Article

2006-10-15 Home Front: Culture Wars

Its Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 03:44|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We have finally achieved "minority" status. As soon as I figure out how I've been victimized, I'll soon start whining, ****ing and moaning. I wonder if I am too old to apply for special student loan status or housing assistance? New boxes to check at the end of job applications? Affirmative action....HERE I COME!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-10-15 06:07|| 2006-10-15 06:07|| Front Page Top

#2 I think it's wiser to expect to become an oppressed minority, you're still part of the Dominant Class, regardless of your numbers. You can only attone for your sins by disappearing and being dissolved.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-10-15 06:54|| 2006-10-15 06:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple. Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married, Ms. Lynch said. There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other.

In the olden days this was referred to as "Common Law marriage" after it had gone on for long enough (5-7 years, I think, depending on the state), and as far as I know those laws are still in force. Just because these sweet young things are busy dramatizing themselves by refusing to formalize the arrangement doesn't change the daily committment to honour and cherish one another. And if in their minds there is the caveat, "...until I don't want to anymore," that's true of many who formalize the situation as well.

Not to mention the sweet old things who won't marry because it will complicate inheritences for the various pre-existing offspring, and reduce the Social Security payments.

But clearly, those in long term, committed relationships are still in the majority, whether or not the distaff side can legally change from Ms. to Mrs. Regardless of the desires of the New York Times' staff analyst or the Council on Contemporary Families. And little girls still dream about their weddings to the as-yet faceless true love.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-10-15 07:29|| 2006-10-15 07:29|| Front Page Top

#4 well, I've been married once. I don't really hate any woman I know enough to inflict myself permanently on them :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 08:21|| 2006-10-15 08:21|| Front Page Top

#5 Lol, Frank.

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 08:22|| 2006-10-15 08:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Marriage as we understand it with government sanction hasnt been around that long. What did you think people did in the distant villages and along the frontier? The government intrusion had roots in property distribution. The state needed a clean mechanism to resolve inheritance and tax issues. In the 19th Century, it moved what had been pretty much an exclusive religious ritual and formally codified it into civil law along with other legal reforms of the time.

May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism. The only interests that government really has in the process is act as a disinterested third party in the dissolution of any contract entered into by adult parties and the protection of those unable to properly represent themselves, children or disabled adults. Outside of that, the contract between two adults should not be the basis to force others to subsidy or compensate their arrangement.

Posted by Procopius2K 2006-10-15 09:55|| 2006-10-15 09:55|| Front Page Top

#7 Been divorced twice... was outnumber in each of 'em ;)

Posted by Hyper 2006-10-15 12:08|| 2006-10-15 12:08|| Front Page Top

#8 The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).

so...let's do the math...shall we??
Figures are in millions

111.1 households
55.2 currently married couples
5.2 hetero couples living together
.4 gay men couples
.36 gay women couples.

And we add them up and we get .... only one half of one percent of households that are couples who are not married. And remember that number includes all of those hetero couples who will eventually marry and also seems to include widows/ers who have outlived their spouse.

So how do these numbers mean that a "tipping point has been reached" or that the "political, social and economic impacts are profound?"

It doesn't. Just another agenda driven piece of garbage posing as journalism.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 12:42|| 2006-10-15 12:42|| Front Page Top

#9 oops. Ok. So I made a mistake. Duh. It is 5% of the households. But my point is still valid. This is hardly a "tipping point" with profound implications. And I could further break down the stats, but it doesn't seem worth the effort. This is just an agenda driven piece implying we need to recognize gay marriage and living together as "marriage".

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 12:49|| 2006-10-15 12:49|| Front Page Top

#10 Frank, there's a beautiful blonde gal in Wesley Chapel, good with horses and other dumb animals. I think you could grow to hate her.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-15 12:59|| 2006-10-15 12:59|| Front Page Top

#11 LOL

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 14:00|| 2006-10-15 14:00|| Front Page Top

#12 Marriage as we understand it with government sanction hasnt been around that long.

David G. Lyon in the 1904 Journal of the American Oriental Society observes in his article, The Structure of the Hammurabi Code:

Professor Oettli of Griefswald, in his discussion, Das Gesetz Hammurabis and die Thora Israels, Leipsig, 1903, p. 10, ...picks out the scattered laws and brings them together under thirteen great topics, as follows: 1. Marriage laws; 2. Parents and Children; 3. Freemen and Slaves; 4. Inheritance laws...

