The future of marriage

Funnliy enough, that was not the first thing that popped into my head. I took "51% of women currently living without a spouse" to mean just that. I immediately (mostly subconsciously) took into account the divorce rate,a guesstimate of those who are separated (whether it be voluntary or forced) from their spouses, lesbians (although many may have answered that they were indeed living with their spouse), women who have not married yet, widows, and those who have chosen not to marry.I did not interpret it to mean that 51% of women have chosen not to marry and that we are now firmly planted in a new society moving towards the total abolition of marriage. The article alludes to possible shifts in the perception of marriage as "the main institution that organizes people’s lives," and to possible shifts in "social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits," but that only means that we may no longer be able to assume that someone is, ever was or should be married and that there may come a day when insurance companies finally let us cover those whom we wish to cover on our policies or that hospitals may have to recognize the wishes of a patient regarding disclosure and visitation, not that we are "heralding the dawn of a new age" of marriage becoming an obsolete institution like you suggest in your OP.You chose to interpret it that way because you, like many others, feel that the institution is under attack and that liberals and homosexuals are heading the vanguard supported by the vilely liberal NYTimes. At least, that is my suspicion. I don't see any spin in the statement "51% of women currently living without a spouse." It seems pretty straightforward to me. And the article under the headline supports my interpretation. However, the analysis (of US Census figures) and the article, unlike you, took into account not only divorcees, but also women living apart from their spouse whatever the reason and they even say so in plain English for all to see. However, that is exactly what the headline says. The news is not the headline. No, the assertion is that many women are currently unmarried or living without a spouse. Some women may have consciously chosen never to marry or to wait until they have a stable career and a life of their own before getting married, while others may have divorced or been widowed and decided that they do not need marriage to define them (and guess what, the article adresses this very issue!) and that may indeed be a trend. The article reports on these aspects and quotes sociologists regarding what this might suggest for society as a whole. Yes, since one can get married at 15 (albeit with parental consent) in many states and, more importantly, that is the bottom end of the age group used by the US Census. Yes, because they are not currently living with their spouse. Yes, because they are not currently living with their spouse and the article does mention them (twice, even!) That would be an interesting study, but since the US Census does not ask this question the NYTimes could not have accurately reported on that. Their analysis suggested more women are spending more of their lives outside of a marriage and discussed what that might mean for public policy and personal attitudes, not that most women won't eventually marry or marry again. Dude, how do you get "women abandoning marriage" from "Several factors are driving this statistical shift??" According to the US Census (not the NYTimes) married people for the first time became a minority. The NYTimes analysis employed sociologists to help understand why this might be. Yes, there it is. The honesty you say is lacking in the article.The numbers are there for all to see. The analysis just suggests a couple of reasons why we are seeing the trend we are seeing. To report on an analysis of Census figures. The motivation for the analysis is to figure out why unmarried couples became a majority for the first time. Pretty straightforward.

I'm going to leave the rest of your post alone for now. I just had one question. Could you please support this assertion?Could you also please show why someone who looks at marriage casually cannot aggressively defend someone else's right to be married?Not everyone lives in a black and white world NJ.

Correct, but an inept analysis.See, one woman and one man get divorced. Statistically, this one man will get married to a new woman quicker than the one woman will get married to a new man. Less time in between marriages lapses and consequently the man spends more time within a marriage than a woman. This also means that at the time of the Census it was more likely for a man to answer that he was living with his spouse (as a percentage of men). Seems to me that you have a comprehension problem. The article stated that since women live longer than men that there are more women who are not married than there are men.The article also discussed the higher percentage of men who are married, not a higher number of men. Do you not understand percentages and what they represent?

Good point, Chirop. She also could have made something up and he still wouldn't really know and it still would essentially have been "for no reason."I suspect that lying would happen alot if people who cannot otherwise articulate their reasons are forced to say something in order to get a divorce and that could, in turn, cause alot more pain to the person who is being falsely accused of whatever it is the other person had to make up.Although, not knowing does tend to drive one mad. Dwise - did you ever get resolution from her after the fact? Have you asked?

