Jump to content

Majority Of Straight Couples Not Married


california boy

Recommended Posts

This form spends a lot of time discussing gay marriage. It seems to be a battle ground for many that feel the institute of marriage is crumbling. Here is an article that reports US census records showing that marriage is in the minority with heterosexual couples in the United States. This continues a trend that has been going on for decades. It is pretty hard to blame gay marriage for this trend since gay marriage is legal in so few states.

Here is the link

Why do so many Mormons focuse on gay marriage when they discuss defending this institute when statistically gay marriage is hardly a blip on the overall radar. Is it because Mormons think they can tell gay couples what to do and they don't think they can tell straight couples what to do? Is it because they think they can legally stop gay mariage, but can not do anything to prevent straight couples to just live together? Does anyone see some hypocracy in all of this talk of gay marriage going to distroy the institute of marrriage?

Married couples in less than half of US households

By NIGEL DUARA, Associated Press – Sat May 28, 6:23 pm ET

PORTLAND, Ore. – Three mornings a week, when Becky Leung gets ready for work, her boyfriend is just getting home from his overnight job. When her mother drops hints about her twin sister's marriage, she laughs it off. And when she thinks about getting married herself, she worries first about her career.

Leung, 27, cohabits in a Portland, Ore., townhome with her boyfriend but has no plans yet to wed, a reflection of the broader cultural shift in the U.S. away from the traditional definition of what it means to be a household.

Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau shows married couples have found themselves in a new position: They're no longer the majority.

It's a trend that's been creeping along for decades, but in the 2010 Census, married couples represent 48 percent of all households. That's down from 52 percent in the last Census and, for the first time in U.S. history, puts households led by married couples as a plurality.

"I see a lot of people not having the typical 8-to-5 job, or couples where one person is employed and one isn't. There's other priorities before marriage," Leung said.

The flip in the 2010 Census happened in 32 states. In another seven states, less than 51 percent of households were helmed by married couples.

The reason, said Portland State University demographer Charles Rynerson, is twofold: The fast-growing older population is more likely to be divorced or widowed later in life, and 20-somethings are putting off their nuptials for longer stretches.

"People in their 20s are postponing marriage for many reasons, including money," Rynerson said. "We also have an aging population, so there's more people living alone."

Fears of not being able to hang onto a job, a widening labor market for women and a shift away from having kids at a young age have all proved to be a disincentive for people in their 20s and early 30s to join the ranks of the married.

Leung is indicative of that trend. She's got a marketing job in a trendy city, writes a personal blog on living a gluten-free lifestyle and has plans to get married — eventually.

"I think a lot of people make a mistake of saying, I've got a good job, I'm stable, I'm ready to take the next step," Leung said. "You never know what happens down the road. That's the whole purpose of dating.

"You're not there to just have fun."

The median age for first marriages has climbed steadily since the 1960s, when men got married at about 23 years old, and women at 20. Now, men are waiting until they're 28 and women are holding off until 26.

"Some of that is people coupling but not being married," Rynerson said. "There are not nearly as many people in their 20s who are married as in previous generations."

The data supports that, as the Census Bureau reported last year that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent from 2009 to 7.5 million.

We're also living longer, with an average life expectancy of 78 years, nearly a decade longer than in the 1960s.

To reflect the changing attitudes on marriage, the Census Bureau has broadened the definition of family this year to include unmarried couples, such as same-sex partners, as well as foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.

And attitudes on marriage are changing, too. About 39 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete, according to a Pew Research Center study published in November, up from 28 percent in 1978.

Oregon is about average when it comes to the declining number of households led by married couples, and reflects the larger nationwide trend.

It's also a state that represents much of the ups and downs of the 2000s: There was population growth during the decade from Hispanics, a decline in the state's manufacturing sector and an economy in the central part of the state that was crushed by the crumbling housing market and Great Recession.

The state to buck the declining-marriage trend is Utah, where 61 percent of households are led by married couples. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Louisiana, which has the second-lowest percent of married people heading households. Louisiana State University sociologist Troy Blanchard said rural and urban poverty plays a major role.

"There's a lot of unmarried female householders, a lot of concentrated poverty where they don't have maybe the education or resources that allows for (marriage)," Blanchard said.

