Posted on 01/21/2012 1:19:22 AM PST by thecodont
As of 2010, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center, married couples had fallen to barely 51% of U.S. households, with a full 5% drop in new marriages between 2009 and 2010 alone. The data for 2011 aren't in yet, but if that decline continued last year, less than half of American adults are in a legal marriage now.
Is marriage going the way of the electric typewriter and the VHS tape? Not exactly.
The decline of marriage seems especially dramatic in comparison to the way things were 50 years ago. In 1960, almost half of 18- to 24-year-olds and 82% of 25- to 34-year-olds were married. In 2010, the comparable figures were 9% and 44%. Ironically, however, 50 years ago what had everyone worried was the rapid rise in the proportion of married-couple households, as young people rushed to the altar.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Breakdown of education/income/welfare/ethnic levels would have been interesting, and I suspect informative, data. The article addresses mainly people who are educated and work. If the government will pay for your children no need to go through a ceremony, it may cramp the stud’s style.
However, if the statistical picture were modified to account for these groups:
1. Wanting to be married and single.
2. Those in (cough) relationships headed for marriage. I'd bet half of the households with a ‘hook-up arrangement would qualify here.
2. In the state of engagement.
3. Divorced and open to re-marriage.
4. Widows and widowers.
I think the overall popularity of marriage would buoy up to something in the 75-80%+ range as a goal or desirable state. Of course, that isn't the intent here. Let's just show the folks at home how outmoded marriage is and let's just all shack up with him/her/it/them/fruit/vegetables/machines/etc.
It’s all planned:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
In your scenario of being married 2-4 years and then divorcing (which is an abomination) she would only get 1/2 the asssets they had accumulated during the marriage. So if he was fortunate enough to have amassed 100M suring the marriage, yeah, under the law, she is entitled to half. And so what? Maybe he wanted to diddle around and she didn’t feel like she could handle it, men engage in nonmarital behavior too.
It’s always men that act like the women married them for their money if they have any that is. Actually most women want caring and protection and if they get it, the marriage works. If the man is a selfish one, it won’t be a happy marriage.
Nomarriage.com
Lists reasons men shouldn’t marry.
Unless the couple has some strange pre-nup the spouse does not get half of the assets. It is only assets acquired during that 2-4 years and that is only in some states.
Anyone not willing to share the work, the rewards and the debts acquired during the marriage shouldn’t get married.
The Wall Street Journal just did a super article on this. There’s now a culture gap between upper and lower classes, starting really in the 1960s. If you’re upper middle class or higher, you are college educated, you marry college educated, only 5% have kids out of wedlock, 80%+ of men work and live in neighborhoods of the same. If you’re lower class, you have a high school degree but rarely trade school, only 15-20% married, 70-90% illegitimate births (from sometimes marrying after 2-3 kids), men far less likely to be in the workforce.
Here’s the article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending “nonjudgmentalism.” Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.
Gay people only want to be married to take advantage of the tax code.
Being married to a guy for a few years should not be worth up to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. They should get something, but not that. Ridiculous. Men are not an industry/wealth creator for women like current laws allow for.
Aw, everything was fine until they invented the electric light.
That's why so many don't.
With both the husband and wife usually working nowadays, the thought is that each keeps what they earn. So what reason do men has to marry? The potential loss of half their saved income ain't a positive incentive.
It's more in their interest to sleep with their girlfriend and produce a baby. And if thing don't work out, leave with no major loss of money outside of possible child support.
---
As for me, I've seen too many friends and family lose too much in their divorces to ever consider marriage without an ironclad prenup (One father got custody of his two kids as the mother was unfit, yet she got the house and half of all the savings.). And now I'm seeing more and more judges overturning even prenups.
That's why so many don't.
With both the husband and wife usually working nowadays, the thought is that each keeps what they earn. So what reason do men has to marry? The potential loss of half their saved income ain't a positive incentive.
It's more in their interest to sleep with their girlfriend and produce a baby. And if thing don't work out, leave with no major loss of money outside of possible child support.
---
As for me, I've seen too many friends and family lose too much in their divorces to ever consider marriage without an ironclad prenup (One father got custody of his two kids as the mother was unfit, yet she got the house and half of all the savings.). And now I'm seeing more and more judges overturning even prenups.
It's a clever play on the words "breach" and "breech." The actual expression is "honored in the breach, which signifies that a law or rule is observed by breaking it, i.e., "Lights-out in the dormitory was generally honored in the breach." The word "breech," on the other hand, while it sounds exactly like "breach," means "buttocks." So the laws against sodomy are honored both in the breach and in the breech.
The single worst thing one can do is marry poorly.
Personally, I'd love to be married, but...the price I'd pay for getting it wrong and then continue to pay and pay for the rest of my life, is enough to keep me single and looking.
I seek a woman who, as Don DeLillo wrote, lacks "the guile for conspiracies of the body."
And, maybe a good divorce lawyer just in case...
A question for all you old-timers out here...
I’ve been married for going on 25 years, and have never met so many people who keep asking me “what our secret is.”
Is this only because I’m an old-timer now too?
/the secret: It’s called a MARRIAGE VOW, Gingrich supporters!
Bookmark bump
Do men use that excuse,too?
Marriage sounds great....
Not.
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.