What word? Funnily? I could have said "Oddly" or "Strangely" (both of which are synonyms) but I wished to convey a humorous note to my disagreement. It may seem "gramatically incorrect" to you, but it is definitely a word and was used in a gramatically correct context. Unlike "conversate." I don't know who you know that uses "conversate," but I do not feel that it is on the same level...at least not yet. It appears only in the "Urban Dictionary," but that may very well be a sign of things to come. Languages change all the time. Yea, except that is not what I suggested would be the motivation for the study. You took your above biases away from this study. The quote you imparted to me told you what I thought of immediately without even reading the article.PS - have you ever read studies about how many people own cats? Dogs? Flat screen Tvs? More than one refigerator?How many people have more than 2.5 kids? How many people own or rent their homes? How many people are in debt over $10,000?Do you think I really care? Do you?You just impart some ulterior motive on the part of the NYTimes for their info and then shout "WHO CARES?" to give it more meaning.But, seriously, who really wants to know statistics?Besides you implied, erroneously, that the study only " compile[d] statistics on how many women just so happen to live away from their spouses?" when the study did everything but. The article even told the reader that the statistics showed only a small percentage of women answered based on the temporary absence of their spouses.Why are you misconstruing the intent of the article? That women who are choosing not to marry or re-marry or marrying later in life or spending more time between marriages, should they divorce. It is an "unmistakable trend" of women spending more of their lives outside of marriage...not that they are abandoning marriage... I wish you would actually quote whole sentences of mine, but...The "sacredness" of marriage is a construct of religion. 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.People have "married" off infants to middle aged men or to each other in order to cement or create bonds for politics.Of course, people (usually the common folk) have married for true love (including an ancestor of mine who abdicated his line for the throne and married a "common" girl only to become destitute after his ship met an iceberg). However, marriage has usually been a brokerage between two fathers (ie "I'll give you my daughter with a dowry of two goats and twelve bolts of silk and her sons will be heirs to something or another). That is the "traditional" definition of marriage." Would you like to go back to that? Actually, none of us or even the NYTimes have said or implied that the analysis of US Census data said "No, its just conducting a survey about how women just so happen to not live in the domicile as their spouse."In fact the article and all of the respondents have made it clear that this is not what the article or the data was about.The fact that a small number of women replied that they were living apart from their legal spouse was made quite clear in the article. The sitcoms of the 50's showed perfect families living mostly perfect lives. My grandmother tells me that she cried every night because her family was not the way it was "supposed to be." They fought. They had kids who didn't just say "OK you're right, Dad" just because it was portrayed on TV as "Father Knows Best." No matter how hard they tried to be picture perfect (even with GOD!!!) they couldn't get it right.Sitcoms of the 80's also showed families with problems solved within a 30 minute time limit. So did the 90's sitcoms. The ones who actually showed problems evolving beyond the format were cancelled (maybe because they were real??).So, we've moved from preachy sitcoms which show what we cannot do to realitty shows which show which we wish we could do but cannot.It is still the same. People living out the lives we wish we lived. Of course there is a curiousity as to "why that is?"This stems from that fact that most women have not lived independently throughout history.WHY??? Why are women living their own lives?? Why are women "deciding" that they can have a career or have kids and a career, or marry a man and still be independent??? Why is this having an affect on marriage stats?I mean, what kind of horseshit is this??PS - NJ...The focus on "women in general" was because they took the stats from the Census. And the "addition" of unemancipated minors was due to the fact that the US Census lumps 15-24 year olds in one group (and 15 year olds can legally marry in many states with parental consent). Yes, but the research was done on the US Census which counts 15-24 year olds in the same group.It was not done arbitrarily. I will not argue with the fact that the women interviewed portrayed themselves as happy and unconstrained, but if the NYTimes quoted some women as "miserable" or "my life is not complete without a man" or "I wish mariage was more secure" or "I wish those damn homosexuals weren't trying to define their marriage the same as I am or else I would marry that guy who proposed to me," would you be more satisfied (I even gave you 4 options!!!)?There are two sides to every story. Maybe the NYT could have covered the "other side," but this piece was not about them. It was about the growing number of women who are opting out of marriage or divorcing more often or choosing not to remarry. The "unmistakable trend" is there. The article only addressed it.