A decade ago, only six states and the District of Columbia were approaching the 2010 trend and had less than half of their households led by married couples. Data scheduled to be released later this year will included statistics for same-sex marriages.

Nationwide, Blanchard said, labor markets' gender disparities are beginning to equal out, allowing more women into professions that had been closed to them for decades and pushing down the number of households led by married couples. .

"We're far from stopping," Blanchard said. "Until we see that eradication of the gender barrier, I would anticipate (situations other than marriages) to get higher and higher."

Link to comment

For me, even though gay "marriage" is just a blip on the radar, the efforts to redefine the word (and institution of) marriage does have an effect on the culture as a whole. And it isn't like the church is ignoring the issues of divorce, or of couples living together. I think the Family Proclamation is pretty clear on both of those subjects as well.

Is it because Mormons think they can tell gay couples what to do and they don't think they can tell straight couples what to do? Is it because they think they can legally stop gay mariage, but can not do anything to prevent straight couples to just live together? Does anyone see some hypocrisy in all of this talk of gay marriage going to destroy the institute of marriage?

  1. The Church does tell straight couples what to do: No sex before marriage.
  2. The Church doesn't try to prevent gay couples from living together.

There's no hypocrisy here.

Link to comment

hypocrisy would be the LDS not faciltating adoptions for gay couples because it is harms the institution of the family, but in a different room the LDS Church is facilitating an adoption for a single person or a unwed couple. I do not believe the Church facilitates adoption for any of the three; I am just providing an example of hypocrisy.

another example of hypocrisy would be voting for Prop 8 to protect marriage but voting against a law that would ban divorce or limit divorce to only a veiw extreme situations, as divorce does harm to the institution of marriage and the institution of family and was not ordained of God, but permitted in the Judeo-Christian world by a man seemingly acting as a man and not as an inspired prophet.

hypocrisy is saying "you are a bad mormon because you drink caffeinated drinks and you are not suppose to have caffiene" yet the person speaking is eating a chocolate bar.

But as has been stated the LDS Church is consistent in its message on morality.

Link to comment
...another example of hypocrisy would be voting for Prop 8 to protect marriage but voting against a law that would ban divorce or limit divorce to only a veiw extreme situations, as divorce does harm to the institution of marriage and the institution of family and was not ordained of God, but permitted in the Judeo-Christian world by a man seemingly acting as a man and not as an inspired prophet.
Supporting prop. 8 is perfectly in line with our beliefs that we ought to promote correct principles. But banning divorce is against our belief in agency and liberty. We would be hypocrites, in fact, to try to ban divorce.
Link to comment

Supporting prop. 8 is perfectly in line with our beliefs that we ought to promote correct principles. But banning divorce is against our belief in agency and liberty. We would be hypocrites, in fact, to try to ban divorce.

[Jesus] saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And so forth. I suggest rethinking your position.

Link to comment
[Jesus] saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so... And so forth. I suggest rethinking your position.
I did, and I haven't changed my mind. Jesus, at no point, suggests forcing people to stay married.
Link to comment

But banning divorce is against our belief in agency and liberty.

God did not ordain divorce marriage. see the Words of Jesus. So not so much an "agency" argument you have there. But if you are taking a broad brush to agency then it is within the agency of humankind to engage in ssm or whatever coupling they choose, and who are you or other mortal to stand in the way of an adults agency and liberty to do as they choose with another adult wherein both adults have given informed consent to their coupling?

God ordained eternal marriage. And if Jesus is stating that divorce was not so from the beginning then Jesus is pretty clear on saying that people, prior to his statement about adultery, where to stay married; so it would appear that infact Jesus, God of the Old Testament "forced" people to stay married.

Man on his own choosing changed marriage to include divorce. Moses, as best we can tell, was acting as a man and not an inspired Prophet, when he and society changed marriage, but as Jesus said "from the beginning it was not so". That something has existed for a long time, i.e. divorce marriage, does not make divorce a right or agency or liberty. So to vote against ssm on the basis of "protecting the family" but not vote against limiting or banning divorce is hypocrisy.

Link to comment

I did, and I haven't changed my mind. Jesus, at no point, suggests forcing people to stay married.

Jesus at, no point, suggests forcing people to do anything. However, he strongly discourages some things, divorce being one.

