The New Normal: Singleness in America

BreakPoint ^ | 11 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

[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.

[RosieCotton]

See, there IS hope. ;-)

[nightdriver]

"If you think I don't have enough "experience" to know what I'm talking about: I'm a male, 42, married 15 years to a great lady, 4 kids, couldn't be happier."

Good! I'm happy for you, but your experience is not all that typical.

[hedgetrimmer]

A SMART man or an immoral one?

[blowfish]

I consider myself *smart* enough to have recognised a terrific lady and make the commitment to her. If I didn't, someone else would.
Odd that the whole 'no commitment for men, just sex with no strings attached' philosopy has popped up here of all places. I would have thought that was a '70s 'me-first' liberal philosophy.

[blowfish]

I consider myself *smart* enough to have recognised a terrific lady and make the commitment to her. If I didn't, someone else would.
Odd that the whole 'no commitment for men, just sex with no strings attached' philosopy has popped up here of all places. I would have thought that was a '70s 'me-first' liberal philosophy.

[Tax-chick]

I think it's strange that all these arguments about families lately are framed in terms of corporate or state benefits. That could so easily be resolved with simple contract adjustments: for SS or other benefits, simply allow the covered person to designate a beneficiary of his/her choice, without needing to address the relationship between them.

With health insurance, policies currently are designated (usually) for "employee only," "employee and spouse," or "employee and family." Sometimes the "family" is subcategorized by the number of dependents. Simple changes: "Employee," or "Employee and adult dependent," or "Employee + other adult + # of juveniles." Changes allowed at the usual times, pricing is no different from other policies based on the number of insureds.

If we can't get the government/employers out of the benefits business entirely (my first choice) then it would at least be an increase in everyone's freedom if they could simply identify their chosen beneficiaries and pay their premiums, without third parties snooping into their relationships.

[blowfish]

...but not smart enough to avoid double-posting, apparently! :^/

[RosieCotton]

Nobody's perfect. ;-)

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm afraid Colson doesn't even acknowledge one prime reason for the sad marriage situation these days. A lot of us men just don't really cotton to the idea of allowing our lives and everything we've worked for to become subject to destruction by some woman with a whim, a slimy lawyer, and a humped-up liberal judge who thinks he owns everything we have simply by decreeing it.

Which is yet another good reason to eliminate the concept of government-recognized marriage altogether. No property should ever be regarded as co-owned without a written contract to that effect between the co-owners. If newly married couples had to face and negotiate concrete realities up front, they'd both be much more aware as time went on, and there would be no nasty surprises or negotiations over property at the time of a divorce.

[Nataku X]

Excellent observation. We are all becoming much too cynical and materialistic and bitter and self-absorbed, and by 2100 the Americas will be all Hispanic and the rest of the world will be all Arabic.

In FreeRepublic most posters wallow in self-pity and bitterness and greed all our lives. And that represents the rightest of the right and the most religious of the religious. What does this speak of what America is becoming, now? Heartbreaking!

[Hodar]

I doubt anyone would debate the way things OUGHT to be. You are correct; however we are arguing how things actually exist.

The courts, at the behest of women, have set paternity, community property, and alimony laws in place that are by definition unfair (and that is putting it very mildly). Men are screwed over by the justice system at every turn. A woman wants a divorce, she can get the most expensive attorney her husband's income can provide; he will pay for both attorneys at the end of the day. She has no limits on the amount of money she can spend, after all, her ex-husband to be will get the bills. She can demand the kids, the house, the car and nearly half of what he makes for the rest of his life, plus half of what he is worth today.

Women have worked hard, and I mean worked *&$# hard to make marriage as unappealing as possible for a logical man to consider. The legal obligations, coupled with the tax penalties mean a man (and only a man) becomes a slave, a piece of property, with little legal protection, once the license is filed; and even fewer rights if a child enters the picture. If it were not for tradition or religon, there would be no compelling reason for a logical man to even consider marriage.

[CajunConservative]

Maybe for those women who fill their heads with romance novels but not every woman is looking for the Alpha male. We do want men to be men, at least I do and so do most of my single female friends. Of course I am from the South and maybe that's why I have a problem understanding how all women are conniving hillary's ;) There are some, what we call white trash here I admit, but the decent ladies I am talking about are looking for good decent honest men.

