Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many different statistical findings about this subject, as with most issues. But about 4 years ago, for the first time in this country, more than half the male-female couples who lived together, were not legally married. That includes those of all ages. For Millennials, ages 17-37, the percentage is only 25% and among Millennials age 25, only half of that. For the even younger ones and members of the upcoming Last Generation, could we expect that trend to change? The term, "out-of-wedlock" is outdated and can no longer be effectively used as a category for derision.
Agreed. Especially for men, there is a lot that can potentially go wrong with a marriage. Men are often far more risk at financially than women, and should the marriage fail (even if no one is really at fault), the man is often stuck with alimony and child support, even if he makes less than the women and is not the custodial parent.
It just seems more prudent to keep legal ties as loose as possible.
It seems obvious to me that the most logical and effective and rational way to have kids is to be married and committed and physically present in the form of a marriage covenant. It makes sense because raising kids is a full time job that requires 2 loving parents to accomplish. The primary job aside from feeding and physical survival is modeling the bond of love. I don't think a single parent can do that.
An illegitimate child is usually going to have to have their upbringing outsourced to institutions like day care where there is no love or caring, just mobs of neglected kids thrown in a room and watched. I know there is some attempt at teaching and preventing the kids from killing each but can that compare with a mom at home loving the kids all day every day? No, of course not.
The traditional 50s era model is what we should go back to. Team effort. One partner works, the other is at home full time with the kids. Modeling the bond of love. Modeling family and what it means.
The model we see today is undisciplined, unfocused, and irrational. Kids suffer from being neglected in institutions while busy parents chase inadequate money and feel constant guilt. How does that model properly? How is that a positive compared to loving and present parents?
I do agree that millennials didn't invent this. It's been going on for a few decades. It's really a miserable way to carry out the moral responsibility of raising human children properly.
Agreed. Especially for men, there is a lot that can potentially go wrong with a marriage. Men are often far more risk at financially than women, and should the marriage fail (even if no one is really at fault), the man is often stuck with alimony and child support, even if he makes less than the women and is not the custodial parent.
It just seems more prudent to keep legal ties as loose as possible.
Your statement is not even close to truth. Statistically women suffer more financially after divorce than do men. Alimony is not OFTEN paid, it is actually fairly rare and often temporary and is not paid if his income is less. The entire point of alimony is to offset the gap in earnings.
Hate to say it, but out of wedlock conception has been common in America for many many years. Sure at one time, the participants might temporarily marry before delivery. But the notion of "millenials" inventing this is deluded. What might be new is all generations thinking "just because we conceived a child is no reason to bemarried". Because the act of conception has no connection with compatible personalities. Not now when Tinder exists and people seek OUT a "hookup". Frankly, I'm calling every one of them a "breeder". There's no long ANY excuse for bringing a child into the disintergrating world. It is really a supreme act of narcissism.
Hate to say it, but out of wedlock conception has been common in America for many many years. Sure at one time, the participants might temporarily marry before delivery. But the notion of "millenials" inventing this is deluded. What might be new is all generations thinking "just because we conceived a child is no reason to bemarried". Because the act of conception has no connection with compatible personalities. Not now when Tinder exists and people seek OUT a "hookup". Frankly, I'm calling every one of them a "breeder". There's no long ANY excuse for bringing a child into the disintegrating world. It is really a supreme act of narcissism.
But the world is not "disintegrating" It is if anything coming together. The world has been screwed up as long as man has existed, but if anything it's getting better, though slowly and with much resistance. The "Morals" of the past have only served to keep us backwards.
It seems obvious to me that the most logical and effective and rational way to have kids is to be married and committed and physically present in the form of a marriage covenant. It makes sense because raising kids is a full time job that requires 2 loving parents to accomplish. The primary job aside from feeding and physical survival is modeling the bond of love. I don't think a single parent can do that.
An illegitimate child is usually going to have to have their upbringing outsourced to institutions like day care where there is no love or caring, just mobs of neglected kids thrown in a room and watched. I know there is some attempt at teaching and preventing the kids from killing each but can that compare with a mom at home loving the kids all day every day? No, of course not.
The traditional 50s era model is what we should go back to. Team effort. One partner works, the other is at home full time with the kids. Modeling the bond of love. Modeling family and what it means.
The model we see today is undisciplined, unfocused, and irrational. Kids suffer from being neglected in institutions while busy parents chase inadequate money and feel constant guilt. How does that model properly? How is that a positive compared to loving and present parents?