Link to comment
God did not ordain divorce marriage. see the Words of Jesus. So not so much an "agency" argument you have there. But if you are taking a broad brush to agency then it is within the agency of humankind to engage in ssm or whatever coupling they choose...
We're not stopping gay people from engaging in whatever coupling they want. How many times must we explain the difference? Promoting prop. 8, which is all we did, which is a means of having our representatives not use the same word to describe two profoundly different things, isn't forcing anything on anyone in any way shape or form. They could move to Massachusetts or Canada, if it's that big a deal to get special recognition. Not that they have a right to that anyway.
...who are you or other mortal to stand in the way of an adults agency and liberty to do as they choose with another adult wherein both adults have given informed consent to their coupling?
Are you suggesting that I'm a guy that goes around physically stopping gay people from being together?
God ordained eternal marriage. And if Jesus is stating that divorce was not so from the beginning then Jesus is pretty clear on saying that people, prior to his statement about adultery, where to stay married; so it would appear that infact Jesus, God of the Old Testament "forced" people to stay married.
So God forced people to stay married, huh? Well, I'm not God, so I don't think I am allowed to do that. Also, CFR that God was forcing people to stay married. Just because "it wasn't so" doesn't mean there was force involved.
So to vote against ssm on the basis of "protecting the family" but not vote against limiting or banning divorce is hypocrisy.
Good grief, this is hogwash. Are you really going to try to keep this line of reasoning up?
Link to comment
Jesus at, no point, suggests forcing people to do anything. However, he strongly discourages some things, divorce being one.
Of course. I never said otherwise.
Link to comment

We're not stopping gay people from engaging in whatever coupling they want. How many times must we explain the difference? Promoting prop. 8, which is all we did, which is a means of having our representatives not use the same word to describe two profoundly different things, isn't forcing anything on anyone in any way shape or form.

my how well you can lie to yourself. The Constitutional Channel of the Courts in Ca. recognized a right, the people of california took away that right by force of law. You are forcing ss couple to be called by a different name, though, it didn't really work all that since there are 18k legal ssm in California.

So God forced people to stay married, huh? ... Also, CFR that God was forcing people to stay married. Just because "it wasn't so" doesn't mean there was force involved.

God did not ordain divorce, which means once a man and a woman married they could not become unmarried i.e. divorced. And following the scriptures is it apparent God's people did not have divorce until Moses seemingly acting as man and the people made the choice to change the institution of marriage to allow for divorce. Its not a difficult concept to understand, if one is allowed to enter and not leave then one of forced to remain.

so yes its simple logic, that without divorce people who are married are forced to remain married. Is married person still legally married until they have a divorce? The answer is Yes, A married person remains married until a divorce has been granted. SO without a divorce a honest married person must always answer "Yes" to the question "are you married".

Well, I'm not God, so I don't think I am allowed to do that.

If you upheld the institution which God ordained and set forth you would; unless you are hard hearted.

Link to comment
my how well you can lie to yourself. The Constitutional Channel of the Courts in Ca. recognized a right, the people of california took away that right by force of law. You are forcing ss couple to be called by a different name, though, it didn't really work all that since there are 18k legal ssm in California.
LOL Wow. Please. "Forcing ss couples to be called by a different name." Like how I'm forced to have a different social security number. The injustice! Where's my lawyer! I also want my address listed, so that people will think I'm rich. Stop forcing me, society! I want my address listed inaccurately, so people will think I live in a rich neighborhood!
God did not ordain divorce, which means once a man and a woman married they could not become unmarried i.e. divorced. And following the scriptures is it apparent God's people did not have divorce until Moses seemingly acting as man and the people made the choice to change the institution of marriage to allow for divorce. Its not a difficult concept to understand, if one is allowed to enter and not leave then one of forced to remain.

so yes its simple logic, that without divorce people who are married are forced to remain married.

