The Baptist Press reports on a new study by the National Center for Health Statistics:
The number of babies born to unmarried couples who are living together in America has increased dramatically during the past decade, according to a new report by the National Center for Health Statistics.
"We were a little surprised in such a short time period to see these increases," Gladys Martinez, a demographer and the lead author of the report, said.
About 23 percent of the reported births in the study -- based on face-to-face interviews of 22,000 men and women from 2006 through 2010 -- were to unmarried heterosexual couples who were cohabiting when the child was born. In 2002, the figure from a similar study was 14 percent.
50 Comments
Absence of marriage in procreation leaves maternal, paternal, and child rights and protections at much higher risk of being trampled.
Periodiically I come to this site to see what's up with NOM and I must say from an outsider looking in I have never read more post with seething hatred. Isn't the point of following Christ suppose to be kind and spiritually loving ? I can understand being in disagreement but honestly the posts from people once NOM r malicious and downright hate filled and it's always from the handful of NOMs usually 5 or 6 commenters .....daughter of eve....randy e king....etc. I just thought u should know that the maliciousness and ugliness of your spirits r not hidden by your ridicpulous
....sorry...messed up my post. Cont......ridiculous reference to god and scriptures.
"daughter of eve....randy e king....etc. I just thought u should know that the maliciousness and ugliness of your spirits r not hidden by your ridiculous"
Have you ever noticed, Carol, that I never make a person's sexual orientation an issue in standing up for marriage, and have you noticed the countless times wherein I publicly support a person who affiliates with gay identity politics as having every right to get married? Have you any evidence that I promote making homosexual behavior illegal, or in any way promote a person who has either SSA, or engages in homosexual behavior from getting a job, finding housing, or making a commitment to the individual adult of their choice?
You confuse my firmness of resolve that marriage maintain its sex-integrated status, with your own defensiveness of gay political identity. Please don't confuse the two.
"Firmness of resolve" and "malicious intent" are two entirely different states of mind. Please don't project your own anger onto me. I can assure you, I am neither angry, nor mean-spirited. But I am extremely determined. If you ever met me in real life, I can assure you I would be extremely friendly.
You have a great day.
I believe it was Patrick Henery who said -paraphrased- as Christians we are required by faith to turn the other cheek as individuals, but when our ideology is attacked we are duty bond to stand in defense of said ideology so that others may live.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
Our laws are based on the laws of nature. Redefining a pillar of society so as to severe its connection to said basis will change our form of governmnet in a fundamental way.
The U.S. Constitution was written with the expressed intent of protecting future generations from the tyranny of popular culture.
Carol...you are willfully naive if you think these posts are filled with any form of hatred.
Funny how the heathens like to bring up Christ, as if they have a clue about what Christ taught.
Christ was a religious Jew who followed the orthodox teaching of his faith. He was not the anarchist that the heathens like to think he was. He was a man of religious law who believed in sin and who demanded that people stop their sinful acts.
Recall what Christ said to the adulteress after he rescued her from stoning: go now AND SIN NO MORE. He didn't say, "It's ok. Do what you want to do, it doesn't matter."
So Carol, et al., please stop with this "anything goes" portrayal of Christ. You're clueless.
Back to topic -
23% born to unmarried couples living together. 23% of children at high risk of being stripped of one parent because they have not committed to one another in marriage.
Perhaps we should encourage people to marry young, like before the age of 20.
In ancient Israel people did get married at fourteen and younger. Compare 2 Chron. 36:5 with 2 Chron. 34:1 (Of course, the dude in question was a king, so there was no question he could support offspring)
Good point Michael,
My sociology professor noted that human physiology dictates sexual activity as early as ten years of age; that encouraging children to act against their natural biology by stigmitizing procreation prior to adulthood may actully be harmful to the self, but beneficial to society due to economic concerns.
Makes me wonder if societal constraints on natural procreation is responsible for the uptick in the frequency of same-gender sexual inetrcourse. Little doubt that the doctrine of the National Organization for Women is directly responsible for the culture war we find ourselves in.
@randy, michael: wasn't one concern about legalizing SSM that it would weaken age of consent laws? Are you now suggesting the lowering of the age of consent? If I (age 40) wanted to marry a teenage girl, how many parents (of teenager girls) do think would be OK with that? Isaac was 40 when he married Rebecca (most likely about 14-15), btw.
