce your wife due to her infidelity does not mean that he also grants you an exemption to the requirements listed for church leadership roles. The very fact that a man would marry an unfaithful wife is itself suggestive that he lacks the wisdom to be a proper steward of God's property.
If that's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll have to pick and choose what you will follow.
It is ironic that you would make such a statement, considering that is you who are "picking and choosing" a subset of the bible, using only those scriptures that are to your liking to support your position and ignoring those that directly contradict it.
Naw. Even the most hardcore feminists are able to land a man when they are middle age or older. I know I'm 30x more attractive then them so I will have no problems getting a man's attention or to do for me.
So that's how all the men act these days. I follow their lead, like them because they know what they're doing. They don't let any woman walk all over them.
It's pathetic women like you who make me wonder if there any women that want a real man, and no, I'm not talking about macho, hung, rich, good looking, or anything like that. I'm talking about faithful, considerate, committed, knows how to be the head of the household without being a dictator, responsible, dependable, and all the other character traits of a real man.
I do want a man that is faithful, considerate, committed, responsible, dependable etc., but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy. I want it all. Men want it all from women as well, so I demand the same.
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.