The future of marriage

The New York Times recently put out an article entitled, 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse. For this article, the NYT is reputed as having conducting the experiment and tabulating the figures from various sources. The end result was that upwards of 51% of women are now unmarried, heralding the dawn of a new age.I have quite a few sources of contention, but two that stand out in particular. The first is the veracity of the study. The second main contention is the motivation of the experiment. What exactly prompted them to conduct the survey to begin with?As to the first contention there is a clever skewing of how such a figure was ascertained when juxtaposed by the US Census Bureau. The distortions perpetrated by the NYT is elucidated quite nicley by my wife who, after reading the article, was compelled to write to the company. She wrote this:"Good morning,

​

I am writing to inquire about a recent article titled " 51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse " by Sam Roberts. I did a quick check at the U.S. Census Bureau website for verification, and the results were a bit perplexing when compared to those cited in the article. They are as follows:

​

As of 2005, only 25.8% of all women in America aren't married. 53.8% of all women are currently married, and 9.2% are widowed. You can review this information yourself on the U.S. Census Bureau website by going HERE (select ALL RACES in table A1).

​

This causes me to ask where he obtained the percentages cited in his article, and why he didn't do a more comprehensive study before publishing this information to the general public. Doesn't the editorial team bear some level of responsibility in checking information published? Also, it does not seem that anyone at the NYT did a sufficient job of quantifying what, precisely, the statistic defined as being "without a spouse". This could very well have included girls ages 15 to 17 (who cannot generally marry legally), or women whose husbands are away from home while serving in the military.

​

In his article, he states that your staff arrived at the healthy number of 51% by analyzing Census Bureau statistics, and yet I have reviewed them all the way back to 2001, and I cannot see how anyone could ever arrive at such a preposterously high number.

​

It is the responsibility of the NYT staff to produce accurate information. Publishing a paper that is read by thousands, if not millions, of people requires this. I don't understand how you expect your paper to be taken seriously, if information published isn't even remotely correct.

​

This article should be promptly retracted for it's egregious misrepresentation of the facts.

​

Regards,

​

[name withheld from EvC for identity protection]In other words, in order for the NYT to reach these results, they had to trim the fat from actual results in order to inflate the the number of unmarried women. What they had done is not included widows, but included unemancipated female minors, women who's husbands are temporarily stationed away from their husbands, etc. The entire integrity of the study is seriously in question, especially when juxtaposed by actual results reported by the US Census Bureau. The US Census Bureau estimates that, as of 2001, 82.5% of all women over the age of 15 have been married. Of that number, 58.1 percent of women are currently married. Therefore, from the get-go, there is a serious discrepancy in the number of women living without spouse according to the NYT. However, the U.S. Census Bureau records the number of women currently divorced in this country at 23.1%, which means that 76.9% of all women are either married or single. Since we already know that 58.1% of all women are currently married, we subtract 58.1% from 76.9% to arrive at a reasonable percentage of women who are living without a spouse at 18.8%. Wow! That's an enormous discrepancy-- so off the mark, in fact, that it would be reasonable request that they retract the article.Concerning my second contention, what is the motivation here? I mean, lets think about it for a minute. Why was the eyecatching headliner focused on women as opposed to people in general? I mean, there are only two sexes. And in most states, marriage is legally recognized as one male married to one female. That means of the women that are married, all of the women are married to men. And since you can't have a marriage without the other, why the focus on females?Again, my wife has a theory, as she has wrote on another forum. It reads as follows:"There is not an epidemic of women who aren't marrying. This is nothing more than an attempt to further degrade the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of the American public, which (by extension) is an attack on Christianity. I suspect that this is related to their desire to encourage acceptance of civil unions for gays.

​

If they can convince people that marriage is ultimately unimportant, they will be less likely to fight new legislation supporting the rights of gays to marry.