"’Marriage is an achievement that you enter into when you're ready. But in the meantime, life happens. You form relationships. You have sex. You get pregnant. In a perfect world, they would prefer to be married, but where the economy is now, they're not going to be able to get married, and they don't want to wait to have kids,’ Karen Benjamin Guzzo said.”
This is the cultural narrative we have to change. For some reason, especially among low-income Americans, getting married is seen as a bigger step than having a child. I have friends and relatives with this mindset. They see marriage as some serious, bordering on scary, thing that must be entered into cautiously (which is true), but they don’t see creating a child with someone in the same way! I guess it’s all a part of the movement to separate marriage from procreation. Marriage is seen as a big step to solidify one’s “love,” but children are incidental and not related to it in any way. And, As Raley said in the article, "It just could be that it's OK now to have a kid outside of marriage."
Unfortunately, this damaging idea is only going to help keep people in poverty. Delaying marriage for economic reasons while continuing to have children is not a way to upward mobility; it’s a recipe for poverty. And, as OvercameSSA noted in post #9, having children out of wedlock is only going to increase the risk of a weakened/destroyed father-child relationship once the cohabitation dissolves. As Brad Wilcox said in the article, “children with cohabiting parents are three times more likely to experience their parents' breakup by the age of 5 than children whose parents are married.”
Daughter of Eve: your endless statements that sexuality doesn't matter in marriage (i.e., a gay man is free to marry a gay woman) is disingenuous at best, and more like the cruel statements of a bully.
"Daughter of Eve: your endless statements that sexuality doesn't matter in marriage (i.e., a gay man is free to marry a gay woman) is disingenuous at best, and more like the cruel statements of a bully."
Your perspective is tinged by the sexual identity spectacles through which you judge my statements. No cruelty is intended; simply legally equal treatment of all citizens, without regard for sexual orientation.
No one is forced to enter into marriage against their will; if a union with someone of the opposite sex is distasteful, then, by all means, don't enter into that particular institution. But more citizens suffer the loss of maternal, paternal, and child rights when marriage is neutered, whether they identify as "gay" or "straight." Hence, more duty is owed to protecting the sex integrated aspect of marriage than to catering to sexual identity politics or to political correctness.
I'm sorry when feelings are hurt; it's not my intent. Contention isn't my goal--holding up a standard of marriage, is. I don't apologize for standing up for true equality between the sexes. It's not about being disingenuous; it's about telling the truth, even if some don't want to hear it.
Moreover, Bob, if individuals aren't willing to tell the truth, at least to themselves, how can they live happy, fulfilling lives?
Promoters of SSM say they "can't" get married. But that's a falsehood they tell themselves. They "can" get married--they simply don't wish to according to the laws of the land. They tell themselves another lie--that it's because of either their sexual identity or because of their homosexual behavior. Neither one of those disqualifies them legally from entering into marriage.
It's very simple: there is what we can do, and what we are allowed to do. The law already allows all men and women to enter into marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation or their private sexual behavior.
Whether they CAN bring themselves to marry is another matter. If they can't, they aren't required to. But pinning the blame for not getting married on someone else, is the perpetuation of self-deceit, and that is most disingenuous. The pro-SSM group needs to be accountable for their own feelings, and willing to discuss the issues as they really are--not as they wish they were.
The issue isn't about sexual orientation; it's about sex segregation vs. sex integration. Your sexual orientation is your own business--no one else wants or needs to know about it.
Hey Bob -
I don't think anyone means to be cruel. I think at least part of the problem is a matter of perception. That is, same-sex couples believe that since they are "in love" that that somehow qualifies them for marriage since many male-female couples get married because they are in "love."
The perception issue is that the purpose of marriage is not to unite any two people who love each other; the purpose of marriage is to unite moms and dads with their offspring, and for that to happen a male and a female are required. Love is a reason people get married; but responsible procreation is its purpose, a purpose that same-sex couples cannot serve in the first place because they are inherently non-procreative.
As DoE said in another post, go ahead and love! Spend the rest of your life with that person you love! But if you want that label of marriage, you have to come to it with the appropriate pairing of humans that reproduces.
Fact (note this is my third attempt to simply post a statistic): The 4 states with the lowest teen birth rates are CT, MA, NH and VT - all of which have legalized same-sex marriage.
DOE: I see you're still trying to push illogical talking points even though they've been shot down hundreds of times. Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you argue theres no inequality because a gay person is free to marry someone of the opposite sex? And the "gender segregation" nonsense? By your "logic" no person should be allowed to marry a person of their own race because it equates to racial segregation.
