Majority Of Straight Couples Not Married

[Mordecai]

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.

LOL Okay. This barely warrants a response. You're going to keep this up with "divorce marriage." Wow. Do you actually believe you can logically call a marriage, "divorce marriage," just because the rules on divorce were more flexible? Divorce doesn't define marriage anymore than eating an apple defines an apple. There is no "eating apple," just because it's an apple you're more likely to eat.

I still don't see evidence of force, regardless of your persistent claims. You keep saying it, but you, at no point, provide strong evidence force was used. This conversation has become profoundly inane. If anyone has moved the goalpost, it's you. Now it's all about "divorce marriage," instead of proving Mormons are hypocrites for not trying to ban divorce. You couldn't prove that, so you're going to argue something that's even more insane and impossible to prove. There isn't a such thing as, and never was a "divorce marriage."

[Calm]

Here is an article that reports US census records showing that marriage is in the minority with heterosexual couples in the United States.

I don't think this is what it claims, rather it claims that homes with a heterosexual married couple are now not the majority style of household, but that includes as well as unmarried couples (both sexes) single (divorced or unwed) individuals. I could not find a comparison in the article between unmarried and married heterosexual couples...perhaps I missed it.

It also didn't specified IIRC whether or not married couple householders were still the most common version of household even if it was no longer the majority style.

Having said that, it is still an unfortunately statistic that the Church imo works hard at addressing, but getting people to listen is another issue.

Trying again: accidentally deleted my observation that to beat married heterosexual couples, 49 percent of the population measured would have to consist of unmarried heterosexual couples leaving 3 percent for homosexual couples and single (divorced or unwed) individuals. Knowing many older householders on their own due to death of a spouse as well as way too many single parents, I doubt they are only 3 percent of the US 'head of the household' community.

[frankenstein]

mordecia, argue with Jesus, He is the one that said divorce was not so from the beginning. And Jesus is also the one who placed the blame for marriage which allowed for divorce squarely on the shoulders of Moses and the people. According the words of Jesus, divorce was not so from the beginning, which one last time, means if you were married your had no choice but to remain married because until the time of moses and people allowing for divorce there was no way to become unmarried, hence Jesus saying "from the beginning it was not so". So take your argument up with Jesus, apparently using His words are not good enough.

[Mordecai]

mordecia, argue with Jesus, He is the one that said divorce was not so from the beginning.

Except for the cause of fornication.

And Jesus is also the one who placed the blame for marriage which allowed for divorce squarely on the shoulders of Moses and the people.

Yes, Moses being His prophet and the people being hard-hearted. I don't think the fault was Moses's but the people's.

According the words of Jesus, divorce was not so from the beginning, which one last time, means if you were married your had no choice but to remain married because until the time of moses and people allowing for divorce there was no way to become unmarried, hence Jesus saying "from the beginning it was not so". So take your argument up with Jesus, apparently using His words are not good enough.

I have no problem with the words of Jesus. I have a problem with your interpretation of His words and your conveniently avoiding the "except for the cause of divorce" portion. I also would suggest that Jesus taught the principle of "the ox is in the mire." In extreme cases, it seems to me, Jesus would accept divorces, e.g. in cases of mental illness or abuse. I mean, Jesus was the one that gave us the ten commandments, which say, "Keep the Sabbath day holy," but He also says, "But if the ox is in the mire." Furthermore, what evidence do you have that marriage was forced upon people, as in they are arrested should they do it? You have no evidence.

I'm glad you're getting away from "divorce marriage," by the way. There is no reason in claiming that Moses changed marriage. He simply loosened divorce laws, and you know it. Marriage was essentially the same, prior to Moses's implementation of looser divorce laws more appropriate for a hard-hearted people, as it was after.

Regardless, the important thing is what God's will is, which is for the good of mankind. Would it be good for mankind to have "gay marriage?" No. Certainly not for children, as French lawmakers can attest, since "gay marriage" is in opposition to the U.N. Children's Bill of Rights, which France adopted. Would it be good for mankind to force people to remain married? I don't think it would be.

[frankenstein]

Except for the cause of fornication.

CFR, that divorce for fornication was permitted from the beginning. That Jesus later says such in the New Testament does not show that said reason for divorce was permitted prior to moses and the people changing the institution of marriage to include divorce.

here is something for the Hebrew scholars:

Genesis 2:24: Becoming one flesh: The Bible discusses a man "cleaving unto his wife." "Cleave" is a translation of the Hebrew word "dabaq" which means to make a permanent alliance with (Joshua 23:12, Ruth 1:14, 2 Samuel 20:2). In its noun form, the word refers to soldering two pieces of metal together. Some theologians have suggested that this term refers to permanent actions -- those that cannot be undone. Thus, the passage implies that divorce is impossible.