​

Not only are the statistics in the NYT article completely fabricated, but the article dishonestly dedicates itself to the task of proving that marriage is no longer valued by the majority of people."I happen to agree with my wife about this. So, I thought I would ask the forum what they think about the motivation of the article. Is this just a casual read presented by the NYT because of lack of other ideas to write about, or is this the NYT politicking?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That has not been established. It seems to me that supporting the rights of gays to marry enhances the importance of marriage.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think that your analysis has some problems. Firstly I notice that you don't include any mention of married couples who are currently seperated - whether as a trial or while waiting for a divorce. That in itself biases your figures.Let's look at your analysis

quote:

---

he US Census Bureau estimates that, as of 2001, 82.5% of all women over the age of 15 have been married. Of that number, 58.1 percent of women are currently married. Therefore, from the get-go, there is a serious discrepancy in the number of women living without spouse according to the NYT. However, the U.S. Census Bureau records the number of women currently divorced in this country at 23.1%, which means that 76.9% of all women are either married or single. Since we already know that 58.1% of all women are currently married, we subtract 58.1% from 76.9% to arrive at a reasonable percentage of women who are living without a spouse at 18.8%. Wow! That's an enormous discrepancy-- so off the mark, in fact, that it would be reasonable request that they retract the article.

---

58.1% currently married means that 41.2% are not currently married. An unmarried woman cannot be living with a spouse - but a married woman may be living without one. The correct figure therefore must be at least 41.2% - not your 18.8%. The NYT figure can't be ruled out here because we only have a minimum of 41.2% which it exceeds.So lets look at what you did wrong.Firstly you calculated the percentage of women who are married or single by subtracting the percentage of divorced women from 100%. That in itself makes a lot of assumptions (notably that the divorced figure excludes those who are currently married and that "single" refers to widows and those who have never married) but we'll asusme that that is correct for the sake of argument. Then you subtract form that the percentage of women who are currently married, which leaves you the percentage of "single" women (those who have never married or are widowed).The NYT figure is the percentage of woemn who are not living with a spouse. This will include the number who don't have a spouse becuase they are divorced - so you have to add in the percentage of divorcees again. Which gets you back to the 41.2% figure. ANd it has to include the percentage of women who are currently married but don't presently live with their husband - which you have yet to account for.So in fact we know that your analysis is wrong, and we don't have the figures needed to prove the NYT wrong. I suggest that you retract your analysis and try to do it again - correctly this time.

The overall impression I got from reading your little rant was one of fear. You and your ilk are losing what you perceive to be a cultural war. There is a slow but inexorable movement away from what you believe to be "traditional family values" and you can't stand the fact that not everyone thinks like you do. More than that, you are realizing that most people don't think like you do, and this you perceive to be an "attack" on what you believe. It would really be rather amusing if it weren't frightening.Let me set you straight on a few things. There is no cultural war, except the one you, your wife, and other frightened people think they are fighting. Most people don't want to change the culture, they just want to be able to live the way they want to. They don't want to change the way you live. They don't want to change the way anyone else lives. They just want to live their own lives in peace.The reason it's scary is because your type is beginning to see the writing on the wall. Your hegemony is waning and you see that as some kind of threat to your way of life. To be fair, to the extent that controlling how others act is part of your way of life, I guess that is beginning to come to an end. But it's scaring the hell out of you, and, like any other frightened animal, you're going to fight back.Let me try and give you some small reassurance.Marriage will continue to be the dominant family unit for the rest of your lifetime, and probably for your children's lifetimes as well. What's more, marriage will always be an option for those who choose it. Gay marriage is no more a threat to marriage than is a ham sandwich. If Fred and Larry want to live together in wedded bliss, that won't stop you and your anonymous wife from doing the same. What's more, if Fred, Larry and Matilda want to live together in wedded bliss, that won't stop you either.So buck up, sport, it's not nearly as bad as you think it is.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow.. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...

---

The end of "civilization as we know it" - but not the end of the world.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But that's actually a part of my argument, which I forgot to add to my thread. The title is called "51% of women now living without a spouse." The problem is in the wording and I wouldn't hesitate to say that its deliberate. The implication is that everyone reading the article or even seeing the headline will no doubt surmise that they are referring to women who have opted not to marry at all. Lets get real, that's the first thing that's going to pop in somebodies head, and they know that.But instead they manipulate it where it could mean women just not currently living in the same domicile. Well, who would want to read an article about that? No one. So as long as they can put a little spin on it, they can attempt to justify their figures so long as they word it carefully, and yet, they realize that people will automatically assume that its referring to women who have opted not to marry. My figures derive from the US Census whose only function is to keep statistical figures. They already did the math, I'm simply relaying those tabulated figures for everyone to see in a very clear manner that NYT's distorted and convoluted their own article. LOL! PaulK, lets think about this from a logic point of view. Who wants to read about women that aren't currently living with their spouse? Nobody. The blatant assertion is that women are throwing off the archaic shackles of marriage in droves and abandoning traditional values in an attempt to forge a new way of life. Let me ask you something. Do you think its acceptable to add 15 year old girls in that? Do you think its acceptable to add widows, who have been married for 60 years until her husband died in that figure? Do you think its right to include military wives in that figure whose husbands are on deployment? The only one's who should be legitimately considered are single women and divorced women who have no aspirations to marry again.Listen to the tone of the article. Its very obvious that they want to make people think that women are abandoning marriage:" Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

