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

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

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 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

Good on ya. That's commendable. I leave them alone. Is it me who is imposing my beliefs on them, or is it them imposing their beliefs on me? Try to remember that its not I who defined marriage. This was established long before your great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. Therefore, the imposition is all on their side of the table. So who isn't leaving who alone?Am I not afforded the right to speak for my beliefs? Is this not the age tolerance where we all can believe as we see fit? If homosexuals want to be together, that's on them. You won't see me flouting and jeering as they walk hand in hand down the street. If they want to establish their own kind of legal union, take it up with the courts. But please don't redefine marriage to suit an agenda. Wow, there must be connection. And I commend you on that rarity. Then let them be together until they die. Do you see me pushing for legislature to ban homosexuality? No. Just don't encroach on marriage and impose your views on the rest of the world, that decided a long time ago, that homosexuality is an aberration. See, the problem with opening the door this, it opens the door to all sorts of other redefining. You might say, "oh, that's sill." But, it was absurd to think that members of the opposite sex had unnatural unions just a few years ago. I don't think you can erase thousands of years of people being weirded out by homosexuality. And while there are certain places in certain times that condoned homosexuality, there has never been an acceptance that lasts more than a few generations. Don't you think there is a legitimate reason for that? I mean, this aversion extends past cultures, past religions, past borders, and countries throughout time. For face value, could you understand why its viewed as being highly irregular by most civilizations?

---

"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

Let me ask even more bluntly then. Is the article geared towards a shift in views on marriage? IOW, is the NYT attempting to show how traditional views on marriage is growing obsolete, or do you think that its just telling you how many women don't live with their spouse?Lets look at is again:

quote:

---

" 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... “For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ”Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

---

And then there is this:"Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce."Hmmmm? But who are they marrying? Women! Marriage doesn't take place in a vacuum. And since the average is that the human population is comprised of 52% women and 48% men, that means there couldn't possibly be more married men than there are married. That means this study is completely fallacious, otherwise, the number of unmarried men would outnumber the amount of unmarried women."The entire story (based on the work of one ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful, blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it...

​

According to the most recent available figures (from 2005), a clear majority (56%) of all women over the age of 20 are currently married. Moreover, nearly all women in this country will get married at one time or another. Among those above the age of 50 (a group that includes the celebrated Baby Boomers of the famously revolutionary ”60’s generation), an astonishing 94% have been married at one time or another and some 79% are either currently married or widowed.

​

Even including the younger, supposedly “post-marriage” generation, and considering all women above the age of 30, some 61% are currently married and another 12% are widowed. In other words, nearly three-fourths (73%, a crushing majority) of all women who have reached the tender age of 30 now occupy a traditional female role as either current wives or widows - avoiding the supposedly trendy status of divorced, separated, co-habiting or single.

​

How, then, could America’s “Journal of Record,” the New York Times, possibly peddle the ridiculously distorted story that most females now count as unattached?

​

Reporter Sam Roberts begins his tendentious account with the following declarations: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results. In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.”

​

This conclusion provided a shocking front-page headline (“51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse”) that gave rise to considerable cluck-clucking and tut-tting throughout the media echo-chamber.

​

So how could reporter Roberts read the same Census figures that any American can view (“according to a New York Times analysis”) and come up with such bizarre conclusions?

​

It’s all based on a fundamentally dishonest decision that Roberts never acknowledges in the entire course of his lengthy article. It turns out that in his analysis he chose to count some 10,154,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 as “women.” It should come as no surprise that this vast group of teenagers (yes, teenagers, most of whom live at home) are officially classified as “single.” In fact, 97% of the 15 to 19 year olds identify themselves as “never married.” The Census Bureau, by the way, doesn’t call these youngsters “women” - it labels them “females” (a far more appropriate designation).

​

Yet even the ridiculous inclusion of his ten million unmarried teenagers couldn’t give Sam Roberts the story he wanted to report - that most American “women” are now unmarried. As a matter of fact, the Census Bureau shows that among all females above 15 the majority (51%!) are still classified as “married.”