Brett,
Equating what you do with who you are is the epitome of ridiculousness. DOE acknowledeges the laws of nature in her talking points; whereas you put forward an argument in defense of your rediculous assertion as though we were living in 'Wonderland.'
Little heads-up for you;
LGBT:
Lesbian = Women
Gay = Men
Bi-sexual = Switch hitter
Transgender = Confused
There is no such thing as a "Gay" people. You might as well call your cult members 'Goony-Ga-Ga's.'
Your insistance of changing the meaning of words in defense of your proclivity on serves to prove you know your depravity is indefensible.
If it looks like a duck, walks likes a duck, and sounds like a duck odds are it is a duck.
DoE, please stand in a court of law and recite your "logic". Don't hide behind the anonymity of this noticeboard with the preferential treatment it gives to your posts. If you are so righteous, reveal yourself.
DoE, your purpose here is gay baiting. Randy uses 'miscreants', Louis's act is to pretend there are non religious arguments, Michael E uses 'fudge packers', Barb is sneering, and you use illogical community college sociological babble.
Alex,
Your penchant for changing the meaning and intent of words with the obvious design of lendeing a greater appearance of acceptability to your proclivity shows you to be intelectully dishonest.
Miscreant: unbelieving, heretical
Origin of MISCREANT
Middle English miscreaunt, from Anglo-French mescreant, present participle of mescreire to disbelieve, from mes- + creire to believe, from Latin credere— more at creed
First Known Use: 14th century
You may not like the words Pervert, Miscreant, Heathen, Heritic, Queer, Decadent, Deprave, or the like, but they are proper discriptives; as opposed to the bastardized discriptives you lean on in reference to your procilvity.
Zach, no hate on these boards? That's funny. The very first post here - by Randy- states that all SSM supporters should be put to death for treason.
Doe's logic is as twisted as claiming that blacks were allowed to ride the bus too.
Gzeus,
Where exactly does it say that again? Me thinks your guilt is getting the best of you(;
So in the world of the marriage corruption movement justice equals hate...?
Randy, your blistering hatred of gay people, and your nauseating pomposity, reveal the true intent of NOM behind the façade of 'protecting' marriage. It is to denigrate and insult gay Americans and their families. You are not only intellectually dishonest, you are a bile-filled coward hiding who spends his days churning out virulent, homophobic diatribes. Tell me, do you consider yourself 'christian'?
By the way, Randy, words change their meaning over time; their origins are irrelevant. I know you think you're very clever using your favorite word 'miscreant' but in reality it makes you look like a bigoted buffoon. An ugly, old bigoted buffoon. By the way, like the vast majority of pro-SSMers, I am heterosexual. I just loathe creepy, bigoted buffoons like Randy Ewww King.
Alex,
I spoke the truth and you ranted and raged!
I asked a minister a few years back why people screamed at me when I tell them the truth; to which he replied:
"Boy; don't you know the Devil don't like the light? You shine the light on the Devil and the Devil is going to scream!"
You hide behind words that have no connection to your proclivity; no-doubt because you find no merit in said activity. If you truly believed what you were doing was moral you would not be insisting it be called what it is not.
Brett73 -
To say that everyone is equally free to get married is fact; there is nothing ridiculous about that. It only seems ridiculous if we make the assumption that the gov't/society cares about peoples' motives for getting married. Then, of course, homosexuals might have an argument.
But the fact is, the government/society has no interest in WHY men and women get married, JUST THAT THEY DO. The government and society would be very happy if all homosexuals found an opposite sex partner, got married and conformed to lifetime wedding vows. Indeed, this very thing has been happening for thousands of years.
Treating people equally does not mean making everybody equally happy. Homosexuals have access to all the rights to marriage that heterosexuals have; if they do not like the trade-offs, then they "aren't the marrying type," which is the way it has always been.
Brett73 said, "I see you're still trying to push illogical talking points even though they've been shot down hundreds of times. Do you know how ridiculous you sound when you argue theres no inequality because a gay person is free to marry someone of the opposite sex? And the "gender segregation" nonsense? By your "logic" no person should be allowed to marry a person of their own race because it equates to racial segregation."
That's an interesting perspective, Brett. If you could highlight exactly which "illogical talking points," I could perhaps clarify for you. In the meantime, something to consider:
Quote: "...[V]oluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license without a vote of (or on behalf) of the people to neuter marriage licensing. Under the principle of equal access/protection, state or federal law may prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different (hence "male" and "female" designations on birth certificates)(4),(5).
