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.
I agree with you on that point. However, the law should prevent people from FRAUD. If a woman has a child and leads a man to believe he is the father; and he is deceived into paying for the child's upbringing, that is FRAUD. Currently, there are several cases in which the woman lied, and led a man to believe he is the father. The man KNOWS he is not the father, but the courts nontheless are forcing him to pay child support. This is wrong.
If a man discovers he has been lied to, and desires to be recompensated for the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon him; his only recourse is to sue the innocent child. This is wrong.
The woman who has lied to the man, has placed the child into a set of circumstances in which it is unfairly exploited; yet there are no legal repercussions for this activity. This is wrong.
These are some (but hardly all) of the reasons why many men are simply chosing not to get married.
And that is why many men are simply chosing never to marry.
In all these threads about marriage, divorce, men getting destroyed in divorce, etc etc over the past few years........
I have YET to see ONE female member of this forum EVER say that the divorce laws in this country are unfair.
It's always the same arguments:
Oh, but I'M not like that.
You're just a mean man !
You're just a whiner!
I'm happily married, so therefore, you're a loser !
I'm sure you can think of a few more of the typical responses. It's very striking that not ONE female member of this forum has EVER supported the notion that the laws are extremely biased against men. It's just amazing.
The thread THE MARRIAGE STRIKE on this forum is chock-a-block filled with examples of men (members of Free Republic) that have been absolutely DESTROYED by their ex-wives. The stories these poor guys tell about their destroyed lives are incredible.
And the female response? "HA HA, get over it. Stop whining."
And the women here are supposed to be conservative, and yet have this level of viciousness against men?
No thanks, I'll stay single. My advice to the single guys out there, with regards to women, is what those psychic hotline commericals have at the bottom of the TV screen:
TO BE USED FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY
My father made that mistake of being more in love with his money than his kids. He was a bitter old man when he died. He spent so much time complaining about having to pay child support instead of investing in his children with his time and love that when he was old there was just broken relationships. I do have to say he finally got it about two months before he died. However, he did not get to take his most precious possession with him, it ended going to his kids in the long run.
We would have rather had the relationship instead though.
I wasn't afraid to marry because I thought it would end in divorce. Most men don't go into marriage thinking that way. I thought I knew her well. Heck, we were married for 14 years and dating for 5 years before that.
She always said what you are saying: divorce is not an option. Then, her new boyfriend came along.
Times change. People change.
Since those are the facts, who in their right mind would enter into something in which there is a 50-50 chance of their lives being destroyed?
Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you've lost everything.
Should a person buy a car in which there is a definate 50% probability that the transmission will fail? Would you?
Should a person invest in a stock in which there is a 50% chance they'll lose all of their money? Would you?
I can play this game all day and night.
However, the definate FACTS about marriage and divorce in the USA are that the divorce rate is approx. half, and that men are hosed in a divorce. Those are facts. :)
If a man discovers he has been lied to, and desires to be recompensated for the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon him; his only recourse is to sue the innocent child. This is wrong.
The woman who has lied to the man, has placed the child into a set of circumstances in which it is unfairly exploited; yet there are no legal repercussions for this activity. This is wrong.
These are some (but hardly all) of the reasons why many men are simply chosing not to get married.
I agree with you regarding the fraud issue. I don't think you should have to pay for a child that isn't yours. The law does need to change now that accurate tests can be done to prove paternity. My posts have been if you are the biological father, then be a father.
And I wouldn't dream of suggesting it be any other way. And true, some people do put money before relationships, and they are poorer for it.
But the point remains, when the laws support fraud, when they allow one gender an unfair legal advantage over the other; there will be repercussions. The repercussions may be that men simply will refuse to marry, they may be that men will flock to see their Urologists for a vasectomy, or the repercussons may be something as minor as a husband watching his wife take the pill every morning as he is brushing his teeth.
The personal decisions your family members make, are theirs and theirs alone. However, you have yet to even acknowledge that the laws are biased. That has been my point throughout. Men are treated like chattel, liens can and have been placed upon their future earnings; based on a failed relationship. The reverse is seldom if ever true. The result, is as the article pointed out ... fewer men are getting married. It boils down to a list of pro's and con's. The con's list dominates, and not by a small margin.
Absolutely agree. I'll go you one further and see if you agree on this one.
Manditory DNA testing upon the birth of the child. No exceptions. That way, if the husband (or boyfriend) finds out he is not the biological father, he can make an INFORMED decision as to whether he wants to raise the child as his own. An informed decision means that fraud did not occur. If the husband (or boyfriend) decides not to raise the child (which is a real world possibility) the woman either must identify the real father, or she is entirely on her own. After all, she is the one who put herself and the child in this situation.
And my casual observation says it does not. It is not applicable to me, and I have found it to be false more often than true.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I just don't think it's all that common.
Like I said, people change. I can accept that. But what I will never abide is a court system that denies loving fathers access to their children and turns them into wage slaves. And many men are realizing that these horror stories are not isolated incidents.
It comes down to this: does the benefit of marriage outweigh the risk?
I would have no problem with that.
Yes but those single self reliant women are also smart enough to steer clear of the attitudes being expressed by some of those same single guys.
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.