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. 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. 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. 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: "Civil," meaning: 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. 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. 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. 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

As it concerns the 14th Amendment, neither animals nor children have full citizen status. Animals as non-citizens is a no-brainer, but children (considered citizens in certain respects) are routinely denied protection against unreasonable searches (and I'm not talking diary snooping by the parents, I'm talking locker searches in school and the like), against assault (in the name of discipline), they are not allowed to vote, they are not allowed to sign a contract, they cannot work before a certain age or after that age for over a certain amount of hours, they have government imposed curfews, etc. Most pertinently, they cannot get married before a certain age. Now, if you would like to change all of that, go ahead and join the Youth Liberation Movement.Barring your desire to lift children up to full legal status, please recognize that NO ONE is allowed to marry children (age varies by state), including other children. Therefore, no one is being denied equal protection under the law (unless, again, you want to argue that kids are being denied their rights). There isn't a particular group that can marry kids while others cannot "enjoy" that right.They cannot legally consent and their parents cannot consent for them before a certain age (I believe 14 is the lowest it goes, possibly 15).Again, bestiality...not even a question. They cannot give consent in any way, shape or form (well...maybe we could consult horse whisperers on this and clear some stuff up...j/k),Again, no one group is allowed to marry goats and another denied the "right."Oh one more thing (and not for the faint of heart). Pedophiles do have an avenue for providing financial and civil protections for their "lovers" (I will join NJ in a *shudder* for this). It's called adoption. Unless, of course, they're gay.Side note - polygamous marriages should be protected in the same ways as homosexual marriages as long as all parties are consenting adults (I stress the "consenting" and the "adults" in light of the Hildale, AZ/Colorado City,UT/Warren Jeffs/FLDS controversies...adolescent girls forced/coerced/brainwashed into marrying their 60 year old fathers/uncles/cousins does not a consensual marriage make).

Well, to be blunt, my fingers fit "nicely" inside a woman, my body conforms beautifully to hers (usually...some women are much taller or much shorter or much larger than myself). The penis also fits "nicely," albeit a little more snugly, in an anus (a man's or a woman's). Tongues are good tools for sex, too. Toys are also fun, but I won't push your definition of "natural" too far.Besides, here's multiple dictionary definitions of "sexual intercourse": Most of the heterosexual references refer an orgasm as a requirement. Impotence in men would preclude an orgasm...but impotence in women would mean the exact same thing.Just because women cannot get an erection does not mean that their bodies and genitals do not respond to sexual stimuli or that they don't have a physical (or psychological...many men have psychological reasons for impotence) "reason" for not having an orgasm (barring lack of skill or care or patience on their partner's part).Male impotence is only more well known because of the obvious physical signs (or lack thereof) and the fact that women can fake it so easily and the other fact that it was/is called frigidity and isn't studied all that much (do you see a drug like Viagra to help women orgasm?)

Yes, because I know that ALL blood is tested for antibodies to HIV. I would accept blood from a sexually active gay man just as readily as I would accept blood from a black person or from somebody who got a tattoo within the past year or from ANYBODY! The blood is tested. All the blood is tested. The tests nowadays detect HIV much earlier than they used to. A married woman could donate blood not knowing that her husband cheated on her and could unknowingly have HIV. That is why all the blood is tested. Must we rehash another thread?

Do you deny the fact that more African Americans are at risk for and get Type 2 Diebetes? Is this equal? They also have a pretty high risk for HIV (see my last post for link), too.Do you deny the fact that women are more at risk for HIV simply because friction against their vaginas during heterosexual sex causes small tears that provide infected sperm a direct route into the bloodstream and/or a natural causeway into their bodies provided by the cervix? How is this equal?What does this have to do with marriage, BTW?

MLK also didn't specifically mention all the little "yellow" and "brown" and "red" babies, either. He only specifically mentioned the black babies and the white babies. Should we now disregard all of those other "races" just because MLK wasn't speaking in particular about them? Should we disregard his message about equality just because he didn't focus on the struggles beyond (at least in his public persona...I do not presume to speak for his heart) the ones facing black people in mid 20th century America?My marriage has nothing to do with your marriage. The tradition of marriage has changed soooo very much and still varies throughout different cultures. The only underlying theme you can find in any culture is that it is usually performed between a man and a woman (consenting or not), but you don't seem to see the other cultural and historical traditions surrounding it. They don't count.If a couple marries for purely political reasons (royalty or political gain) or for purely economic reasons (inheritance or dowry) does that destroy your view of marriage?If you truly feel that marriage is about love (and not necessarily about procreation, too, because you would have to leave out infertile couples or "senior" marriages...are you prepared to do that on your quest to "save" marriage?), then why limit it?P.S. Are you black? Do you know what is an "insult" to black people? If you are black, could you possibly speak for all black people and their views on homosexual marriage as it pertains to the 14th Amendment, the civil rights movement or in general?Please get back to me once you get off of your high horse of presuming to speak for one great man and his entire "people."