​

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom."And then they try to cover their tracks, sort of, but then lay it all out for us as plain as day:"In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable."Ah, yes, there it is.Now let me ask your personal opinion. What is the motivation for such an article?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I remember reading that in the coffee shop earlier this week and I surmised no such thing. I think my first thought was of divorcees (since I meet a lot of them) and then the rest.I think you are exhibiting signs of paranoia as suggested in an earlier post.

Because I can read English and comprehend the words, I immediately understood that the article was talking about women who were living without a husband with them. I didn't assume it meant only women who never married. If the article had meant to refer to who never married, it would have said women who never married.I think you will find that it's much easier to understand what people are actually saying if you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is fighting on the opposite side of the cultural wars that you think you are fighting.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Selling newspapers?Oh, I'm sorry. Was that not as interesting as your kooky liberal "culture war" conspiracy theories?

Oh, yes, its sheer terror. Heh. Its interesting how people of your ilk refer to those traditional values as archaic, but wouldn't the alternative be even more archaic in application? I suppose we could revert back to clubbing women over the head and dragging them in to our caves. But isn't that far more antiquated? Perhaps we could just let people copulate in the streets at their whim. Well, here's the reality: Marriage is a public display of a commitment. Marriage supersedes any religious pretenses, as marriage was around before religion itself. I try not to focus on the religiosity of it all, though I obviously would agree that the institution was set forth by the will of God. But that's neither here nor there for the moment. I think it is people such as yourself that tend to equate marriage as a religious institution. I would agree that in many ways, and probably most ways, it is, but more than that, it is simply a union of loyalty, for better or worse.The interesting thing about people who have the biggest problem with marriage are those who have been in a bad one or a series of them. But we can note that the man or woman who has been married and divorced five times seems to be the common denominator in the equation. So, either that person is really bad at picking mates or they are simply incorrigible to live with, which would place the emphasis on their own actions more highly than their spouse-- or in that case, the plurality of that.The fact is that people still, particularly young men and women, hold fast to that romanticized ideal of finding the love of their lives whom they opt to devote their lives to. Some people have made the argument that what marriage really boils down to is a piece of paper. But marriage doesn't merely boil down to piece of paper any less than a college education boils down to a diploma. While its true that employers just want the piece of paper to verify one's educational status, its the assurance that an accredited institution has trained that person. Its the same with marriage in that, while the paper itself is rather meaningless, the symbolism behind it is the assurance that these two people are making the public affirmation of their commitment before God and man. Whether one or both is going to live up to the contractual agreement is solely up to them.The interesting parallel of those young people who fear the institution of marriage are those living in somewhat of a broken home who only have their parents to model after. They grow weary with cynicism and assume that a good marriage is virtually impossible to have in any long term frame of mind. And even on television its far more apparent.I don't know the name of the show or which company is putting it out, but their is a pilot series coming out about three men. One man is married for a number of years and is visibly unhappy. The second, I believe, is an engaged man who "bought in" to the idea of marriage, but is fast growing disenchanted with the whole endeavor and startung to exhibit shaky nerves. The last man is played by David Spade who is the single man and who has no aspiration to marry. The projection is that Spade is the happiest of them all, as he has the freedom to traipse around at his whims to fulfill his sexual conquests.And this isn't the only show. We see the same tripe from Sex and the City as well as others. The implication is that it does affect the viewers overall perception of marriage and that of overall society as it attempts to tug the heart strings and dissuade people from thinking that marriage really means anything. And as we all know, marriage is the foundation of a family. If you attack the foundation, how can the familial unit survive? Then you tell me what the motivation for writing the article is. Wow, such profundity. Yes, I'm always trying to control people, as you've shared. Its just really hard not twist my moustache and hatch my diabolical schemes to control everyone, Subbie. Its just so much for me. I mean, afterall its all about doing what we want to do, unhindered, right? I'm the overbearing Jesus phreak who wants to control you, and all you want to do is just live out your dreams. Gosh, you know, thanks for setting me straight. As unassuming as that all sounds, the plausibility of creating a healthy society separate from definitive parameters, does not lend itself to reality. We all know that the activism concerning gay marriage is really about social justice, not so much the institution itself. For its opponents, the matter is about social cohesion and about what works and what doesn't work.I mean, lets think about this for a minute. Gay marriage advocates are the same people who look at marriage casually by and large. So, if marriage is really not that big of a deal, then neither is gay marriage, in which case, why are they getting themselves into a tizzy over it? The overwhelming trend seen by such activism is that people of traditional views must somehow attack against homosexuality and to coin it as the creation of unrelenting homophobia. However, in attacking traditional marriage it inexorably includes conveniently ignoring thousands of years of human history and decades of societal norms. What are the implications of this?So buck up, sport, it's not nearly as bad as you think it is.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