Not only has it been around a long time, it's been known for a long time that it's been around for a long time.

What did you think people did in the distant villages and along the frontier?

The vulgar masses lived a life focused on daily survival and rutted about like wild animals whenever the opportunity arose and they were sufficiently healthy and energetic. The more well off sought to preserve their capital by conducting themselves in accordance with the law or, failing that, hiring lawyers to protect them from the effects of the law, or better yet, bribing lawmakers to change the laws to stick it to the bastards.

The government intrusion had roots in property distribution.

No, I suspect the roots of government itself are, in part, in assuring that posthumous property distribution takes place consistently and non-violently. Sort of the ensure domestic tranquility thang.

The state needed a clean mechanism to resolve inheritance and tax issues.

No, it already had one. Inheritance taxes were a significant source of revenue for the state. That is why colonial historians find so much valuable information about the past from the inventories of property that had to be filed in probate.

In the 19th Century, it moved what had been pretty much an exclusive religious ritual and formally codified it into civil law along with other legal reforms of the time.

No. It had been codified for a long time as previously demonsttrated. That's why you see the term bastard used correctly so often back then. What is different about the 19th century is the prevalence of real property ownership amongst the general population and the application of laws stretching back millennial to them for the first time in history due to the broader distribution of wealth resulting from the industrial and American revolutions.

May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism.

You may point it out, but don't be surprised if you find little support for that position.

The only interests that government really has in the process is act as a disinterested third party in the dissolution of any contract entered into by adult parties and the protection of those unable to properly represent themselves, children or disabled adults.

Ah yes, For The Children. They are so much more protected now that we have recently legislated no-fault, Muslim style, divorce and tolerance for common law marriage and the resultant bastardy.

the contract between two adults should not be the basis to force others to subsidy (sic) or compensate their arrangement.

Then what would the Congressional tax committees do to shake campaign contributions out of their constituents?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-15 15:05|| 2006-10-15 15:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Is there any doubt that children raised in a happy, healthy two-parent relationship are better off? My kids turned out great, but the divorce was nasty, custody battle cost me $35,000, and as a single Dad raising three kids (girl, two boys), it was tough - I don't recommend it as a lifestyle choice. That said, I wouldn't change anything

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 15:22|| 2006-10-15 15:22|| Front Page Top

#14 That said, I wouldn't change anything

That is so sad. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it Frank. I'm as impressed as I am astounded by how many men are in the same boat. I had an male employee go through it and it was 3 years of hell for all of us. Much worse than when the women got custody which is the autoset default in Caliphornia. And then things began to get back to "normal."

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-15 15:28|| 2006-10-15 15:28|| Front Page Top

#15 wow! Good for you, Frank. You da man!!

Re: the article:
May I point out that if marriage is a minority, that maybe its time to relook the entire position of the government towards the social mechanism.

And may I again point out that she didn't make her point!! She did not include widows or widowers in her stats - she included them as "people living alone". Yet Grandma living alone why we have marriage contracts - It was fraudulent to leave her out of the numbers. Additionally, many of those heterosexual couples "living together" will eventually marry. Thus acting as if they will not eventually benefit from the laws of marriage is again a distortion of the figures.

Including just the widows/ers would have thrown that number back over 50%

It's pretty obvious that she's taking the tactic that, if you won't let us have the same rights under the laws as traditional marriages, we will rip it down and not let anyone have them.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 15:44|| 2006-10-15 15:44|| Front Page Top

#16 I appreciate the accords, but I wish it were the default position for all men, unfortunately it's not. I damn sure wasn't gonna give up my kids and my daughter (the oldest at 21 now) sez I did the best thing for her and her brothers. The younger boys (18 and 17), as they will, concur.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 15:54|| 2006-10-15 15:54|| Front Page Top

#17 Well done, Frank. Seriously. That's a damned tough row to hoe and you have my admiration for having accomplished it. Your ex must have been hellaciously bad for you to get full custody, particularly back in the day. Again, well done!

Posted by mac 2006-10-15 18:41|| 2006-10-15 18:41|| Front Page Top

#18 Frank, here's some guidance I recently got from a buddy. "If it floats, if it flies, if it fu**s.... lease it!"