From the Conservative Bible Project:

Bible verse: And I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, unless he does it by reason of improper behavior before the wedding, and marries someone else, commits adultery."

Explanation of the verse translation: Again, Matthew was speaking of ancient Jewish betrothal customs, under which an engaged couple were considered as good as married, unless the engaged girl had been found to have behaved improperly before the wedding. Luke, writing as he did to Gentiles, would not need to make any such distinction.

[california boy]

I don't think this is what it claims, rather it claims that homes with a heterosexual married couple are now not the majority style of household, but that includes as well as unmarried couples (both sexes) single (divorced or unwed) individuals. I could not find a comparison in the article between unmarried and married heterosexual couples...perhaps I missed it.

It also didn't specified IIRC whether or not married couple householders were still the most common version of household even if it was no longer the majority style.

Having said that, it is still an unfortunately statistic that the Church imo works hard at addressing, but getting people to listen is another issue.

Trying again: accidentally deleted my observation that to beat married heterosexual couples, 49 percent of the population measured would have to consist of unmarried heterosexual couples leaving 3 percent for homosexual couples and single (divorced or unwed) individuals. Knowing many older householders on their own due to death of a spouse as well as way too many single parents, I doubt they are only 3 percent of the US 'head of the household' community.

Thank you for actually responding to the article. I might be wrong, but as I read it, I thought it was stating that among straight COUPLES, marriage was in the minority. When you include single parent households and single people living alone through death or never marrying, I think the statistice is much lower and has been for some time. I thought it was only about 20% of US households were made up of father/mother/children. It has been that way for some time. This article is stating that there are more couples choosing to cohabitate rather than get married. And that is the change in attitude. One that is not unique to the United States I might add. Perhaps someone else has more information on this?

[california boy]

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.

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.

How specifically do you think , the efforts to redefine the word (and institution of) marriage does have an effect on the culture as a whole. Will less children be raised in divorced homes? Less single moms? You can't say less people living together since that seems to be occuring totally independent of gay marriage being legal.

I am not pointing out any hypocrisy here, I am just asking the question Why all the focuse and political action on gay marriage from the Mormon church when statistically gay marriage is so minor compared to heterosexual couples not choosing to marry. The church is not doing anything politically to force straight couples to not live together. It is clearly heterosexual couples that are taking up the banner to destroy the institute of marriage. Of course the church teaches against both heterosexual couples living together and gay couples wanting to get married. But they are only politically active on the absolutely smallest part of the two groups. I am just asking why?

[Mordecai]

CFR, that divorce for fornication was permitted from the beginning. That Jesus later says such in the New Testament does not show that said reason for divorce was permitted prior to moses and the people changing the institution of marriage to include divorce.

Based on our doctrine, Jesus is God, correct? So if He says that "for the cause of fornication" is just cause for divorce, then He would have implemented that prior to Moses. Why wouldn't He? It sounds to me like He's at least implying that in ancient times, divorce was acceptable in cases of a spouse cheating.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.... The one who can accept this should accept it.

Notice he says, "People that can, should." He doesn't say, "Everyone has to. Period." This is also with the introduction of "...But it was not this way from the beginning..." implying that the beginning was as He is describing here, where there are some exceptions.

Thus, the passage implies that divorce is impossible.

And yet, Jesus still taught that "marital infidelity" is just cause. Does your speculation about more ancient times matter in the slightest here? The bottom line is, Mormons do not believe in forcing people to remain married and neither did Jesus. Who cares about all the other crap? There is no inconsistency here with us being against "gay marriage" and for at least a degree of freedom to divorce.

[Calm]

Thank you for actually responding to the article. I might be wrong, but as I read it, I thought it was stating that among straight COUPLES, marriage was in the minority.

Doesn't look like it to me since it states "all households":

in the 2010 Census, married couples represent 48 percent of all households

This article is stating that there are more couples choosing to cohabitate rather than get married.

Agreed, up 13% IIRC but it didn't give a percentage of all households that I could see like it did for married couples.

Also the reason given seems to indicate the stat included all types of households since the households described included appear to include those below:

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.