First, approving MARRIAGE (not simply civil unions) for gays, is not an attack on Christianity. Supporting MARRIAGE, full, equal and identical rights for homosexuals is a Christian Duty. Opposing such rights has nothing to do with Christianity and is simply bigotry. Good!First off, marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. Marriage is no more Christian than it is Jewish or Hindu or Wiccan. Marriage is a secular contract, nothing more.A secular marriage can be sanctified by your church, but you cannot get married without first getting the secular license. Your marriage cannot be dissolved without secular approval as well.Allowing homosexuals to get married changes nothing. If your cult decides not to recognize gay marriage, fine. It is your right within your cult to be bigots. That does not allow you to impose your narrow ideas of morality though on the rest of the world.If you think homosexuality is a sin, fine. Go right ahead believing that. But sins are between God and the sinner. The sins of folk other than yourself are none of your business.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I for one disagree with this statement. Let me assure you that I am one of those traditional marriage believers out there. I probably take my marriage more seriously than most christians I've known.The gay marriage advocates that I know that are also gay are some of the people I know that have been in monogamous relationships for years and years and years. In particular, I attended a ceremonial wedding of 2 men who had been together for 20 years. I can assure you that they don't want to have anything to do with your marriage. All they want is to be left alone by you and your "ilk". All they want is to be officially recognized for having been true to each other for 20 years.It may surprise you to know, but the states that currently have a ban on gay marriage and all other forms of civil union that remotely resemble marriage for gay people are also the states with the highest divorce rates. I will be more than happy to provide the data if you want.It may also surprise you to know that people like me don't take marriage very lightly. It is a life time commitment that we take more seriously than you will ever know. The two men who have been together for 20 years also understand this concept of lifetime commitment being true to each other. The only people who don't seem to understand this concept are you and your "ilk".

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

quote:

---

But that's actually a part of my argument, which I forgot to add to my thread. The title is called "51% of women now living without a spouse." The problem is in the wording and I wouldn't hesitate to say that its deliberate

---

It seems to me that the wording is quite accurate. And it's clearly explained in the article. I can't see any valid reason for your insinuations. I might as well accuse you of using the usual conservative smear-tactics.

quote:

---

My figures derive from the US Census whose only function is to keep statistical figures. They already did the math, I'm simply relaying those tabulated figures for everyone to see in a very clear manner that NYT's distorted and convoluted their own article.

---

The figures you used as a basis for calculation came from the US Census. However you did your own calculations as well - and you did not provide the definitions of the figures (which are required if you are use them to be effective. Does the "divorced women" figure only include women who have divorced and not remarried. It matters to your calculations but you never bothered to say?)

quote:

---

LOL! PaulK, lets think about this from a logic point of view.

---

OK let's. From a logic point of view does it make sense to say that divorced women - who do not have a spouse - are living with their spouse ? That's what you said. Does it even make sense to say that all married women - including those seperated and waiting for divorce are living with their spouse ? That's what you said.And now you laugh when I point out that you're wrong ? You don't even admit your error, nor try to do the calculation correctly ?

quote:

---

Who wants to read about women that aren't currently living with their spouse? Nobody.

---

So this is what you are getting upset about ? A boring article that nobody wants to read ?

quote:

---

The blatant assertion is that women are throwing off the archaic shackles of marriage in droves and abandoning traditional values in an attempt to forge a new way of life. Let me ask you something. Do you think its acceptable to add 15 year old girls in that? Do you think its acceptable to add widows, who have been married for 60 years until her husband died in that figure? Do you think its right to include military wives in that figure whose husbands are on deployment? The only one's who should be legitimately considered are single women and divorced women who have no aspirations to marry again.