Quote:
"If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn't want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man."
And finally, "That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist, nor should public transit busses have their wheels removed to accommodate those prone to motion sickness. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don't have to. Marriage is optional."
link to quotes here:http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/p/handy-dandy-marriage-neutering-plea.html
Alex said, "DoE, please stand in a court of law and recite your "logic". Don't hide behind the anonymity of this noticeboard with the preferential treatment it gives to your posts. If you are so righteous, reveal yourself."
Well, Alex, I've never been invited to speak in court before, but if the opportunity arrises, I'd be most pleased to.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. You are an all right kinda guy!
Alex said, "DoE, your purpose here is gay baiting."
Well, that's an interesting perspective. Since I'm equally opposed to two "straight" individuals calling their union a "marriage," as I am to two same-sexed individuals with a same-sex attraction, or any two same-sexed individuals who engage in homosexual behavior (be they "gay" or "straight") calling their union a marriage, but I DO support any two opposite-sexed individuals (be they "gay" or "straight") getting married, I'm not sure why you consider it "gay" baiting.
Curiously enough, though, it seems to be mainly "gay" individuals who take the most offense, and treat me with the least tolerance, for having differences of opinion.
Alex said, "you use illogical community college sociological babble."
Well, I'm going to have to defer to your more experienced insights as to what community college is like. I've never attended a community college. Are you speaking from personal experience, then? I'm guessing a lot of NOM viewers have/are attended(ing) community college in order to save $$$. Not a bad idea in this economy.
You know, the NOM blog is a forum for discussing different ideas. and much like debate teams, there are people for or against ideas, and we can debate the merits of each others' arguments. I'd be surprised, though, if debate teams call each other names, smear each other's religious views (or lack thereof), or go on character assassinations, and call that good debate. Good debate is nothing personal.
I said, "Since I'm equally opposed to two "straight" individuals calling their union a "marriage,""
Should read, "Since I'm equally opposed to two "straight" same-sexed individuals calling their union a marriage..."
“Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing?”
Excellent quote.
It was not normal to marry at such young ages as people like to indicate. Royalty was different simply because their purpose was to have as many heirs as possible, but the majority of marriages have (since Shakespeare times) been in the mid 20's. And they were expected to be virgins.
No, the change in how many babies are born to cohabiting couples is because of a cultural change. Too many people see a marriage as a piece of paper, nothing more or less, and too many girls grow up wanting a fancy/expensive wedding instead of valuing the actual marriage.
Rep. Kathy Lohmer (R-Lake Elmo), had this to say of divorce, but I think it applies equally to out-of-wedlock childbearing:
"One of the things I’ve learned serving my first term in the Minnesota Legislature is that we are constantly called upon to deal with the consequences of family breakup and divorce. Whether it is battles over custody and visitation in our courts, or increased demand for social services to help single parents and children who face higher rates of poverty, the state is called to step in and fill the gap. Ultimately, this means taxpayers are called to fund these services with higher taxes."
It is precisely because men and women can procreate that the state licenses and regulates this particular voluntary association, as opposed to not regulating and licensing other kinds of voluntary associations. This particular one directly affects children, who cannot fend for themselves. Not all voluntary associations will produce children, but this is the only kind that can (the man/woman union) on a universal basis, so the state recognizes it, licenses it and regulates it. No other kinds of voluntary associations require government notice. And it has nothing to do with sexual identity, or political affiliation. The government has an interest in sex integration, stability, for the common good.
An SSMer said (and other SSMers chimed in to lend their support):
"And the 'gender segregation' nonsense? By your "logic" no person should be allowed to marry a person of their own race because it equates to racial segregation."
The lack of the other sex is acclaimed by SSMers as a desirable feature of SSM. The type of relationship that SSMers promote is segregative by sex.
It is also segregative by sexual attraction. According to SSMers, this attraction is a desirable feature of SSM -- it is even presented as the reason for a claim of unjust discrimination. That claim depends on portraying the man-woman requirement of marriage as a criterion based on sexual attraction.
Well, what is the all-male type of relationship that SSMers have in mind? One in which male attraction excludes female attraction. And vice versa for the all-female type of relationship they have in mind. On the other hand, they see the union of husband and wife as a relationship that includes both male attraction and female attraction.
On their own terms, then, the SSMers promote what they openly acknowledge to be segregative by sex and by sexual attraction. And they stand opposed to marriage which unites the sexes, and even by their own terms of argumentaiton, also unites male and female attraction.