[Calm]

Got smart and went to the actual data: http://factfinder2.c...&prodType=table

Now to decipher it.

add-on: Not sure how to calculate but the percentage of "unmarried partners" is 2.5% ;(over 7 million) compared to spouse at 18.3 % (over 56 million) so it seems to me that there is still a huge difference between married and unmarried couples with total head of household being over 116 million.

That would be 56/116 in comparison to 7/116 I believe or married couples are still 8 times more common than unmarried...so maybe 6% unmarried couples in households?

Also in a footnote:

[6] "Spouse" represents spouse of the householder. It does not reflect all spouses in a household. Responses of "same-sex spouse" were edited during processing to "unmarried partner."

And if there are 26% living alone in comparison to 48% married, that means that single individuals are much more common than unmarried partners as well.

PS: no guarantee on math or reading comprehension considering the time I am doing this at with the amount of sleep I've had the past bit...so I would be happy for someone to check my calculations.

[erichard]

... Here is an article that reports US census records showing that marriage is in the minority with heterosexual couples in the United States. ...

Getting a license from the government to be married is a perverse system. By the present marriage laws the children born from couples that are licensed by the government in marriage are owned not by the parents, but by the government.

One cannot blame couples from avoiding the present government controlled marriage and divorce system which is wholly abominable.

When a man and a woman are living together without government licensing they are "married" in a natural sense. If they avoid having children when they can afford it, that is unnatural. But it is still much more natural than homosexuality.

In the resurrection one can suspect that homosexuals will be given a moon of Uranus for their eternal home. They can then do what they want forever.

Richard

Make your arguments without the vulgarity, Richard.

[california boy]

When a man and a woman are living together without government licensing they are "married" in a natural sense. If they avoid having children when they can afford it, that is unnatural. But it is still much more natural than homosexuality.

I assume you mean more natural than homosexuality for a straight couple. It is certainly not more natural for a homosexual. Are you suggestion that couples should have as many children as they can afford???

In the resurrection one can suspect that homosexuals will be given a moon of Uranus for their eternal home. They can then do what they want forever.

Richard

I assume you are just making this stuff up. Jesus never mentioned any special place for gays to spend eternity. Though it does sound interging. I certainly would rather spend eternity with other gays on any moon than have to spend eternity with a member of the opposite sex. Now that would be hell for me.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

I think the argument is that Gay marriage (btw since God will never recognize it, it will never be marriage anyway) will “degrade” the institution even more. I am not even sure I have even seen someone suggest otherwise. If this is so, why don’t Gay’s just follow the trend and stop trying to adopt marriage? I know why, it is an attempt to force the world to normalize homosexual behavior; It has never been about anything else.

[california boy]

I think the argument is that Gay marriage (btw since God will never recognize it, it will never be marriage anyway) will “degrade” the institution even more. I am not even sure I have even seen someone suggest otherwise. If this is so, why don’t Gay’s just follow the trend and stop trying to adopt marriage? I know why, it is an attempt to force the world to normalize homosexual behavior; It has never been about anything else.

My point of this post is Mormons seem obsession with the idea of gay marriage further "degrading" the institution while straight people seem to be "degrading" the institution in significantly large numbers as this article reports. Your post seems to reinforce this belief.

I think that is the prevailing straight reasoning they think gays want to marry. In reality gay couples want equal treatment under the marriage laws that apply to straight couple. It is not so complicated.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My point of this post is Mormons seem obsession with the idea of gay marriage further "degrading" the institution while straight people seem to be "degrading" the institution in significantly large numbers as this article reports. Your post seems to reinforce this belief.

I think that is the prevailing straight reasoning they think gays want to marry. In reality gay couples want equal treatment under the marriage laws that apply to straight couple. It is not so complicated.

Yes it really is...

[Mordecai]

My point of this post is Mormons seem obsession with the idea of gay marriage further "degrading" the institution while straight people seem to be "degrading" the institution in significantly large numbers as this article reports. Your post seems to reinforce this belief.

We preach against anyone degrading marriage. We excommunicate Mormons who degrade marriage, in fact. Of course, straight people aren't going to the gov't as a means to trick people into abandoning age-old, tried-and-true family values. That's where the difference lies. Straight people are free to choose (insofar as they have a knowledge of good and evil). While many have repeatedly made it more difficult for straight people to maintain traditional values via the media, include the far left via sex education/indoctrination in the classroom and no-fault divorce, they turn around and blame straight people which is non sequitur, while they continue to hammer away at marriage. It's not about straight versus gay, with regard to marriage declining. It's about good versus evil, nature/God versus hunger for power and control over nature and about nihilism versus valuing children and family over all else.