---

If 15 year old girls are permitted to marry they certainly should be included. The US Census seems to think it made sense. You tried to justify your claims by alledgeing that the US Census did the math - when in fact not one of the things I criticised was directly due to the US Census. If it's even a potentially valid explanation for you then it is a valid explanation for the NYT.Should we include elderly widows ? If the NYT is pointing to an increase in the figure then it is certainly valid to do so - after all they would have been included in the older figures. And 60 year old widows can and do remarry.Should we include military wives ? If the issue is living without a spouse then it seems like a good idea - after all a spouse who is absent for long periods will affect the lifestyle. And again such families would have been included in the older figures.Even your quotes from the articls make it clear that they are talking about a "statisitical shift" - a change in the figures.

quote:

---

And then they try to cover their tracks, sort of, but then lay it all out for us as plain as day:

---

i.e. if you actually read the article the facts about the figures they use are clearly laid out. Which really pulls the rug from under any claim that it represents a serious attempt to mislead.

quote:

---

Now let me ask your personal opinion. What is the motivation for such an article?

---

As far as I can see the editors thought their readers might be interested. in the fact that women were increasingly living without a spouse - whether through not being currently married or through having a spouse absent from home for long periods (something that is probably less common now then it would have been even a few decades ago).What's more interesting is the motivation for your attacks which rest on playing with the figures which made no sense, trying to blame the US Census, laughing at corrections and not even attempting to do the correct calculations. The rest seems to be paranoid speculations about the motivations behind the article.

Not nearly as interesting as the fact that the only person to use the word "archaic" on this page before the instant post is you.Seriously, do you lack the ability to read and comprehend English? Have you missed too many ESL classes? Or are you utterly unable to read anything anyone else says except through the prism of your paranoia?Never once did I say traditional values are archaic. Never once did I say I have a problem with marriage. Never once did I say marriage is just a piece of paper. Never once did I say marriage is just a religious institution. I'm sure your post would be a fine reply to someone else's message, but it really has very little to do with what I said.The motivation for the article, eh? Well, looks to me like crash gave a very plausible one. Beyond that, I haven't really given it much thought. You see, I don't automatically assume that anyone who says something I disagree with has an evil motive. They did some research, beyond simply clicking a few buttons at the U.S. Census web site, and published their analysis of the research. According to the artible, the research included polling and interviewing. Now, if you insist on attacking their motives, I'm really gonna need more from you before I'm going to put any stock in what you say beyond, "Nuh-uh!"Honestly, by insisting on asking the question about their motive, all you are doing is proving my point. Someone doesn't believe the same things that you do, so they must be attacking you. You can put all the little rolling eye icons in your reply that you want, but your terror at losing your "cultural war" couldn't be more obvious if you were wearing a sandwich board. Because it is a big deal to them. The obviousness of that answer shows how little actual thought you've put into any of this.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

First of all, this thread has less to do with homosexual marriage than it does with the undermining of marriage itself. The idea is that if we can view marriage in simplistic terms and look upon it with flippant regard, it will open the doors to gay marriage-- something that is not a Christian duty.I notice that you charge others with cherry picking qualities in the Bible, but you are you doing the very same thing right here and now."God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator”who is forever praised. Amen.

​

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." -Romans 1:24-27"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -1^st Corinthians 6:9-10So, we see here that the Bible condemns all forms of sexual immorality, to include, but not exclusive to, homosexuality. Therefore, you can't say that it is the Christian duty to uphold the rights of homosexuals. The duty of a Christian is to extricate people from their sins because they care enough about them not to allow follow their desires down the primrose path. If anyone will not listen, then that is entirely up to them. Not as far as religious pretenses are concerned, I would agree. But it does have to do with God and His covenant, would you agree? Secular law defines marriage as being a man and a woman, not a man and man, a woman and a woman, a man and a dog, a woman and a goat, or a man and a tree. Take it up with secular legislature if you have a problem. In the event that marriage is undermined, that doesn't mean that God is going to honor that marriage. In which case, they will do whatever they will do, but the consequences will be for them to deal with. Giving an opinion constitutes imposition? Remember, the law is already in favor, all over the world, that marriage is legally defined as a man and a woman. I'm not pushing anything. You are imposing your views. But, whatever, you have that right afforded to you. The sin of a homosexual is no different, whatsoever, than any other sin. The only difference is that some people refuse to admit guilt in this arena which is the only thing that separates it from other sins that are obviously not condoned with impunity.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis