PDA

View Full Version : Eliminate State-Sanctioned Marriage



fj1200
11-18-2010, 10:29 AM
Solve the "gay marriage" problem. Eliminate state sanctioning of marriage, then those who want to be married, gay or straight couples, could be "married" by the church of their choosing. A civil union could then be recognized as an agreement by two individuals subject to a partnership contract.

4 in 10 say marriage becoming obsolete
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_declining_marriage


WASHINGTON – Is marriage becoming obsolete?

As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren't needed to have a family.

A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.

About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.

Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.

In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.
When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family.

"Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn't dominate family life like it used to," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them."

The broadening views of family are expected to have an impact at Thanksgiving. About nine in 10 Americans say they will share a Thanksgiving meal next week with family, sitting at a table with 12 people on average. About one-fourth of respondents said there will be 20 or more family members.

"More Americans are living in these new families, so it seems safe to assume that there will be more of them around the Thanksgiving dinner table," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center.

The changing views of family are being driven largely by young adults 18-29, who are more likely than older generations to have an unmarried or divorced parent or have friends who do. Young adults also tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage, the survey found.

But economic factors, too, are playing a role. The Census Bureau recently reported that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent this year to 7.5 million. It was a sharp one-year increase that analysts largely attributed to people unwilling to make long-term marriage commitments in the face of persistent unemployment.

Beginning next year, the Census Bureau will publish new, supplemental poverty figures that move away from the traditional concept of family as a husband and wife with two children. It will broaden the definition to include unmarried couples, such as same-sex partners, as well as foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.

Officials say such a move will reduce the number of families and children who are considered poor based on the new supplemental measure, which will be used as a guide for federal and state agencies to set anti-poverty policies. That's because two unmarried partners who live together with children and work are currently not counted by census as a single "family" with higher pooled incomes, but are officially defined as two separate units — one being a single parent and child, the other a single person — who aren't sharing household resources.

"People are rethinking what family means," Cherlin said. "Given the growth, I think we need to accept cohabitation relationships as a basis for some of the fringe benefits offered to families, such as health insurance."

Still, the study indicates that marriage isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Despite a growing view that marriage may not be necessary, 67 percent of Americans were upbeat about the future of marriage and family. That's higher than their optimism for the nation's educational system (50 percent), economy (46 percent) or its morals and ethics (41 percent).

And about half of all currently unmarried adults, 46 percent, say they want to get married. Among those unmarried who are living with a partner, the share rises to 64 percent.

Other findings:

_About 34 percent of Americans called the growing variety of family living arrangements good for society, while 32 percent said it didn't make a difference and 29 percent said it was troubling.

_About 44 percent of people say they have lived with a partner without being married; for 30-to-49-year-olds, that share rose to 57 percent. In most cases, those couples said they considered cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

_About 62 percent say that the best marriage is one where the husband and wife both work and both take care of the household and children. That's up from 48 percent who held that view in 1977.

The Pew study was based on interviews with 2,691 adults by cell phone or landline from Oct. 1-21. The survey has a total margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, larger for subgroups. Pew also analyzed 2008 census data, and used surveys conducted by Time magazine to identify trends from earlier decades.

darin
11-18-2010, 10:37 AM
People value instant gratification, and self-serving behaviour more than what's 'best' for children. Best for children is to have a Mother and Father.

Whether they are in a legal marriage, I suppose, is not relevant.

DragonStryk72
11-18-2010, 03:37 PM
People value instant gratification, and self-serving behaviour more than what's 'best' for children. Best for children is to have a Mother and Father.

Whether they are in a legal marriage, I suppose, is not relevant.

Having good mothers and fathers is best, but that very often not the case. You have deadbeat dads + moms, abusive ones, alcoholics. It's probably bet if government just stayed out of it all together.

darin
11-18-2010, 04:50 PM
Having good mothers and fathers is best, but that very often not the case. You have deadbeat dads + moms, abusive ones, alcoholics. It's probably bet if government just stayed out of it all together.

no societal motivation to promote good families?

fj1200
11-18-2010, 05:08 PM
no societal motivation to promote good families?

That's what I was thinking about when I read your first post here. Do we want government to promote the current ideals under the assumption that that is best for kids at the expense of gay marriage? Of course you have to go under the presumption that gay marriage is bad for kids.

