www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall married households a minority

According to census data, married households are now a minority (49.7%) of all American households.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/u...p&ex=1160884800&partner=homepage

-- John

Interestingly, according to the article, most people still aspire to marriage.

However, more and more people are postponing marriage because of the lack of role models. They are living together first as a test for compatibility for marriage.

More worrisome, however, are the increasing number of people who don't want children because they are expensive.

-- John

First, The article blames the Boomers and I don't doubt it. But this Boomer has been married to the same woman for nearly 40 years and has never had sex with any other woman. I don't know what that means Sociologically, except that perhaps my wife and I are out of the mainstream. But I did wish to defend us against the implications of this trend.

Second, I wonder how Mexican views the results of the high shack up rates in states that may make up the new Spanish speaking nation carved out of the Southern states of the US.

CDL

Yeah, dismaying as it is...this article seems pretty factual to me.

From experience I know this is true because two of our adult children remain single. They both have had relationships of lasting duration from months to years...but neither has committed to marriage yet anyway although one is in his 40's and another in her mid-30's.

Seems to me that the prevalent societal influence dominates the times. We did bring up all of our children regarding the value of sacramental Christian marriage, but as adults they made their own choices. I think it is likely to swing back to more (and I hope younger) marriages eventually, but not likely in my lifetime. I'll be 70 next spring.

We'll continue to pray for our family.

In Christ,

Porter..who does have one married adult child with children. Thanks be to God for that. BTW, she is a baby boomer and the other two came later. Hmmmmmm.

Carson,

I can't speak for Mexican, but in the DC area the Salvadorans make up the highest percentage of Latinos and a high percentage of those living together. But there is a significant cultural difference at work here. Many of those from remote poor villages (and most of the Salvadorans in DC are from very humble backgrounds where illiteracy is common)were at some point too poor to buy marriage licences so they would claim one another as their spouses. This was honored by the couple and the community as a legitimate marriage. In quite a few poor cultures even if legal or church wedding doesn't occur, living with someone equates marriage and is accorded great respect.Of course there are exceptions but it is not done lightly.In case of death the one left is considered a widow or widower just as if they were legally married.

Peace,
Indigo

Indigo,

I think you make a very good point. Licenses are simply a legal way to tell who's who. In an ideal world I would that everyone would have a Church marriage. In fact, I would think the license and the wedding itself should be more clearly separated. Moreover, I would hope that most if not all Churches would perform a wedding for a loving couple who met all other requirements for no charge if the couple had no money. However, you are right and I have seen it in poor anglo settings as well.

Everyone knew that Ben and Edith weren't married officially but were "common law husband and wife". Their marriage was recognized in every setting as far as I know.

I don't know how the surveyors distinguished this group or even if they did.

Good point! Maybe the world isn't as near hell as one might think. Then again...

CDL

I've heard from several different people (including two unrelated priests) that it is very common among Mexican-Americans to have a church full of people who never receive communion because they are shacking up. The two priests independently said (years and miles apart) that they were consistently told by the parishioners that they respected the sacraments so much that they did not want to enter into marriage knowing it could end in divorce, and did not want to receive knowing they were "shacking up." I never did wrap my mind around the thought process.

Almost all baby boomers I know think that 30 is "young" and a good time to start looking at marriage. They tend to personalize the idea that if 30 or 40 is not the prime time to marry, that they themselves are behind the curve and "old" by comparison. I heard someone just yesterday respond in absolute shock that a married woman with a newborn was 22, saying that the mother was only a "baby herself."

It is no wonder to me that so many are shacking up in this climate. They want the permanency and prerogatives and privileges of marriage, but they are being told right and left that marriage isn't what they want. They are being told that what they want is a degree, or an advanced degree, or a permanent career, or sufficient savings, or a house large enough to accommodate where they want to be by the time they retire, or fancy enough cars, or time to travel the world, or time to get to "know themselves," or "enjoy themselves," or the freedom to "be themselves," or to "experiment." They are being told that marriage isn't what they imagine it to be and that they are in a climate where they won't be able to make it. The world is judging them by their financial and educational and career success, by their clothes and cars and houses and vacations, but not by their morality or faith or ethics or intelligence or compassion. It is no wonder that the majority of households are not married ones.

What I am most interested in finding out is if the article breaks down the statistics by age and marital status. I have a hypothesis on which age group would have the highest non-married households and am curious how it would compare to the statistics.

Eh, as being only 18, I find this news not too surprising myself. Me, I'd like to be married right now (if there was a lady around, but that's something else) but the world is so darn EXPENSIVE. It's almost impossible to do something without a good source of income.

Probable solution? The young couples could live with one set of the parents until they have enough money to move out. I'm not saying that it would work, it's a hypothetical situation that would need testing, but hey.

People are probably just "shacking up" cause the hormones pop up, and there's no outlet outside of going to their significant other and relieving it. There are times I know that the best teen still think: " Good and evil be damned, I need sex!" Sorry that we're flawed too.

Carson, I agree about the seperation between legal and church marriages. Another group that gets hit are poor elderly couples who can't afford to lose their benefits if they remarry.
But then that could get messy because if they're not legally married and one gets sick the mate can't make any legal decisions.I think immigrants get around that because married or not the children are going to defer to the parent or mate out of respect,but for elderly who already have children there's no guarantee the kids might not behave ungraciously.