Hogwash. The implication here is that God commanded them of old to not divorce. That's not force. That's a commandment. Furthermore, the implication is that God, because of the hardness of the people's hearts, didn't give them such a hard commandment. There is no force here. If there was, it'd be directly from God to man, which is not the situation here. We don't have any commandments that we should pass laws to force people to remain married, especially since we're not a theocracy. Show me the passage of scripture that says, "I command you to pass laws to force people to remain married." Not there. I promise.
Link to comment
f you are married and there is no option for divorce then you are forced to remain married.
So what's your point? Obviously. What does that have to do with anything? If you want to make a case that Mormons are hypocrites, you'll have to show that we believe in forcing people to obey commandments, but we don't practice that. The fact is, Mormons believe in agency and liberty. Again, we'd be hypocrites for forcing people to remain married. Our opposition to the gov't calling a gay union, "a marriage," is in perfect harmony with our belief in agency. Prop 8, in theory, merely prevents the gov't from adopting gay-marriage dogma. In fact, I'd say it promotes agency by preventing the muddling of the language, facilitating informed choices via unmuddled exchanges of information.
Link to comment

CFR that God was forcing people to stay married.

if you are married and there is no option for divorce then you are forced to remain married.

So what's your point?

seems pretty obvious.

------------

Again, we'd be hypocrites for forcing people to remain married.

so the Chosen people were hypocrites before Moses and the chosen people, because the hardness of their hearts, decided to change the institution of marriage to allow for divorce?

Link to comment

seems pretty obvious.

For a person with poor reasoning or comprehension, it seems obvious. There's still an unfounded premise hidden in your line of reasoning that at some point, God or his prophets were forcing people to remain married. You have no evidence of that. You have to prove that there was NO option, which you've failed to do. That's why I didn't see your point. There was no evidence that there wasn't another option. People can always disobey a commandment, which is one of our God-given rights.
...so the Chosen people were hypocrites before Moses and the chosen people, because the hardness of their hearts, decided to change the institution of marriage to allow for divorce?
No. First of all, allowing for divorce is a change in the laws related to marriage, but it doesn't change the principle of marriage. Second of all, why are you on a witch... err... hypocrite hunt here? I don't see why the word hypocrite would come into play in the slightest here. The Law of Moses came from God, and God is above man. If God wants to change the rules, He can do that all He wants. Prior to Moses was apparently a higher law, where the demands were greater. Where is the hypocrisy?
Link to comment

Supporting prop. 8 is perfectly in line with our beliefs that we ought to promote correct principles. But banning divorce is against our belief in agency and liberty. We would be hypocrites, in fact, to try to ban divorce.

Banning divorce violates the principles of liberty and agency.

Banning gay marriages in CA does not.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nothing to see here folks. Just run of mill self-righteous hypocrisy we have come to expect from the right.

Link to comment

For a person with poor reasoning or comprehension, it seems obvious. There's still an unfounded premise hidden in your line of reasoning that at some point, God or his prophets were forcing people to remain married.

If you can not get divorced, then you have to remain married, therefore by force of law you are forced to remain married. It can not be put any more simply.

First of all, allowing for divorce is a change in the laws related to marriage, but it doesn't change the principle of marriage. Second of all, why are you on a witch... err... hypocrite hunt here? I don't see why the word hypocrite would come into play in the slightest here. The Law of Moses came from God, and God is above man. If God wants to change the rules, He can do that all He wants. Prior to Moses was apparently a higher law, where the demands were greater. Where is the hypocrisy?

The purpose and nature of marriage change with mans introduction of divorce. Marriage was intended to be forever, yet man on his own changed that purpose; so the entire institution of marriage changed.

if the institution of marriage did not allow for divorce, then the institution of marriage had to changed to allow for divorce. The institution of marriage was changed by a man for men to allow for divorce. You have not indication that Moses was acting on the permission of God to change the institution of marriage. From the words of Jesus we are left with the conclusion that Moses acted on his own i.e. "Moses because of...."

Link to comment

Banning divorce violates the principles of liberty and agency.

Banning gay marriages in CA does not.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nothing to see here folks. Just run of mill self-righteous hypocrisy we have come to expect from the right.

Insults and politics. You're banned from the thread, Jaybear.

Skylla

Link to comment
If you can not get divorced, then you have to remain married, therefore by force of law you are forced to remain married. It can not be put any more simply.
Again, CFR that the law forced people to remain married.
The purpose and nature of marriage change with mans introduction of divorce.
Non sequitur.
Marriage was intended to be forever, yet man on his own changed that purpose; so the entire institution of marriage changed.
Even Jesus says, "Except for the cause of fornication." That's a permanent rule. You're right that man can, as individuals, change the purpose of his own marriage. But having laws that allow the freedom to leave a marriage isn't promoting divorce. It only allows for it.
You have not indication that Moses was acting on the permission of God to change the institution of marriage.
Other than that he was a prophet?

