Nobody wants to know statistics by themselves. The reason people find statistics interesting is its ability to show trends that are either positive or negative to society. They don't care about neutral points, which would be how many women just so happen to not be living in the same domicile as their spouse. That's so absurd as to be laughable. The article is geared towards exposing a trend that is becoming more and more prevalent among females concerning the general attitudes about marriage. That seems so transparent that me even mentioning its transparency seems redundant.
Yes, they are exposing a trend. I never disagreed with you on that...especially since you did not say that originally. You seemed to be of the mind that they were making up a trend where there wasn't one. The trend noted by the article was that more and more women are spending more and more of their adult lives outside of marriage based on Census data. The trend can be viewed either positively or negatively depending on your personal outlook. The views expressed by the sociologists and the women quoted can be viewed either positively or negatively depending on your outlook.
BTW - they "don't care about" women who just happen to be living away from their spouse because they are statistically insignificant. They mentioned them twice, but they did not fit into the overall trend of more and more women spending more and more of their lives outside of a marriage.
But that's my point. Its NOT about anything other than to show people that a trend is forming in the attitudes of women, i.e. the more puritanical to the progressive. If you concede this point, what are you arguing with me about?
Because you tried to show that there was no such trend of more and more women spending more and more of their lives outside of marriage. You argued against the analyzation by sociologists used in the study that women's attitudes were indeed changing. You tried to argue that their figures were wrong by leaving out divorced and widowed and as-of-yet unmarried women in your own personal analysis when you knew full well that the article was not about women who have never and/or will never marry.
There are more people abandoning traditional roles at a fast pace-- men and women. However, the 51% is a horribly inflated number when juxtaposed by the US Bureau of Statistics who does this for a living.
Well, um, the
Census Bureau compiles stats on marriage demographics. You even said you referenced the
Census Bureau in your OP. The Bureau of Statistics compiles stats on labor (productivity, unemployment, etc), not marriage or divorce (except as it may affect or regard labor). The NYTimes used the US Census' stats for 2005 to get their numbers. They didn't just make it up.
Jaderis writes:
The "sacredness" of marriage is a construct of religion.
Then what's the purpose of marrying at all? I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.
My statement had nothing to do with marriage in general. Let me repeat - the "sacredness" of marriage is a construct of religion. As in it is something to hold sacred and must be protected due to religious beliefs surrounding it.
Whereas:
Jaderis writes:
The "civil" purpose of marriage is to bind people into a contract in order to provide financial protection for their spouse and/or their children. That is all it has ever been.
"Civil," meaning:
The Free Dictionary writes:
1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.
As in, the purposes of marriage, as it pertains to our government, is to provide a legal basis for inheritance, insurance, proxy medical decisions, etc.
What? Financial protection is all that marriage has ever been? That's beyond ludicrous. I guess brides and grooms throughout history are just giddy after a proposal over those tax breaks they'll receive. Very romantic. It gives me butterflies just thinking about it. So, for the record, you are saying that marriages are for convenience and if homosexuals were alloted the same type of tax benefits, among other financial indemnities, they'd all be copacetic with a version of marriage, but not marriage itself.
Stop being disingenious. Unless you didn't understand the term "civil" (and just in case I provided the definition for you this time around), you are just making shit up. We all know that marriage is a ceremonial act that people engage in in order to show their love for one another and their desire to start a life together. Homosexuals already do that all the damn time! What is being asked is that the government provide equal protection under the law for us and our spouses so we can provide insurance for our partners and or/ their (our) children, so that when we die our spouse and kids will get the money due them, so that we can make medical decisions for our spouses if they are incapacitated, so we can even visit out goddamned spouses during a medical emergency and/or be provided with pertinent information regarding their health, so we can file joint taxes.
This may seem unimportant to you, but that's probably because you take it for granted. It isn't something you even have to think about. When your wife is hospitalized you don't have to wait for her parents to show up in order to find out what the hell is going on with her (if they - the parents - even tell you...), you don't have to worry that if you die that the kids you raised with your wife will be cut out from any money because your parents will automatically have the legal right to your estate (even with a specified will sometimes).
To me, the dedication of myself to the one I love is the most important thing, but I don't want to spend 20,30,50 years with someone and then be shut out or have them shut out because you fucking feel threatened.
Then you tell me the purpose of the study.
I already told you. To inform people of shifting demographics. Just like studies of how many households own a computer or an SUV or how many people are Christians or Muslims or over the age of 65.
The commentary establishes possible reasons for this shift.
But does society reflect the sitcom or does the sitcom reflect the society?
Neither. My point was that some people see TV, movies, magazines and expect their lives to mirror the images they see. They never do and then people feel isolated and different or they feel like they are doing something wrong. (I brought up the point about my grandmother because you mentioned the differences in sitcoms. The sitcoms still have essentially the same formula and happy endings and my grandmother cried because her kids actually fought with each other and she argued with her husband and she wasn't freaking content with donning a pressed apron and smiling while vacuuming and only speaking up to her husband to gently chide him but ultimately defer to his final decision).
The sitcoms reflect an idealized life that nobody can live up to. People who try to mirror them usually fail or go batshit trying to live to the ideal (not only provided by the sitcoms but general societal pressure in a stifled society).
I won't answer the rest of your post simply because you decided to take the rest of my replies out of context.
I hope it made you feel better about yourself.
Edited by Jaderis, : misspelling
™ Version 4.2