I read somewhere that in some really conservative protestant churches the preachers won't marry a couple if they get a marriage license because apparently once you do you're also married to the state and the state automatically has jurisdiction over their children.

Nathan has a good point about marriage being pretty expensive. Even in upstanding religous households men have been known to walk out on the wife and kids, so many women really don't want to be stuck with no means to support themselves and children at the same standard of living. I think men really have to let women know that they can be trusted to the core and that they're consistent and reliable.So many of us have not seen that and are reluctant to tie the knot as a result. I'm sure men have equal concerns about losing everything and having to start over again.But mainly, it seems most folks don't know that marriage is about service to one another and not a me,me,me thing.
Nathan, please don't marry for sex! There must be a way to deal with the pressure through prayers, a men's group, I don't know but I know "just say no" isn't the answer either.


Peace,
Indgio

Indigo,

St. Paul's advice "It is better to marry than to burn" might be translated "just say no" until you are married.

Nathan,

It really has always been difficult to find a spouse with perfect moral virtue. It does seem as if it is more difficult today because the pop culture does no longer support the Church. It is surprising that any young person gets through this morass without serious sin. I do think that the pressure to get married later and later makes it more difficult. Yet, there are growing numbers of young people who simply make the commitment to remain virgins until marriage and most of them keep it...And for those who don't there is forgiveness and cleansing. The reclamation is a much more difficult path than the path of consistent virtue but it can be taken.

Our sons and daughters in law remained chaste. At our older son's wedding his bride presented him with a Chastity or True Love Waits ring to her groom. He could have easily done the same but he did not go through the formal promise ceremony. Do we have something like this is Catholic circles? I think the Protestant Evangelicals have something to teach us if we don't.

Wondering,

It is good that so many people have a respect for the sacraments but as you say, it's hard to get ones mind around that. "Should we sin that grace may abound? God forbid."

CDL

Carson,
To marry someone just for sex isn't a good enough reason to marry, and just say no sounds nice but it is harder for some than others.There has to be a lot of support for chastity (community, friends,family,church,etc.) especially for those with very high sex drives (like most highly creative people-male and female) and something concrete to do when it is difficult for them to abstain. Just say no won't cut it. It's even harder if you don't have much support. It can be done, but motivation must be extremely high and there must be at least one person rooting for you. I don't mean to discourage Nathan at all, to the contrary, but I think it would be more successful if people were more realistic about the challenge. I tire of seeing nice, soft, good hallmark type guys and ladies that have always had church support and community touted as examples of purity, chastity,etc. Many of us are not like that at all and there seems to be little emphasis or helpf for those that aren't. That said I like your message to Nathan.

I'm digressing again (and I had the nerve to chastise Carson for it on another thread.Okay,I'll have pepper with that crow)but in the past few weeks I've had quite a few girlfriends of different races tell me they are going to have children out of wedlock if necessary. The don't care if there's a husband or not;they want kids.

Now,of course this is horribly selfish, but they're all close to their mid 30's and at that time women who haven't had children suffer from a serious case of baby lust that clouds the senses. It's a hormonal thing that women who have kids before then don't seem to go through.That's the time when women will have kids alone or marry the wrong guy because they feel like there isn't enough time to wait for a proper spouse. We've all seen the 30somethng woman all of a sudden up and marry the most unworthy or incompatible guy-it's babylust.

Carson, this makes a good case for women marrying before this time. This way they can make sure they're with a suitable partner without the added hormonal pressure. Of course in some parts of the country this is more common than others. In the part of the country I'm in it is common to see educated women married with kids before 25, whereas in the DC area only wealthy couples marry that early.Everyone else waits because the cost of living is exorbitant.

Peace,
Indigo

Nathan and all,

Society has a tremendous influence on making that choice. It seems so acceptable and even encouraged for young people to live together and not marry until older (if at all).

The values in life have shifted. Because it is acceptable doesn't mean it is necessarily better...but the trend is so much in favor that for many young and not so young, it is hard to see that.

BTW, we older folks had hormones 'poppin up' when we were young too. It is probably one reason why many of us married in our twenties and some sooner.

One of the big benefits we saw then was that marriage meant sexual activity with a beloved companion (or so we hoped) and also the joys of close companionship and having children...but now...sexual activity is often chosen without the commitment of marriage and not in the context of having a family and a family life.

I hope it will swing back eventually as more and more learn the heartache and futility of co-habitation without obligation.

But then I am old fashioned...been married to the same guy for 45 years and having reared a family and now as a grand parent...I deserve to be a little old-fashioned or at least..remain hopeful that dignity and marriage in our society will be restored and once again preferred over the live- in scene with the significant other. As one of my relatives says, the "sig." Sigh!

In Christ,

Porter

AMEN !

-- John

I did not marry to have sex. I married so I could have sex with the one I love and the one I wished and wish to share my life. It really isn't that complicated. I could tell you nearly hair raising stories about some of the things that our parents did. Why didn't we follow all their bad examples. I don't know all the reasons but one central one was that we gave our lives to Christ and to His Church to the best of our knowledge. No, that Church was not Catholic but chronos means little to the Master of Kairos.

CDL