Almost Half of U.S. Births Happen Outside Marriage, Signaling Cultural Shift

Isn't that pretty presumptuous and arrogant of you to think that you and you alone are the one to say what a "real marriage" is?

 

It's a good start to have the child IN the nuclear family WITH the father present. Why do you object to that and try to demean it?

 

Okay, I'll play along....

First, my comment was about you not accepting Trump being inserted into what you thought was an unrelated thread. The irony cannot possibly be lost on you, can it?

But really, I don't think that Trump's family life (not his politics) is not so far out in left field. He has children from three marriages. His first wife accused him of rape. The second marriage began in an affair during the first marriage. So while, sure, he had his children within the confines of marriage, I don't think he's a poster boy for 'how things should work'.

 

Adult responsibility, societal pressures to end the fawning over women who choose to have children out of wedlock and how brave they are and how we admire them Societal acceptance of men who father children out of wedlock as some great accomplishment and then abandon them. Stricter enforcement of support laws. More support and encouragement for women to seek fathers for their children if the sperm donor runs out and for men to marry women with children and step up to the plate for those children.

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms

"....
There are three reasons to be concerned about this dramatic shift in family life.

First, marriage is a commitment that cohabitation is not. Taking a vow before friends and family to support another person “until death do us part” signals a mutual sense of shared responsibility that cannot be lightly dismissed. Cohabitation is more fragile — cohabiting parents split up before their fifth anniversary at about twice the rate of married parents.  Often, this is because the father moves on, leaving the mother not just with less support but with fewer marriage prospects. For her, marriage requires finding a partner willing to take responsibility for someone else’s kids.

Second, a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.

Third, marriage brings economic benefits. It usually means two breadwinners, or one breadwinner and a full-time, stay-at-home parent with no significant child-care expenses. Unlike Murphy Brown — who always had the able Eldin by her side — most women do not have the flexibility afforded a presumably highly paid broadcast journalist. And it’s not just a cliche that two can live more cheaply than one; a single set of bills for rent, utilities and other household expenses makes a difference. Though not necessarily better off than a cohabiting couple, a married family is much better off than its single-parent counterpart.


I’ve been studying single mothers since long before “Murphy Brown” was on the air. In a study I co-authored with Adam Thomas, I put them into hypothetical households with demographically similar unmarried men who, in principle, would be good marriage partners. Through this virtual matchmaking, we showed that child poverty rates would fall by as much as 20 percent in an America with more two-parent households.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin.../gJQAsNCJqU_story.html?utm_term=.6b5abed27cc3

 

I've never claimed he was.....the fact remains neither he nor his wives had children out of wedlock and he remained HIGHLY involved in their lives.........now focus on the topic at hand and stop trying to divert and deflect to Trump.

 

Yeah two more

4. Don't abuse alcohol and drugs
5. Do not engage in criminal activity

 

Parents could stop (subtly, sometimes they don't even recognize it) encouraging their sons and daughters to interact closely with members of the opposite sex early in adolescence for starters.

 

That does not require a marriage certificate. How can you not see that?

 

No. Just honest. LOL

 

I am 53, my generation was known as the "Me" generation. We were awful.
We started the great moral decline in America.
Bankruptcy rates through the sky, divorce rates doubling, negative savings.... we wanted it all and we wanted it yesterday.
And we raised our kids even worse. Millennial kids are our kids. We ****ed them up. We bought them every toy they wanted and then some they didn't, they had their own rooms, their own TV's, DVD Players, Video Game consoles.... we were our kids entertainment committee. We taught them to think of themselves first, we taught them to be entitled little brats.
And now they are the ones with kids. Having no social skills, no inclination on the idea of personal sacrifice for the betterment of someone else - it isn't even on their radar. But we did it to them.
All we can hope is they do a better job than we did.... but it is looking VERY unlikely.

 

So, is that divorce or single mothers? They aren't synonyms. I responded to one who brought in "divorce" stats. The more logical assumption is to stick to the "single mother" stats.

But yet, those "old fashion norms", still give the best environment to bring up kids to be a successful member of society. I agree that the parents don't need to be married in the sense that the government recognizes the marriage, just like it wasn't needed for gays to be "married".

This is a very wide generalization. It does amaze me when these stats are comprised that they aren't followed up with the stats about how most delinquents of society are raised in the single mother homes. The stats that show over 70% of high school drop outs come from single mother homes.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/how-single-motherhood-hurts-kids/

 

In a perfect world, you are correct.

Okay, so now I understand. You can have a crappy marriage, and it doesn't have to last very long, as long as you are married when the child is born.

As for bringing up Trump, I'd just like to throw out the word irony one more time. Or maybe the right word is hypocritical. Oh heck - they both work!

 

This started way before Trump.

 

What's wrong with trying to make it as perfect as possible especially when children are involved?

 

Yep, I'm from the same generation. And you forgot the part about being the child's best friend. That and turning ourselves into a chauffeur service.

 

Welllllll...a perfect world means perfect people and parents. And I don't know any of them...do you?

 

But it is the best way to insure that, why do you object to being married before you have children and staying married once you do? Why do you have such a need to demean and denigrate it?

 

Yes, .2% of the people who followed the 3 basic steps fell on hard times, does that negate the other 99.8%? Nothing is sure fire way, but it makes it easier doing just those 3 things.

 

I don't object to getting a piece of paper. No problem at all with that and I would fight for any consenting adult that wants that piece of paper.

But that's what it is....factually

 

I think factually you are clueless about what is and what is not marriage.

 

Then prove it. I gave the facts.

 

Amazing how some will try to criticize and marginalize those three things plus the two I added and then try to say being in poverty is just a roll of the dice and those in it bear no responsibility.

 

Your own statement proves what I said.

 

You are factually incorrect. If you think a piece of paper makes a marriage then you do not understand what a true marriage is.

If somehow you found out after ten years that your marriage certificate was not file appropriately and you were not legally married.....did you still have a real marriage?

 

I've said nothing about the piece of paper is what defines marriage, that would be you.