Posted by Besoeker 2006-10-15 19:45|| 2006-10-15 19:45|| Front Page Top

#19 lol - I've heard similar. I date, but I have no desire or need to marry. My kid's are almost all grown - last is a senior in HS and will probably live at home during college to save $. Point is - more men should not only take responsibility, but should aggressively pursue their rights, and then do the right thing, and be the best parent your kids could have. In my case, a switch occurred - my ex was the better parent during our marriage (sad to admit), but I woke the f*ck up and took responsibility later. My message to Dads: do it right from the start- it's hard but there's nothing more rewarding on this Earth

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 19:54|| 2006-10-15 19:54|| Front Page Top

#20 "More men should not only take responsibility, but should aggressively pursue their rights"
Gee willikers, wish that was something my daughter's father should have done. I would have liked that, actually. I thought he was a nice responsible person... oh, my bad. Instead, he was gone in a cloud of dust as soon as I said, "Darling, I have the most wonderful news."
My revenge is that I raised her entirely by myself, no alimony, no child support... and that she turned out to be a most happy, un-bitter and well adjusted child.
Well, all except for those couple of years when she wanted to hunt him down and carve her name across his ass with her USMC dress sword.
Anger is poison, I told her. Let go of it. Living a happy and successful life is the very best revenge.

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2006-10-15 20:17|| www.sgtstryker.com]">[www.sgtstryker.com] 2006-10-15 20:17|| Front Page Top

#21 Sgt Mom - that's my point - too many men bail. That's unacceptable. Your efforts were the same as mine and I know you received the same ultimate satisfaction, right?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 21:05|| 2006-10-15 21:05|| Front Page Top

#22 Amen, Frank. I always thought it must be illegal, somehow, to feel so happy, so useful.

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 21:08|| 2006-10-15 21:08|| Front Page Top

#23 PD - there's nothing else I've ever tried that achieves the same internal happiness, satisfaction, and self-esteem boost - our schools could learn a lot by teaching that - I've already fed it to my kids. They're tired of hearig it LOL

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 21:31|| 2006-10-15 21:31|| Front Page Top

#24 Agreed. My daughter still marvels aloud that she never felt that I talked down to her - and tells me that no matter how infrequently we talk, I'm still her (second, heh) best friend. I'm not all that familiar with humility (suprise!), but she never fails to make me feel it - and incredibly lucky.

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 21:59|| 2006-10-15 21:59|| Front Page Top

#25 you got it :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 22:10|| 2006-10-15 22:10|| Front Page Top

#26 Kids, why do they love us?

Lol. Color me unworthy, but very happy. :-)

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 22:21|| 2006-10-15 22:21|| Front Page Top

#27 "Your efforts were the same as mine and I know you received the same ultimate satisfaction, right?"
Finest kind, Frank, finest kind. After a while, I pitied his ass, because had chosen to take himself away, and never know what a wonderful and totally marvelous person his (strictly biologically speaking) person his daugher is, and was.
All those wonderful gifts that come to us as parents, and he chose to vanish in a cloud of dust. Thank god idiocy does not seem to be genetic.

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2006-10-15 22:31|| www.sgtstryker.com]">[www.sgtstryker.com] 2006-10-15 22:31|| Front Page Top

#28 Funny that the article makes ZERO mention of how our current tax structure punishes marriage. I personally know a couple that refuses to get married for this one reason alone. If our nation wants to reverse declining birth rates and find a way to counteract the Muslim demographic machine, they need to take a long hard look at revamping the tax code for marrieds.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 22:41|| 2006-10-15 22:41|| Front Page Top

#29 If our nation wants to reverse declining birth rates

don't get me started...

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 23:15|| 2006-10-15 23:15|| Front Page Top

#30 Heh, anon - that was wonderfully open-ended! You're femalian, right? Look out!

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 23:21|| 2006-10-15 23:21|| Front Page Top

#31 heh! ~~I guess I asked for that.~~
~~I saw that one ...~~

oh... never mind.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 23:33|| 2006-10-15 23:33|| Front Page Top

#32 :-)

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 23:55|| 2006-10-15 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:58 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:54 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:37 3dc
23:36 DMFD
23:33 anon
23:30 anon
23:29 Baba Tutu
23:28 Glerelet Flaviger5433
23:22 Zenster
23:21 .com
23:19 trailing wife
23:15 anon
23:14 Zenster
23:13 11A5S
22:55 Zenster
22:49 J. D. Lux
22:48 pihkalbadger
22:41 Zenster
22:31 Sgt. Mom
22:26 Zenster
22:21 .com