RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete
Nearly one in three American children live with a parent who is divorced, separated, or never-married. And more people back the view that wedding bells aren’t necessary to have a family.
A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family.
About 39 percent of survey respondents said marriage was becoming obsolete. In 1978, just 28 percent believed so.
About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday.
Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, 6 percent have parents who live together and opted to raise them together without getting married.
When asked what constitutes a family, the majority of Americans agree a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. Four of five surveyed included an unmarried couple with children or a single parent. Three of five people said a same-sex couple with children was also a family.
Adults 18-29 are driving the changing views of family. Young adults are more likely than their elders to have an unmarried or divorced parent or friends who do. The survey also found young adults tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage.
The Census Bureau recently reported unmarried couples living together increased a sharp 13 percent this year to 7.5 million. Beginning next year, the Census Bureau will publish new, supplemental poverty figures that will broaden the definition of marriage to include unmarried couples, same-sex partners, and foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.
Officials say the measure will reduce the number of families and children considered poor. Currently, unmarried partners who live together with children and work are officially defined as two separate units.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
back to top54 Comments to “Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete”
Other than my own, there is only one child on my street who still lives with both parents.
Report comment to moderator
The enemy of God has done his job in destroying marriage. Father forgive us, for letting marriage fall apart.
Report comment to moderator
We’re talking about young people who watched Bill Nye the Science Guy keel over and then texted about it rather than go to his aid. They don’t know how to relate to people.
(Yes, I know I’m single.)
Report comment to moderator
I read this article this morning (the Times version has some great graphic presentations of the data), and was a bit surprised that the numbers expressing the opinion were so high.
Then the next story I read about a Georgia megachurch pastor who has been married twice, having two kids with each wife and…
…who came out as gay last week, and…
…whose second wife knew he was gay before she married him…
So, yes, conventional marriage does seem to be a fading concept, even among the faithful.
I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, especially for women, who have so often been brought up with the idea that the most important thing in life is to get married and become dependant upon, or at least inextricably tied up with a man.
But it does give me pause.
And I certainly do not lament the passing of the church’s claim to have the right to determine who can have sex with whom, especially considering the predominance of polygamy in the bible.
I think coventional marriage will continue to survive as some kind of distant ideal for most people. But the complications, difficulties and stresses of life are so much greater now than 2,000 years ago, (or even 200), that the idea of it will never again be an expectation.
Report comment to moderator
This wouldn’t be happening if the gays were not attacking our institute – RIGHT??!!
Report comment to moderator
It may not be a widely held expectation in the near future, but Biblical marriage will still be:
- God’s design for procreation, family health and satisfaction.
- the safest and most effective place for children to be reared.
- the safest and most satisfying place sexual behavior.
- the safest and most secure place for a man and a woman to experience emotional well being.
- the most economical way to grow people.
- the primary illustration of God’s love for His people.
- the second most missing ingredient in a healthy community.
(the first most missing ingredient is a healthy church—missing in the sense of what brings spiritual and relational peace to a community.)
- And I believe the list could go on and on. We only know what we’ve lost when it’s gone.
Report comment to moderator
And as marriage deteriorates, so will our country. That’s what’s already happening. The ideal is the ideal for a reason — it works.
When they gave up teaching the difference between right and wrong, we ended up with the government coming in regulating everything in our lives. Each ideal that dies kills freedom. This country will not survive without freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage may go out of fashion, but never obsolete.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
But the complications, difficulties and stresses of life are so much greater now than 2,000 years ago . . .
Seriously? What kind of work do you have to do to prepare your food? Make your clothes? Get clean water? What do you do if you’re sick? If you have to travel five or six miles, how long does it take you?
Report comment to moderator
How are you defining “faithful?” Faithful to whom?
Report comment to moderator
“Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete”
Huh! That’s odd since four in 10 marriages end in divorce.
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I think Arcadia means that 200 years ago, half of us would probably already be dead from cholera or malaria or childbirth, thus greatly simplifying our existence.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia writes:
“So, yes, conventional marriage does seem to be a fading concept, even among the faithful.”