​

So the New York Times required yet another sneaky distortion to shave off that last 2% from the married majority, though this bit of statistical sleight-of-hand Sam Roberts had the decency to acknowledge. “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,” he writes. In other words, in his brave new majority of “women” without spouses, he includes all those thousands upon thousands of wives and mothers who are waiting and praying at home for the return of their husbands from Iraq or Afghanistan. By arbitrarily removing this 2% of all females (2,400,000 individuals) who are classified as “married/spouse absent” from the ranks of the married, and then designating as “unmarried” his millions of middle school and high school girls who are living with their parents, together with some 9 million elderly widows who have devoted much of their lives to marriage and husbands (42% of all women over 65 are widows), Roberts can finally arrive at his desired but meaningless conclusion that “most women” now “are living without a husbands.” Eureka!

​

If anyone doubts that this laughable analysis stems from a heavy-handed anti-marriage agenda, consider these quotes that Roberts features in his story, after declaring that today’s women are “sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom” -Michael Medved

---

"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

Sin has everything to do with perceived rights. Everything. And all folk are entitled to that opinion. But it doesn't make it so. If I'm wrong, God will make me eat my words. Since He has made it crystal clear in His word and in nature, I feel confident in my assessment. What? EVERYONE tries to live the best they can, Jar. Everyone. So where does Christianity come in? Here is the problem with doing the best you can. The best we can do is conveniently subject to amendment at the behest of the person being their own moral guide. If you make your morals so low or that you will cleverly find ways to manipulate your own morality so that you are never actually in breech with it, where then does consequence come in?Therefore, there are only two options. One offered by Yoda, and the other offered by Jesus."Do, or do not. There is no try."That's the Letter of the Law. God says, you will keep these commands or you will be subject to the providential nature of God. However, no one's best is good enough. In which case, we turn to Jesus in the Spirit of the Law, because the Letter of the Law will crush us. We either fall upon the Rock and our "self" is broken and allow for His mending, or the Rock will fall on us and crush us. If it were only our lives we were concerned with, there would be no philanthropy, there would be no outreach, there would be no ministering, there would be no helping hands. And Jesus wouldn't have given us the Great Commission. I didn't restrict it or define it. The whole of a society has spoken on it. Its not a NEW law Jar. YOU are proposing to make a new law. But if you think otherwise, then your jurisprudence on the matter is being requested. The point is, Jar, that if you open the doors to this, it opens the door to other aberrations. Therefore, my making mention of it makes more than applicable, especially when proponents of NAMbLA and whatnot, are seeking to consolidate their penchants with ALL non-discrimination.In fact, David Thorstad, founder of NAMbLA is quoted as saying that "boy-love" is simply a complimentary facet of the overall homosexual conglomerate."Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships. The Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a group which splintered from the Gay Liberation Front in December of 1969, opposed age-of-consent laws and hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. In 1972 Chicago's Gay Activists Alliance and New York's Gay Activists Alliance jointly sponsored a conference that brought together gay rights activists from eighty-five different gay rights organizations and eighteen states. At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform" which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE)...

​

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus - Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

​

Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics," opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process. Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events. International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) illustrates this opposition. In 1993, ILGA, of which NAMBLA had been a member for a decade, achieved United Nations consultative status." -WIKIThat means that the majority of the fledgling homosexual movement was in full support of Thorstad and his convoluted ideals. It was only when a little pressure was applied that a pedophile movements were ostracized by the majority of homosexual movements.Having said that, don't misunderstand to mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Indeed, there are gay and straight pedophiles in all walks of life. I only mention it because there was a time that the upper echelon of the homosexual movement sought to consolidate with NAMbLA, and secondly, that if homosexuality has been so successful in only 30 years, how much more could we expect from the same type of lobbying coming from pedophile movements?After all, its the usual guise, under the banner of "love." And who can argue against love? 'We just want to "love" the kids.' Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, your jurisprudence to back up the assertion that marriage isn't defined as a man and a woman is welcome. You're even at odds with the dictionary. If sins weren't the business of other people, law enforcement would go out of business. And if sins were no one else's business, then maybe members of left wouldn't dance every time a priest or minister backslides. You know, its not like I'm uncompassionate to the sinner. The only problem I have is people that constantly make excuses for their sins and refuse to admit them.Lastly, every thing is connected in one way or another. And what you do may indirectly effect me, but it will directly effect society which directly effects us all. The same goes for all people.