Prophet--one who speaks on God's behalf.

Regardless, divorce laws don't change the principle of marriage.

Banning divorce violates the principles of liberty and agency.

Banning gay marriages in CA does not.

There is no ban on "gay marriage." Receiving special recognition, i.e. having the gov't pretend your behavior is identical to others, when it's not, is not liberty.

"The worst type of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

--Aristotle

...self-righteous hypocrisy we have come to expect from the right...
We love you, too, Jay.
Link to comment

Again, CFR that the law forced people to remain married.

It can be rightly surmised from the scripture that divorce or unmarriage was not permitted until moses and the peoples hardedness allowed for it. If you could enter the instutition of marriage and could not leave the marriage you were forced to remain in marriage.

Non sequitur.

It can be surmised by from the words of Jesus that God did not intend for divorce marriage, and thus with the introduction of divorce marriage the institution of marriage was changed.

Even Jesus says, "Except for the cause of fornication."

Yes, which was not stated until long after Moses had changed marriage. And if you were paying attention you would have realized that I made room for this statement from Jesus. But since you are prone to moving the goal post, I understand why you would have missed this important detail.

But once again, prior to Moses and the hard hearted people divorce was not permitted, else why would the phrasisees have asked "is it lawful" to divorce.

Link to comment
It can be rightly surmised from the scripture that divorce or unmarriage was not permitted until moses and the peoples hardedness allowed for it. If you could enter the instutition of marriage and could not leave the marriage you were forced to remain in marriage.
Again, as Jesus said, you could for the "cause of fornication." You say you "allowed for this," but you fail to do so here also. Furthermore, you say "was not permitted," but that's not what Jesus says. This doesn't sound like he's talking about politics:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Regardless, modern apostles and prophets have never taught that people should be forced to remain married. In fact, Brigham Young was quite liberal with allowing divorce. So your claim that we're hypocrites is completely absurd. We're consistent with "gay marriage," in that we oppose the gov't promoting an obviously false dogma. We always have. We're consistent with divorce, in that we want to prevent it, but we're not going to force a bad marriage on anyone. There is no tricking people by not practicing what we preach, which is what hypocrisy is.
It can be surmised by from the words of Jesus that God did not intend for divorce marriage, and thus with the introduction of divorce marriage the institution of marriage was changed.
Divorce marriage? LOL What the heck. Is this supposed to be a jab at the idea of "gay marriage?" Because the idea of a "gay marriage" is universally agreed upon to be a "gay marriage." The mere fact that there has never been a "divorce marriage," until you just made it up speaks volumes about how contrived this argument is.
Yes, which was not stated until long after Moses had changed marriage. And if you were paying attention you would have realized that I made room for this statement from Jesus. But since you are prone to moving the goal post, I understand why you would have missed this important detail.
Or perhaps I missed that detail, because you repeatedly discuss it in terms of having NO choice, when there clearly was at least one. CFR that I move the goalpost. I think you just pulled that out of the air.
But once again, prior to Moses and the hard hearted people divorce was not permitted, else why would the phrasisees have asked "is it lawful" to divorce.
And yet, the early Christians didn't force people to remain married, nor do modern Christians. Jesus's response didn't indicate that he was discussing anything other than God's commandment to not commit adultery (Matt 19:9):
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Lastly, let's suppose that Jesus was promoting a secular law (although we don't see good evidence of that). Among the ancient Hebrews, women were dependent upon men for shelter and food. So a divorce law in that context would have to take that into consideration. Furthermore, that wouldn't preclude exceptions to the rule, like "the ox is in the mire," type situation.
Link to comment

please read slowly and carefully, ask for help if you need. The discussion is about divorce prior to moses and the people acting on their own to change marriage to allow for divorce. By the words of Jesus it is clear that from the "beginning" marriage did not allow for divorce, thus, marriage changed from eternal to divorce marriage.

but specifically this what you need to pay close attention too:

'frankenstein' timestamp='1306702673' post='1209012093']

God ordained eternal marriage. And if Jesus is stating that divorce was not so from the beginning then Jesus is pretty clear on saying that people, prior to his statement about adultery, where to stay married; so it would appear that infact Jesus, God of the Old Testament "forced" people to stay married.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...