A most judicious use of the word “faithful”.
Faithful to WHAT? I must ask…
Report comment to moderator
“But the complications, difficulties and stresses of life are so much greater now than 2,000 years ago, (or even 200), that the idea of it will never again be an expectation.”
And a lot of those complications, difficulties and stresses are caused by the breakdown of marriage and the family.
Report comment to moderator
This study convinces me even more that marriage should be taken out of the secular/civil arena. With so many marriages failing, so many people not getting married, and so many taking a dim view of marriage, it is fast becoming a joke, or at least irrelevant.
I think that we should make marriage a matter for religious bodies to preside over. Anyone else who wants to be united in some way should get a civil partnership.
That would solve the problem of having the government define what marriage is.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans: By “Biblical marriage” do you mean a father selling his two daughters to a man in exchange for his labor? (Jacob?)
Do you mean a young woman who is raped being required to marry her rapist? (Deut. 22:28)
Do you mean a young woman who doesn’t bleed on first having sex with her husband (indicating she may not be a virgin, although it could just mean her hymen was damaged some other way) can be stoned to death? (Deut. 22:20-21.)
Do you mean a wealthy man having several wives and then many more concubines for pleasure? (Solomon)
I am bemused by today’s social conservatives who apparently believe the Bible teaches, clearly and unambiguously, that marriage is one man and one woman united by choice. Actual Biblical marriage is more often one man and several women, with the women often having no say in the matter, being passed as property from father to husband.
In Western history (Christendom) until relatively recently, marriages were often arranged by families, who used the marriage of their children as way to bring the families together. Love between the two being married was not required. Even when the marriage wasn’t arranged, it was usually wise for a young woman to marry someone, whether she loved him or not, because education and career were generally not viable options for women.
(This is the reason for sayings such as referring to sex as the “wifely duty.” It wasn’t important whether she was attracted to her husband, only that she made herself available to him sexually.)
There have been a number of societal factors that have made marriage into the idealistic thing it came to be in the 1950s or so, of a man and woman united by chosen love and commitment. And the evolution of the institution continues.
I am a fan of marriage. I think it’s a good thing for the married people and for society. A lot of the destabilizing factors conservatives point to in a era of widespread singleness and divorce are very real. So I’m with you that far.
But please don’t kid yourselves that the ideal of marriage we want for America is Biblical. Other than the basic concept that the married people should be committed to each other for life — a concept also found in many other ancient societies, including Greece and Rome, the latter of which had great influence in pre-Christian Europe — there’s very little about “Biblical marriage” that would be good to have today.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – agian, As I have pointed out in the past, (Deut. 22:28)(Deut. 22:20-21.)
Is Jewish Law, God wrote it an gave it to the Jewish People. Christian do not obey Jewish Law. I know you and the fat left (which have no understanding of God’s Word)love to present Jewish Law as a way to demonize the Christian Church. But guess what the Christian Church IS NOT UNDER JEWISH LAW.
As for Jacob, it was custom for marriage to be that way.
Report comment to moderator
The reason marriage is fallen apart. After years of attacks and demonize of marriage by the left and the women movement. they have won a great victory. They have succeed in destroying marriage, an know they are going to try an rebuild it in their image and understanding of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
“This wouldn’t be happening if the gays were not attacking our institution – RIGHT??!!”
Uh, YEAH. Right. Gay couples are destroying the institution of marriage by wanting to participate in that institution. Makes perfect sense.
Report comment to moderator
Sin has been attacking marriage since marriage started.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Sin destroy this idea. First the sin of man believing he is to rule over his wife. Second the sin of the women believing she does not need to respect her husband. Both of these sins has resulted in devoice. Third the sin of redefining marriage is now moving in. Why, Is it moving in? Because after years of attacks the foundation of marriage has been destroyed.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Report comment to moderator
Conan #16 – Do you think I mean those things?
I think you know that I am referring to marriage as described by Jesus and the NT writers. (Submit to one another and love like Christ) And to God’s initial description of one man + one woman = one flesh.
