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.
I don't see an issue here. Not like married people take better care of kids anyway. How many times do we hear about child abuse coming from married people. Your social status will not determine your effort or lack of effort when raising a child. This strikes me as a statement thrown around from under the cloak of religious beliefs.
That may be all true, but I think we all agree that child raised by both parents is beneficial to the child as well as our society as a whole. So if you use this angle, a child to a married mother, has a better chance to be raised by both parents (although with todays divorce rates who knows).
From the second page of the article, which is where the OP's link takes you:
"In Lorain as elsewhere, explanations for marital decline start with home economics: men are worth less than they used to be. Among men with some college but no degrees, earnings have fallen 8 percent in the past 30 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the earnings of their female counterparts have risen by 8 percent."
Geez, that first line doesn't pull any punches, does it?
"Outside of marriage" shouldn't bother people as much as "outside of a stable relationship". Better a kid be born to an unmarried, stable, committed couple, than inside of a volatile marriage (which happens all the time).
I agree with your premise. An unstable marriage is no better than two people hooking up. However, I think what people who have children out of wedlock are really saying is, at best: "I'm committed to the life and well being of this child but not my partner". If both adults in such a relationship acknowledge and agree to that, it's fine. Unfortunately, many, many people (especially women) assume that having a baby with someone is a sign of commitment to them.
Furthermore, I question the amount of trust that goes into committed-but-unmarried relationships. I've known people in such relationships that are perfectly willing to swap DNA with their partner all day and night, and willing to bring a life into this world, but don't even trust the other person enough to share a bank account. WTF?
I agree with your premise. An unstable marriage is no better than two people hooking up. However, I think what people who have children out of wedlock are really saying is, at best: "I'm committed to the life and well being of this child but not my partner". If both adults in such a relationship acknowledge and agree to that, it's fine. Unfortunately, many, many people (especially women) assume that having a baby with someone is a sign of commitment to them.
Furthermore, I question the amount of trust that goes into committed-but-unmarried relationships. I've known people in such relationships that are perfectly willing to swap DNA with their partner all day and night, and willing to bring a life into this world, but don't even trust the other person enough to share a bank account. WTF?
Honestly? As liberal, even progressive, as I am, the news in the article didn't sit well with me. I think women who have kids out of marriage are putting themselves and their children in entirely too vulnerable a position. It's just too easy for the father to disappear into the woodwork before the kid is even born.
Yes, the article noted how some women make enough money to keep the roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. So what? The article also illustrated how those women aren't necessarily spending time with their kids, and in those first few years of life, that time is just so important.
I don't have kids and didn't really want them, but even before I made up my mind about that, I always thought that if I did have them, not only would I be married, but one of us would stay home with the kid for the first few years (didn't matter which one).
An unstable marriage is no better than two people hooking up. However, I think what people who have children out of wedlock are really saying is, at best: "I'm committed to the life and well being of this child but not my partner".
Not necessarily. Two people hooking up implies that there is no legal commitment from either parent involved and no relationship commitment. For example, if a couple is married, they probably own or rent a home together, which means both have a vested interest in that home and will most likely show up and be available on a daily basis for their child. Since they're legally bound to one another, there's more difficulty in separating; the hassles of a divorce may keep those parents together or encourage them to work through the rough times, which sets as an example for the child.
Whereas if a couple who are just "hooking up" are maybe living together, maybe not living together, there's no guarantee that father or mother is going to be available on a regular basis. There's also no commitment between those parents, so if the times get tough, they can bail on each other. I'm not saying it can't happen in a marriage, but this behavior is much trickier in a marriage and has stronger ramifications.
I see a lot of women have baby daddies and think that is a better alternative to a husband who is the father -- but then they don't usually stay with the baby daddy either for very long. So....yea.
The problem is that these "committed-but-unmarried" relationships almost always end in the mother being a single parent. Within two years after birth, 1/3 of out-of-wedlock children live apart from dad versus just 7% of children born during a marriage. If you look 5 to 10 years down the road, most of these out-of-wedlock children no longer have any contact with the father.
And so, a woman deciding to have a child in one of these relationships is essentially signing up to be a single mother. Still no problem? The majority of child born in such relationships will be raised in poverty; very few women under 30 have the financial means to adequately provide for a child alone. And:
-girls raised in such an environment are much more likely to become sexually active at a young age, become pregnant before leaving high school (if they even graduate), experience a sexual assault or acts of domestic violence;
-boys raised in such an environment are much more likely to drop out of high school and end up in the prison system.
I won't bother searching for and posting statistics because they'll just be labeled as coming from a biased source. Just go to your local alternative high school, GED program, prison, or Friend of the Court office, and see for yourself if marriage matters. Granted, you'll find some that come from two-parent households but not many.
Last edited by enigmaingr; 02-18-2012 at 12:07 PM..
From the second page of the article, which is where the OP's link takes you:
"In Lorain as elsewhere, explanations for marital decline start with home economics: men are worth less than they used to be. Among men with some college but no degrees, earnings have fallen 8 percent in the past 30 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the earnings of their female counterparts have risen by 8 percent."
Geez, that first line doesn't pull any punches, does it?
While that may be true, that statistic should stand for why it's even more important to be married before having kids.
Men still, by and large, earn more than women across all socioeconomic categories. Even with a shift, it's likely that in the statistical example above, that man still probably earns more dollar-wise than his female counterpart. And it's very likely that neither of them would be makin' bank.
It still doesn't make sense for this example woman to think: "my earnings have risen 8%; I'm now making 24K. My committed partner Jim's earnings have fallen 8%; he now only makes 26K. Why get married?". Neither person is in the financial position to raise a child alone. Together, they would have an income of 50K - suitable to provide the basics almost anywhere in the country.
Last edited by enigmaingr; 02-18-2012 at 12:23 PM..
Absolutely disgusting. Just shows the moral decline of our society that's occurred in the past 40 years as well as a reduction in responsibility. It used to be that if you got pregnant, you got married. Which is the way it should be. It's not right or fair to the child it's illegitimate.
Marriage comes first, then children. Not the other way around. Plus, it seems like being a parent would be a much bigger responsibility and require more commitment than being married.
It annoys me when I see all these women or unmarried couples having 2 or 3 babies all born out of wedlock. You're together, even live together and have children. Why not just get married already?
Unfortantely, our attitudes towards thing like this have become too relaxed and too casual. We've gotten too deep into that whole "live and let live" garbage. Some people even celebrate things like this and say it's a sign of "progress". Well I hardly see the breakdown of the family as being a sign of progress.
However, more conservative states like Utah and Idaho have low rates of unwed births. That's thanks to their more traditional beliefs, maybe we can learn from them.
In Utah, among women in their early 20s, only 20% of all babies are born out of wedlock and less than 10% of all births among women aged 25-29. As for Idaho, only around 20% of all births are premarital.
All in all, the trends towards more liberation and more emphasis on "individuality" and the selfish "me-me-me!" has been destructive. Look what the end results have been- later and fewer marriages, 40-50% divorce rate, smaller families, more premarital births, broken families, emotional destruction, and more. It's caused us to become a mentally disordered society.
Some of you will probably bash me but I'm saying it like it is.
Last edited by 90sman; 02-18-2012 at 01:52 PM..
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.