If that's the case then someone is going to have to make a DAMN GOOD CASE for the country to buy into it.

If not, then we should either decide that government has no place as I suggest or accept gay marriage as being good for kids. I'm starting to lean to the latter. Especially given that there is nothing to stop a lesbian couple, for sure, or a gay couple from having children.

darin
11-19-2010, 06:09 AM
I believe homosexual couples SHOULD be barred from adopting. I think the practice IS damaging - but...since folks generally in charge buy into "we are merely developed animals" instead of special creation set above animals, they won't understand when I say Homosexuality hurts folks spiritually. It's a physically and emotionally damaging habit. :(

Missileman
11-19-2010, 11:29 PM
I believe homosexual couples SHOULD be barred from adopting. I think the practice IS damaging - but...since folks generally in charge buy into "we are merely developed animals" instead of special creation set above animals, they won't understand when I say Homosexuality hurts folks spiritually. It's a physically and emotionally damaging habit. :(

If you had anything other than "you think" to support your position it might be more compelling. The standards to decide who is and isn't qualified to raise kids needs to be a lot more tangible and measurable than spirituality. BTW, did you catch the study about child abuse and the lack thereof in lesbian households? It came up with a 26% abuse rate in the couples who meet your standard of heterosexuality.

darin
11-20-2010, 06:01 AM
MM - folks have been politicing for decades to bring homosexuality into mainstream. Nothing surprises me, though. Absolute Truth can't be validated by people who don't like the results, bro.

Missileman
11-20-2010, 09:48 AM
MM - folks have been politicing for decades to bring homosexuality into mainstream. Nothing surprises me, though. Absolute Truth can't be validated by people who don't like the results, bro.

Baselessly declaring one's position as "absolute truth" is an act of intellectual laziness. An absolute truth would be capable of being validated by everyone regardless of their feelings about it.

Pagan
11-20-2010, 11:12 AM
Baselessly declaring one's position as "absolute truth" is an act of intellectual laziness. An absolute truth would be capable of being validated by everyone regardless of their feelings about it.

The Universe is Transformation; Life is opinion
-- Marcus Aurelius

darin
11-20-2010, 03:07 PM
Baselessly declaring one's position as "absolute truth" is an act of intellectual laziness. An absolute truth would be capable of being validated by everyone regardless of their feelings about it.

You've got it backwards. My position isn't truth - Truth is the choice I make. :)

Silver
11-20-2010, 03:29 PM
Solve the "gay marriage" problem. Eliminate state sanctioning of marriage, then those who want to be married, gay or straight couples, could be "married" by the church of their choosing. A civil union could then be recognized as an agreement by two individuals subject to a partnership contract.


There is no 'gay' marriage problem....gays can get married the same as anyone else....
there is a problem with men wanting to marry men and women wanting to marry women....
but there again, they can just find a like minded pervert to perform a ceremony and call themselves married....


:lol:

Just don't expect the federal government to recognize that un-natural union.....

Pagan
11-20-2010, 03:46 PM
There is no 'gay' marriage problem....gays can get married the same as anyone else....
there is a problem with men wanting to marry men and women wanting to marry women....
but there again, they can just find a like minded pervert to perform a ceremony and call themselves married....


:lol:

Just don't expect the federal government to recognize that un-natural union.....

They can get married but they cannot receive any of the perks, benefits and legal immunities that Government hands out with the marriage license. Which "IS" the point.

Solution, hold the Government accountable to the rule of law and get them out of dictating marriage.

It's time to bring Conservative principles into government and get away from the Socialist/Liberal "Nanny State" that we have become.

fj1200
11-20-2010, 08:03 PM
There is no 'gay' marriage problem....gays can get married the same as anyone else....
there is a problem with men wanting to marry men and women wanting to marry women....
but there again, they can just find a like minded pervert to perform a ceremony and call themselves married....

Just don't expect the federal government to recognize that un-natural union.....

If you're going to take that stance then I think you need to explain why the state should treat some relationships differently than others. And even then the fact that gay people can create an entire family whether you agree with it or not.

DragonStryk72
11-20-2010, 09:48 PM
Baselessly declaring one's position as "absolute truth" is an act of intellectual laziness. An absolute truth would be capable of being validated by everyone regardless of their feelings about it.

It's also, strictly speaking, not allowed by Christian biblical standpoint.