---

"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 word irritates me. It sounds grammatically incorrect to me. Kind of like "conversate" when one could just say, "converse." Any way, enough about that. Right, this would be a reasonable assumption. I mean, honestly, who would want to compile statistics on how many women just so happen to live away from their spouses? No one would be interested in that. The implicit nature is that divorce, separation, or that women in general are no longer interested in marriage. The body of the article makes it clear that his premise leans towards what he calls, "an unmistakable larger trend." He even says that women living away from their spouses, due to incarceration or the military, or whatever, is an extremely low figure. So what more could you deduce? No, not the "abolition" of marriage, either the abandoning of it or the degradation of the sacredness of it. Big difference, IMO. And that's what I've been saying, while everyone else is saying, "No, its just conducting a survey about how women just so happen to not live in the domicile as their spouse." Your are correct in your assertion. Though I don't think I "chose" to believe it that way. That's the way it is portrayed in the article, as well as mainstream society as we are polarizing our views on marriage in general with all of its no-fault divorces, constant clauses and loop holes, the general fascination of adultery that pervades television, the expressed hope of homosexual parity, etc, etc. I don't think I'm taking a leap of faith here. Its more than evident. The problem, I believe, is that we've just grown desensitized to such things, and it all seems so routine. But peoples core beliefs can't be changed overnight. It takes years of erosion to come where we are. I mean, look at the difference from the sitcoms of the 80's from those of the 90's and today. There is an ever-growing fascination from watching people's whose love life is in constant turmoil. What is so fascinating about that? Why does that tend to imbue the average American now or days? I think the choosing of the title was thought out very carefully by the author for this very reason. The way he arrived at his numbers is very manipulative. And he knows that everyone is going to assume that it is speaking about that "larger trend." I mean, it would be silly to conduct a survey on how many women live away from their spouses without arising the curiosity of why that is. And also, why not conduct a story on how many "spouses" live away from one another if it was about that? Why the focus on women in general? And why "add" unemancipated minors, who can't legally marry, in that equation if it was not for the reasons I've mentioned? Think about it for a moment. Its a thinly veined disguise. There is something much larger at the heart of the motivation for the article. Then you can't include "girls" as women. In most states, the legal age of marrying is 18, but there are some that allow it at 16, which should be considered in order to make an accurate accounting. Every women quoted in the survey was geared, specifically, as having been married and grew disenchanted with the whole thing. And that is their right never to marry again or to speak about how that particular marriage was a bad one. However, that only makes the point that this is what the article was hoped to uncover-- a growing trend that marriage is being viewed in less and less important terms. That seems quite obvious to me. Apparently I'm not alone in this assessment."If anyone doubts that this laughable analysis stems from a heavy-handed anti-marriage agenda, consider these quotes that Roberts features in his story, after declaring that today’s women are “sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom”: “Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single . ”Considering all the weddings I attended in the ”80’s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,’ Ms. Jamison said. ”I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.’ .

​

“Similarly, Shelly Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

​

“’The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,’ Ms. Fidler said, ”the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.’ .

​

“Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

​

“’A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,’ she recalled. ”I told him, ”I’m just beginning to fly again. I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’

​

“’Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,’ Ms. Terris said. ”There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.’”
Ah, the indescribable joys of slumbering on either side of an empty big, bed! Such profound pleasures and blissful rewards obviously make up for fleeting inconvenience of growing old alone.