As for the racial analogy used by SSMers, it is ridiculous. There is one human race and its nature happens to be two-sexed. Marriage is integrative in ways that the SSMers oppose outright as somehow unlawful and unjust. But society may discrimination between marriage and non-marriage.
SSMers demand that society discriminate between the gay subset of non-marriage and the rest of non-marriage. Problem for them is that they cannot justify that discrimination in law; so they denounce the societal significance of the very stuff that justifies society discriminating between theunion of husband and wife and all other types of relationships that are outside the bounds of marriage.
And to press their insistence, the SSM campaign promotes the supremacy of gay identity politics. In this way, they, not the defenders of marriage, are the racist analogues for they seek to abuse marriage law for non-marriage (and anti-marriage) purposes along the lines that the white supremacists abused marriage law.
No, DoE, I've never noticed you doing that.
I've noticed you telling people that you do that an awful lot, though.
If you have to narrate your own behavior so much, maybe you're not doing what you think you're doing.
Your actions speak so loudly that I can barely hear what you say... and in any case your words are obviously not true. Are you a liar, or just incredibly lacking in self-awareness? I'm honestly not sure. You're difficult to read.
Anyway, noting that a lack of people being legally married is a bad thing is a rather poor argument for y'all's goal that less marriages should be legally recognized.
It's actually on our side... have you ever noticed that a lot of your arguments support us if you don't go THEREFORE and tack a "conclusion" on?
Pat,
You are looking for excuses; not reasons. Procreation is a rational reason to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings.
It is that simple.
"Your actions speak so loudly that I can barely hear what you say."
Um, Pat, you're not around me to see my actions, so you have no idea what they are. You only have my words--which you refuse to "hear," so it's no wonder you're not able to "read me" well. I'm practically invisible to you.
Can you point out a specific "lie" on my part? I'd be most obliged.
Also, could you please reword your argument for SSM? Why should society discriminate between the gay subset of non-marriage and the rest of non-marriage, as stated so eloquently by Chairm?
DOE: You must have taken the same writing course as Maggie - lots of words, little substance. You certainly do have an affinity for men of the straw variety, don't you? In your defense, it is easier to tear down a weak point that the opposition isn't actually making than to try to respond to their strong, rational arguments. However, equality supporters never said there's no difference between men and women. If that was our position, gays would have no problem marrying someone of the opposite sex... because they'd be no difference. DUH. You're insistence that marriage laws do no discriminate against LGBT people is completely detached from reality. It's one thing to maintain that the law should remain discriminatory, it's absolutely absurd to try and claim that it's not discriminatory to begin with. Saying that a gay person is free to marry someone of the opposite gender is like saying that straight people have the right to marry someone of the same. As the Iowa Supreme Court pointed out, the right of a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex is no right at all. And they were 100% correct. What I always find amusing is that those who claim that same-sex marriage constitutes a "special right" are the same ones who foolishly point out that gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. To that I say: look at the states where same-sex marriage is legal. All adults are free to marry a man or a woman, regardless of sexual orientation. In other words, a straight man is free to marry another man. See, no special rights for anybody.
Brett73, please go back and read Chairm's last comment (#41), and answer this question:
Why should "society discriminate between the gay subset of non-marriage and the rest of non-marriage?"
Chairm's comment answered all your problematic arguments. No need for me to rehash what he stated so succinctly.
You have a fantastic evening!
And, as a last thought,
I. Neutering state marriage licensing should be up to the people of a state.
A. The people retain all power not granted to a branch of government. Courts are not obligated to intervene on constitutional grounds unless an actual right is being violated by a law.
B. No right is being violated under bride-groom marriage licensing.
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent(3). There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license without a vote of (or on behalf) of the people to neuter marriage licensing. Under the principle of equal access/protection, state or federal law may prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different (hence "male" and "female" designations on birth certificates)"
Chairm's comment is just more of the same pseudo-sociological babble that you and Maggie are fond of. "...they seek to abuse marriage law for non-marriage (and anti-marriage) purposes along the lines that the white supremacists abused marriage law.". Seriously? You're joking, right? Talk about circular logic. 'When same-sex marriage isn't legal it doesn't exist therefore advicating for same-sex marriage is pushing non-marriage and is therefore anti-marriage. Why do you hate children?' It's all nonsense. Don't you ever get dizzy?
Brett, you're on your own. Understanding the real argument takes time and a willingness to learn. Your mind is made up. There's no confusing you with the facts. I wish you all the best.