Report comment to moderator
16. Oddly those conditions first began to change in societies with strong Christian roots. They still exist in many cultures.
Report comment to moderator
Polebear,
Do you REALLY believe that the fact that “one in three American children live with a parent who is divorced, separated, or never-married” is because of the gays??!! That is one twisted reality you live in.
Report comment to moderator
“So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.”
Paul apparently was part of the 4 in 10.
Report comment to moderator
“Christian do not obey Jewish Law.”
So, PR, tell everybody here how you get around what Jesus said about how a divorced person becoming remarried equals adultry. I LOVE the contortions you do with that one!!
Report comment to moderator
“So, PR, tell everybody here how you get around what Jesus said about how a divorced person becoming remarried equals adultry.”
What’s wrong with that? In our church a man cannot serve as a deacon if he is divorced and remarried or if he is married to a divorced woman. Just because the state lets out of a covenant doesn’t mean you’re free fro in the eyes of God.
Report comment to moderator
No, kbells, I want to hear how PR gets around this definition of adultry. Its a good one. It starts with “if a person is saved AFTER they get divorced then the first marriage is automatically wiped away…” Seriously, its facinating. Does your church conduct marriage ceremonies where one or both of the couple are divorced? Some don’t…kind of (see the Newt Gingrich story for example – another facinating twisting of reality)…but many evangelicals do.
Report comment to moderator
Devo101 again Christian are not under Jewish Law.
Report comment to moderator
First, Jesus gave a reason for divorce and remarriage.
Second, the divorce is not the sin. the divorce is the result of sin.
Third, when someone who is divorce and remarry an comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, they become a new person. Their sins are forgiven.
Fourth, someone repents of their sins, they are forgiven. God understands why people would get remarried.
Report comment to moderator
Now on the issue that kBells brought up. I have not form a view on the issue of should a divorce person be able to Pastor or hold the position of deacon.
Report comment to moderator
Terrific, thanks, PR, I just love that bit! Clean and simple – now we can ignore “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Easy as pie. Well except for…the thing is…the SIN is actually the remarriage (i.e. the adultery) as much as the divorce. So for the person to repent their sin, they actually have to repent from their new marriage to be forgiven. How do you suggest they do such a thing? Because, maybe that would work for the gays, too.
Report comment to moderator
Again you do not want to understand Devo101. You are to busy trying to play a game here.
divorces is the result of sin. You asked for forgivness for the sins not the divorces.
second when someone is remarried, then comes to Christ, God see the person as a new person and his marriage as being new.
Report comment to moderator
It is called Grace…
Report comment to moderator
Because, maybe that would work for the gays, too.
–
No because marriage is between one man and one woman. So not it would not work of the sexual sin related to the gay life stlye.
Report comment to moderator
“…second when someone is remarried, then comes to Christ, God see the person as a new person and his marriage as being new….”
So you never remarry someone who got divorced AFTER they come to Christ – is that it, PR?
Report comment to moderator
“…divorces is the result of sin. You asked for forgivness for the sins not the divorces.”
So is adultery a sin or just the result of sin. You would be very good at macrame. btw.
Report comment to moderator
“Does your church conduct marriage ceremonies where one or both of the couple are divorced?”
I don’t know. My last some pastor wouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Devo101 go back an read that passage again there was reason given for a divorces.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans: I think you know that I am referring to marriage as described by Jesus and the NT writers. (Submit to one another and love like Christ) And to God’s initial description of one man + one woman = one flesh.
Sure, but all of the other variations I noted are also “Biblical marriage,” many of them specifically commanded by God.
Pastor Roy’s excuse is that Christians aren’t under Jewish law, which I understand, but still it was the same God who decreed that a raped virgin must marry her rapist, and so on.
The idea of marriage as self-sacrificing devotion is indeed found in the New Testament, but it’s also found in other ancient cultures. It’s not uniquely Biblical, much as I know Christians like to think they and only they have the divinely decreed keys to a happy marriage.
KBells: Oddly those conditions first began to change in societies with strong Christian roots.