​

By featuring profile after profile of his joyously unattached females, Sam Roberts doesn’t just report on the purportedly husband-free majority; he celebrates it.

​

He did the same thing with a similarly misleading and propagandistic article on October 15, 2006, which appeared under the headline: “It’s Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered.”

​

This “report” began with the claim: “Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by the New York Times.”

​

As with his “disappearing husbands” scoop of three months later, Roberts relied on twisting and squeezing numbers to reach his “marriage is dead” conclusion.

​

Among the “unmarried” households he featured as part of his “new majority,” more than half involved individuals living alone”many of them widows, by the way. In any event, far more people lived within “married households” than outside of such arrangements - despite his insipid and wretchedly misleading claim that “married couples” have “slipped to a minority.” -Michael Medved

---

"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

Oh, no, please don't misunderstand me. I know that "funnily" is a word. Its just a word that irritates, kind of like being using "conversate" when they could use "converse." And for whatever reason, I've met a few Oregonians that are particular to using "conversate" and it grates my nerves. I disagree, as I feel there is an intentional tone throughout the article that can best be summarized by the choice of quotes the articles compiled. No I haven't, but I don't doubt that such statistics have been compiled. This I've heard of in the interest of their sociological and economical implications, just as the article in question makes inferences from the sociology of it. 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. 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? 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. Then what's the purpose of marrying at all? I would like to hear your opinion on the matter. 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. Yes, I'm aware of that. The Hindu culture still does this by and large. Then you tell me the purpose of the study. I'm sorry to hear that about your grandmother. Would you say that sitcoms model after real life, or does real life model after sitcoms? I would agree that certain sitcoms and movies are trying to sell a lifestyle. But does society reflect the sitcom or does the sitcom reflect the society? Why do you think that is? What constitutes, "living their own lives?" What is the opposite of that? Marriage? I think you've just solidified my argument in this one sentence. What you just said is exactly the reason why the article and the inflated statistics is geared towards. But I'm curious to know what independence from marriage means for a woman? What does it mean for a man? What are some of the answers. Why women and not men, when you can't have one without the other? Don't you find that exclusion rather odd? The NYTimes chose the quotes that would best illustrate the purpose of their study. I doubt it was by accident that they chose those quotes. It would not surprise me if it was done by design.

---

"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

THIS, for all my detractors to see, is what the NYTimes article was geared towards. The argument Omni just made is exactly the motivation for the article.Have I not been saying this from the beginning, only to be flamed? So why is it that I'm flamed for saying the exact same thing you have said?

---

"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 agree with your rationale. If we were to make such broad interpretations of the 14^th Amendment, we might just as well suppose that beastiality or pedophilia is just as protected by the same premise. In fact, a broad rendering could interpret just about anything.Since homosexuality was considered an aberration in the days of the Founding Fathers, there should be no ambiguity that it never intended to include the specious plea made by proponents of gay marriage. However, this is purely circumstancial because we have no real way of knowing the hearts and minds of the Founding Fathers. All we have to go by is popular opinion of the day. Secondly, the Amendments mean just what they say, as the word "amend" means, "to change." So all Amendments are quite literally subject to change-- something the Founding Fathers had the insight to institute. the reason why is because they understood that there will always be unforseen circumstances in the future that may not be applicable to them in their time, however, it leaves it open for the future citizens to identify and change at the behest of its constituents.In order to get to the bottom of it, we have to look at the 14^th Amendment itself to see what exactly it is referring to. We'll go over it by section:"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Right in the opening line we see that this Amendment is only subject to US citizens and that it is to be under the provision and indemnity of the specific state that citizen resides. However, the Federal Government will not allow any State to sovereignly deprive citizens of their basic rights.In a nutshell, this is saying that the Government will never abridge the right to due process, which EVERYONE, gay or straight, is entitled to already. So far it isn't matching up that the government must somehow recognize gay marriage.Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.Section 2 describes how Representatives of each state will be appointed to the State's citizens on their behalf and to be a vehicle or voice for those constituents, however, it excludes Indians that live apart from the United States government on their own land, such as reservations. It then goes on to speak about the abridging of people's rights to vote for a representative of their choice, unless they are in the acts of sedition or rebellion, where their rights as a citizen can be unrecognized, or in the case of criminality.Nothing about marriage or homosexuality.Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."Again, this is saying that people in the action of sedition and insurrection, that previously swore to uphold the Constitution, may no longer partake of its ways. It says nothing at all about marriage or homosexuality, nor does it even remotely imply it.Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."Again, this is "legaleese" about the rights of people and how insurrection against the United States will nullify any legal indemnity of the US itself. Nothing about marriage or homosexuality.Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Congress will approve how to legislate and enforce laws passed spoken herein the article above.So, we see that nowhere is the protection of homosexual marriage or any marriage, for that matter, discussed in the provisions of this article. At best, citing this as a source for gay marriage is specious, and at its worse, its a complete manipulation of the text and its meanings.Therefore, if people want gay marriage to be passed and protected under law, they are going to have to request that an "amendment" be made, because as of yet, there is no legal recognition or recourse for homosexual marriage on the law books.

