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.
Not if you live in the Sandhills.
and they were very very reserved, I am talking clannish.
Most small towns have a certain group of people who think they are in control of everything. This is the group that organizes everything from town fairs to fund raisers for the volunteer fire department. The other group doesn't care what happens, is too busy, or silently is annoyed at the first groups' control. Floating a school bond, closing the local hospital district... issues with clear cut for or against stances will follow the same lines.
The second group can't say anything because 1) A member of the first group is a neighbor, 2) A member is a relative, or 3) if they say anything, someone will suggest they take over. Any new person will take time to fall into a certain group, until then both factions will wonder what they can say and how they can say it without offending the new person in town.
On the whole Nebraska was a nice place to live. I mean when the theft of a pot of geraniums makes the front page as the big event of the week you know you live in a safe place. I would imagine that the other small towns weren't that bad either. I really did like Lincoln though. It was easy to navigate. I wish I could get a Runza at times too.
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.