Not really. What really brought about the change that led to the ideal of contemporary marriage was the increasing acceptance of women as educated career-holders. Once women no longer needed to depend on a man (father or husband) for economic survival, the ability of men to treat women as possessions was greatly lessened.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible describes many things that would not reasonably be called Biblical principles. Also there are things that are contextual instructions from God that are not intended to be general principles but directions for a certain time and place.
Report comment to moderator
Devo101 you are forgetting a very important part in this little game you are playing.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy’s excuse is that Christians aren’t under Jewish law, which I understand, but still it was the same God who decreed that a raped virgin must marry her rapist, and so on.
—
What seem not to understand the differents between the Jewish Law (which you love to throw out to discredit the Christian Faith) and the New Testament Grace.
Report comment to moderator
“So you never remarry someone who got divorced AFTER they come to Christ – is that it, PR?”
Never answered this one, PR?
Report comment to moderator
40. You know Dan Brown and Oliver Stone aren’t real historians don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
#16
“By “Biblical marriage” do you mean a father selling his two daughters to a man in exchange for his labor? (Jacob?)”
I have a son; he is indisputably mine, but he is not my property.
If I had a daughter and some stranger wanted to marry her, my demanding the suitor work for me for some period of time in order to ascertain his character sounds like a great idea, but it would not be “selling” my daughter.
I note also that Jacob’s mother, Rebekah, was asked, “Will you go with this man?” by her father when she was sought as a bride for Jacob’s father Isaac.
Report comment to moderator
Good answer JOHN DENNEY! A good illustration of something that is not a Biblical directive but simply an account of a specific circumstance.
Report comment to moderator
Devo101.
If a homosexual really came to Christ he would be a changed person and would not be promoting or practicing homosexuality. I am not saying he would always be perfect or not sin, but he would know it was wrong and try to not succumb the temptation. Therefore to call him ‘gay’ would be incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace,
As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11,
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.“
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Neil. There are always two points of view.
“To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.” – Titus 1:15
The defiled and unbelieving expound their view of the Scriptures, casting stumbling blocks in the path of those who might believe.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney: If I had a daughter and some stranger wanted to marry her, my demanding the suitor work for me for some period of time in order to ascertain his character sounds like a great idea, but it would not be “selling” my daughter.
It would be if you thought the question of whom your daughter should marry was yours to answer.
The details of the story belie your benign reading. Jacob loved Rachel, and Rachel’s father Laban agreed to let them marry if Jacob labored for him seven years. Jacob did so, and then Laban tricked him into marrying his eldest daughter Leah first. Then Jacob had to agree to work another seven years in exchange for Rachel.
You need fourteen years of labor to assess his character?
Report comment to moderator
#47: I didn’t say the story of Jacob is “Biblical directive.” It’s a story. But is a story of something that happened among pious Jews and is never said to be wrong. It was a common custom of the time, for the father to make arrangements of some kind with a young man, the end result of which was the father got some kind of gain and the young man got a bride.
It was not seen as necessary to consider the bride’s feelings in the matter. She belonged to her father until she came to belong to her husband.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
Jews are descendants of Jacob, their name derived from Jacob’s son Judah.
Laban was Syrian:
“And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.” – Genesis 25:20
“And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.” – Genesis 28:5
Laban was a shyster; hence Jacob’s outburst in Genesis 31:36-42. Although Jacob worked 14 years for the two daughters, Laban still refers to them as his daughters in verse 43. He did not sell them.
Remember the first commandment that comes with a promise? “Honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee . . .”
You assert its the daughter’s choice alone to marry whom she will. That would be a foolish daughter.
Report comment to moderator
#47 “never said to be wrong.” Yes, the Bible condemns anything not done in love. Jesus said that God allowed violations of His standards because of the hardness of hearts. If our sins were punished immediately and appropriately none of us would be alive very long. The Ten Commandments gives God’s perspective of human relationships. God’s patience justifies absolutely none of our sin. And to use our violations as demonstrations of God having a variety of cruel rules is unjustified, though I am confident that many will continue to do so.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!