---

"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

The commonality of a thing isn't the determining factor in the legality of something. Nonetheless, I take this admission of beastiality being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? The argument that pedophiles themselves give is that the child enjoys it just as much as they do. They'll say, "So who are you to suppress the right of a child-- another human being?" Of course, as we all know-- hopefully-- is that children are very impressionable and don't know what the hell they actually want or need, which is why they need supervision. And we all know that pedophiles like to manipulate children just so they can fondle them. Certainly. And they are protected under that status by the 14^th Amendment. You disagreed with my interpretation of this article? What did I miss? This Amendment protects everyone, equally, unless in the action of sedition.

quote:

---

In a nutshell, this is saying that the Government will never abridge the right to due process, which EVERYONE, gay or straight, is entitled to already.

---

Right, and there is no recognizable right for homosexual's to marry, or for pedophiles to fondle children, or for people to molest sheep. And even if and when they do commit a crime, they are afforded the right to defense in order to prove or disprove guilt of the alleged crime. I'm not the one broadly interpreting the law to mean something that it never cased. So, I said to Hoot Mon, that if we are going to interpret equal protection under the law by such a broad definition, then that would have to extend to virtually anything, including pedophilia and beastiality, or molesting a corpse, or whatever bizarre "right" some people are convinced they have under the Fourteenth Am.

---

"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 was pretty sure that my all caps, "EVERYONE" was going to speak the loudest. Everyone does have the equal protection of laws. And if that freedom is abridged, the people perpetrating the crime should fear legal recourse. Even the nastiest, most squalid human being on the planet has the right to a defense. Then by this rationale it is equally egregious for you not allow children to be married. Homosexual adults cannot marry per the law. But pedophiles not only can't marry their children lover (shudders), but they can't even be near the one they love. So why is this not viewed even more negatively by you under your broad interpretation of the 14th? Homosexuals can do anything else they want by the law as every other citizen. They can all the sex they want with as many partners as they want, they can be together in public if they want, they can buy permits to march on the streets to protest the fact that they are not legally recognized under the 14th Amendment, etc. Its not a crime to be a homosexual. But there is no legal recognition for their union. The 14th protects them against undue harassment for being gay. It protects their right to prance around in drag if that so fancies them. What it doesn't protect, is marriage.

quote:

---

Therefore, if people want gay marriage to be passed and protected under law, they are going to have to request that an "amendment" be made, because as of yet, there is no legal recognition or recourse for homosexual marriage on the law books.

---

No, there isn't. There is no legal recourse for homosexual marriage. Lobbyists are, however, seeking to "amend" that. So, we'll just see what we see in the future.