[Texan5]

There are insecure men who want to do the Pygmalion thing, and see the woman they settle down with as Eliza Dolittle, too. I have personally had the unpleasant experience twice-three times if you count the fiance who wished I were "white" instead of of hispanic ancestry, and actually tried to get me to pretend it wasn't so. My ex-husband spent 20 years trying to make me into his ideal (weak, obedient sexpot in 'ho clothes) woman until I got totally tired of it, his cheating, and him. And yes, I got the lion's share of the community property because he had disposed of a great deal of money and property without my signature. Texas is not an alimony state, and I didn't want anything else from him, anyway-I have always worked for my money. When another man started doing the same thing, chapter and verse, I broke the engagement in record time. I married my best friend shortly afterward, and have been happy ever since. We have no reason to try to change each other, and besides, we know each other well enough to realize that it would be impossible-we just treat one another like the equals we are. I honestly think if you marry a friend (an equal) issues like change probably won't come up-but if they do, you are buddies, so you can talk about it and no one will be running to a lawyer looking to screw the other.

[Darnright]

>Free sex, no possibility of child support, and what he percieves as a great time.

Ooh, you left out all the side benefits! Let's see, syphillis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc., etc.

[Texan5]

I am not interested in taking over the Americas, nor are my children, anyone else in my family or of my acquaintance, hispanic or not...

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, though, you are very astute for a young'un.

[Texan5]

Good for both of you-you are true gentlemen and REAL men.

[Vidi_Vici_Vinnny]

My aversion to marriage is rooted in the blasphemy that is American Family law and the feminist cancer that pervades this country.

A two parent family that is rooted in love and self sacrifice is a beautiful, if not rare, thing to behold.

[Nataku X]

I had a serious relationship with an "alpha male" who kept his affinity for 13-year-girls hidden from me. LOL, no wonder he was so insistent on my weight... Like you, I went to my best friend who definitely isn't an "alpha male"... he isn't the life of the party--in fact, he plays D&D... but he is sweet, gentle, nice, and I have zero doubt he will cheat on me. This alpha male thing is part of everyone's inherent attraction to sinful activities. Women, sadly, don't learn that males who give them the most thrill are also the males who will burn them the most.

My roommate met a very handsome guy, this guy invited her on an all-expenses-paid air & hotel trip to New York two day after they met. When she returned, she told me of the whole deal and was furious he only wanted sex. I was speechless at her stupidity and naivete (although she had extensive... experience).

[Hodar]

And yes, I got the lion's share of the community property because he had disposed of a great deal of money and property without my signature.

And here is the crux of the issue. You took the lion's share of the property at the divorce, but who earned the money? Were you both working, or were you raising kids at home, or were you relaxing at home while he worked his butt off? Now, if this were a community effort on a business you both started, this split would be fair (as he "had disposed of a great deal of money and property without my signature". No question there.

If you were home, raising kids; again I would agree with the settlement. In that you had sacrificed earning an income to raise a family.

However, if you were working part time, no kids, and at home, relaxing by the pool, watching Soap Opera's and lounging about; this was unfair.

The law does little to differentiate, but there is a world of difference in my book. For example, remember Johnny Carson's divorces? His wive's are taking home millions/yr for life. They did NOTHING (maids did the housekeeping). Johnny took the risks, put in the hours and used his talents. His wives provided little more than sex and companionship, and that's mighty expensive companionship.

[RosieCotton]

I agree that feminism is a HUGE part of what has happened to marriage.

But I also think people just don't take marriage as seriously as they should any more.

My parents were happily married for over thirty years, until my mother passed away of cancer last year at age 54. She told me on several occasions after I grew up that she had had times when she considered walking away from the marriage. I think everyone has those times. I have tremendous respect for my parents for NOT letting go.

I think that's a much bigger problem than what comes later - the courtroom scene. People should not even be thinking about divorce and its consequences when considering marriage. Unfortunately, we have a society that has no problem with trial marriages and throwing in the towel when the initial spark burns low.