How about the far left just stop trying to rashly change traditional values based on deluded assumptions about how things will supposedly turn out and stop blaming straight people. Straight people behave, mostly, how society tells them to behave. The people in power, and that includes a lot of people on the far left, are largely responsible for that.

[frankenstein]

We preach against anyone degrading marriage. We excommunicate Mormons who degrade marriage, in fact. Of course, straight people aren't going to the gov't as a means to trick people into abandoning age-old, tried-and-true family values.

lol, straight people go to the government everyday to to abandon family values, and the government consents to said abandon; despite those straight people having promised no to leave each other till death, which would mean, those straight people are oath breakers.

but more to the point, does divorce degrade marriage? is a LDS person excommunicate solely for being divorced? I know several LDS who have been divorced, one of the person IS a LDS Institute Director.

also, so straight people are not responsible for abandoning family values, the devil lefties made them do it, so its not the straight peoples fault that the straight break their vows; or that straight male people hire calls boys for sensual massages, or straight male people proposition another male in a public bathroom for sex...yep, those darn lefties, forcing the straight people to do things the straight people otherwise would not do.

[Nathair/|\]

While I don't have any idea how to get around it in our present society; in recent months, I have begun to suspect that abandoning the clan/tribal system in favor of the nuclear family may have been a mistake. The nuclear family as it stands allows that a couple can make major life decisions considering at most the needs of the couple and their children. I've seen too many people decide that their marriage is inconvenient or boring and just decide to take off.

Under the clan system, a break-up of a marriage can lead to the breaking of the clan or even a war with the next clan over, so you have to treat each other justly.

This post is my first exploration of this idea, so please tear up the concept if you wish, but be gentle with how unformed it is.

[Calm]

Got smart and went to the actual data: http://factfinder2.c...&prodType=table.....

That would be 56/116 in comparison to 7/116 I believe or married couples are still 8 times more common than unmarried...so maybe 6% unmarried couples in households?...

PS: no guarantee on math or reading comprehension considering the time I am doing this at with the amount of sleep I've had the past bit...so I would be happy for someone to check my calculations.

So I take it my math is good? 48% households are headed by married couples, 6% by unmarried?

[Mordecai]

lol, straight people go to the government everyday to to abandon family values, and the government consents to said abandon...

I never claimed otherwise.

...but more to the point, does divorce degrade marriage?

It can, but it depends on the divorce.

...also, so straight people are not responsible for abandoning family values, the devil lefties made them do it...

They have some culpability, but the fact is, human beings are in dire need of a Savior, particularly because they are so easily controlled.

...so its not the straight peoples fault that the straight break their vows...

It certainly is their fault, but it became their fault largely through what they were taught and what everyone else was doing.

[Daniel2]

Today, as I've read through a lot of this thread that touches on a topic that I often feel compelled to speak out about, I'm a bit weary of the debate (don't get your hopes up--I'm sure I'll return to doing so, sometime soon).

I recognize that some will blame folks like me for causing the decline in marriage, while I may feel the exact opposite. Today, in a moment where I'm not trying to imply blame or fault, I simply lament that lately society seems to have made "the marriage debate" more into whom shouldn't or cannot be marrying, rather than doing more to encourage those that could and should be marrying--and staying married.

I, myself, am a divorcee. I have witnessed firsthand the profound pain and the long-lasting negative rammifications of divorce for/on everyone involved, extending far beyond the couple who failed their own relationship, and rippling through their family and extended family. I lament that my children (primarily and especially my children), my ex-wife, and I have suffered so much and so seemingly senselessly.

I continue to firmly believe that marriage is a special and profound outward expression of an inward committment that two individuals may have for one another, as well as towards their children. It benefits couples, children, families, and society.

I hope we, as a culture, will be able to grow towards new ways of strengthening the relevence of and desire for marriage, as in institution, to the benefit of all.

My view,

Darin

[erichard]

,,,

Make your arguments without the vulgarity, Richard.

Excuse me.

You are right. I will remember.

However, it was not "open" vulgarity.

I honestly know Mormons who speculate that the planets of the solar system will all be resurrected: some Celestial, some Terrestrial, some Telestial. And the people of the earth will be resurrected to one of these planets, or possibly a moon of the larger planets.

I was truly referring to this, but I admit in a way that could be considered vulgar.

Richard