---

"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

Didn't I specifically mention that the intentions of the Founding Fathers is subject to conjecture other than what they actually wrote? Yes, yes I did. Yeah, I usually laugh so hard over it that my face hurts. Only after you point out the excerpt that reads, "except pedophiles." Hint: You won't find either because the Amendment isn't about marriage or the rights of married people. Its about the civil rights of people-- something already protected for hetero and homosexuals. And to think they don't offer that same kind of protection to necrophiliacs. What kind of crazy world do we live in? Lets try this again. Homosexuals have the same rights as you. They aren't segregated, they can drink from the same water fountain, eat next to a straight person, apply for the same jobs any one else can, have the right to due process, be protected by the law, etc... The 14^th Amendment was finally used appropriately and the US finally meant equality, not just separate but equal.

---

"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

What I said was a commentary on the prevailing wisdom of the day, not the Founding Father's themselves. But if you think that people in that time were cool with homosexuality, I think you are obligated to substantiate your claim.I then said that we simply have to look at the Amendment itself in order to extrapolate what we can from it. Yeah, you got me pegged. Only if the bigamy charge is repealed in the case of Reynolds v. United States. I mean, pederasts and pedophiles argue the same topics as homosexuals do.

• Anti-pedophilia is discrimination against pedophiles
• I was born this way and, therefore, I can't change my innate behavior.
• Psychologists that say I'm a sexual deviant are biased by mainstream society, therefore, their testimony should be stricken.
• Children have the right of autonomy just as any adult.
• If it feels good, do it.

That's all peaches and cream and daisies swaying in the wind. Then would you inexorably be faced with permitting pederasty by the same token? See, we have a problem here about what constitutes a "right." If we are to broadly interpret the 14^th we can literally call anything a basic right. And as of now, it is up to the Supreme Court, (and I'm sure it will eventually make it there), to decide at this point. And with the way things are going, homosexuals will likely be married in the near future in the United States. And what will precipitate such a landmark decision will be pedophiles who lobby in the exact same way. And just as homosexuality to really be recognized by the populace took about 20-30 years, pedophilia will be next. I predict that it will only take 15 years for everyone, maybe even including you, to fully accept it and assimilate their "lifestyle" in to your heart and mind.So, what then constitutes a basic human right? How broadly are we to interpret the Amendments? When does it end? Where does it begin? How can we distinguish between what is our unalienable rights and what is not? Who said anything about it being the same thing? I could come up with the most ridiculous arguments in defense of necrophilia to make it appear as if it is an unalienable right of all humans to copulate with a corpse. My point is that I can manipulate the Fourteenth to mean whatever I want it to. I'm giving you examples: Necrophilia, bigamy, pederasty, pedophilia, etc. It places you in an indefensible position of denying one right while accepting another. Here's the slick-haired sycophant of an attorney defending necrophilia."Ladies and gentleman of the court. Necrophiles have been unduly characterized as these squalid people with reprobate minds. And you will hear today the Prosecution making claims that, 'when the dead rise again and speak up about their personal rights, then we'll allow necrophilia.' Well, what the prosecution doesn't know is that when we die, we have no rights. Furthermore, my defendant, this morgue attendant to my left, just so happened to find this women beautiful in life. Is he not, then, allowed to be physically attracted to her only a few hours after her death? Is our entire world view supposed to change the nanosecond someone dies? No, ladies and gentlemen, no. And lets not forget the fact that since she died, her body is just a shell-- but a beautiful shell nonetheless. And did you know that until only a few years ago, necrophilia was not a criminal act?!?! In fact, some states don't even have it on the books. California was the first to pass this law. Its true. So, why, after all this time has passed is it only now a crime to be attracted to a corpse? Somebody please tell me that." You don't give that right to all people. You don't give that right to pre-pubescents. Shouldn't that naturally apply as well?As well, pro-gay marriage supporters assert that marriage doesn't equal love. They allege that marriage is just a civil union for legal matters. If that's the case, then a form of marriage, like a Civil Union, should suffice, right? Perhaps marriage really isn't the issue. Perhaps the underlying issue is subverting the status quo.

---

"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