I do agree that millennials didn't invent this. It's been going on for a few decades. It's really a miserable way to carry out the moral responsibility of raising human children properly.
I do agree having two loving committed parents is the best environment for raising children. I do not think the couple necessarily be married to make that work.
As far as breadwinner and homemaker situation, well I was raised in the 60's in that situation and dont see it as necessarily any better than having a duel income hh and sending your children to daycare.
What I do see today with two working parents that was not common in my generation is a great increase in fathers' active involvement and hands on parenting with their children. I think that is a good thing. While I am glad my mom was a SAH that doesn't always equate to modeling the bond of love and family.
My co-workers and friends who send their children to daycare are just as capable of that love bonding and family modeling. I actually see less "neglect" today as we have become a more child centric society.
I do believe the momma stays home with the kids tradition came from a pre birth control era where there was always another young kid until the mother aged herself out of an entry level outside job. And the older kids gave to the family's finances until they married off. With kids in school for most of the day and the husband working today the stay at home doing household chores only wife is considered lazy and a moocher by her larger society.
I do agree having two loving committed parents is the best environment for raising children.
I do not think the couple necessarily be married to make that work.
It's not nearly as important as implied; not causal however much it might correlate.
What matters more in both examples is WHEN the child or children arrive.
In particular, relative to the parents developed ability to provide and the number of siblings to compete.
Quote:
As far as breadwinner and homemaker situation...
The difference today is not THAT the second spouse works but how frequently they NEED to.
and the far higher number of hours worked required to maintain that household.
Sometimes that "need" is self imposed by the couple with high aspirations (the BMW vs the Buick)
but in far too many instances the one salary is objectively inadequate even if the other spouse were
to spend their days doing every household task in the most cost saving manner imaginable.
The difference today is not THAT the second spouse works but how frequently they NEED to.
and the far higher number of hours worked required to maintain that household.
Sometimes that "need" is self imposed by the couple with high aspirations (the BMW vs the Buick)
but in far too many instances the one salary is objectively inadequate even if the other spouse were
to spend their days doing every household task in the most cost saving manner imaginable.
Need is not only related to the current financial situation. Need to also relates to the ability to remain employable.
I do agree having two loving committed parents is the best environment for raising children. I do not think the couple necessarily be married to make that work.
As far as breadwinner and homemaker situation, well I was raised in the 60's in that situation and dont see it as necessarily any better than having a duel income hh and sending your children to daycare.
What I do see today with two working parents that was not common in my generation is a great increase in fathers' active involvement and hands on parenting with their children. I think that is a good thing. While I am glad my mom was a SAH that doesn't always equate to modeling the bond of love and family.
My co-workers and friends who send their children to daycare are just as capable of that love bonding and family modeling. I actually see less "neglect" today as we have become a more child centric society.
The marriage part could be considered optional if the 2 parents are fully present. However, if you're going to commit to being together and child rearing, why not marry? If nothing else, it takes care of the estate situation and the custody legalities should one parent die.
As far as day care, in my opinion it is a form of child abandonment. I don't agree with it at all as it replaces loving parents with institutions. I think the best option is not to have kids until there is sufficiently adequate income to have one parent home full time and one parent working. That is the ideal division of labor that keeps a loving parent in the kids life 24/7/365.
Yes, there are accidental pregnancies, yes there are dead parents, yes there are people with poor character who become drunks or gambling addicts or narcissists or cheaters. I get all that. I know there are situations that develop and that life can be messy. None of that changes the ideal and correct starting plan. And that plan is: if you aren't going to raise them, don't have them. If you can't afford to do the job right with mom or dad at home full time, then don't have them. Raising a child is the ultimate moral responsibility. If you can't plan and execute and focus to do it correctly, then don't do it at all. And yes, if cancer or MS comes along and effs everything up, then compromises appear on the table and you have to make the best of it.
But if you are healthy and normal and not afflicted by disaster, the correct and loving and moral way to do it is committed marriage, mom at home, dad at work, or vice versa, and the kids with a loving parent 24/7/365 except when they are at school or playing sports and activities. No day care, no nannies, no grandparents filling in. Do the job right or don't do it at all. It's too important a job to outsource.
If anyone disagrees with any of this and feels the need to launch a personal attack because they feel guilty about not doing it right, don't bother. You're just giving yourself away. If you have a reasoned counter-argument, just present that.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 02-21-2017 at 10:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
