• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Not sure how anyone can say this is progress...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/u...e.html?_r=2&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all

Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.

Large racial differences remain: 73 percent of black children are born outside marriage, compared with 53 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of whites. And educational differences are growing. About 92 percent of college-educated women are married when they give birth, compared with 62 percent of women with some post-secondary schooling and 43 percent of women with a high school diploma or less, according to Child Trends.

Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages. In a summary of research, Pamela Smock and Fiona Rose Greenland, both of the University of Michigan, reported that two-thirds of couples living together split up by the time their child turned 10.

More in link.
 
The government subsidizes this. Stay single and get all sorts of tax benefits and a huge refund. Get married and lose it.
 
I know several folks who have kids and are not married. They simply don't believe in the institution of marriage.

there's nothing wrong with that, especially considering our high divorce rate.
 
I'm not too concerned about the fact the mothers are unmarried, the article clarifies that at the time of the child's birth they're actually living with the father. I'm more curious about the difference between the US and other countries when it comes to how long those relationships last. Why do US couples who live together eventually break up at a much higher rate?
 
I'm not too concerned about the fact the mothers are unmarried, the article clarifies that at the time of the child's birth they're actually living with the father. I'm more curious about the difference between the US and other countries when it comes to how long those relationships last. Why do US couples who live together eventually break up at a much higher rate?

This is one of the primary reasons household income has stagnated in the U.S.
Contrary to all the claims that the rich are stealing from the middle class/poor.

I think they break up because there are few consequences in doing so.
You can just leave, no legal proceedings required.
 
I know several folks who have kids and are not married. They simply don't believe in the institution of marriage.

there's nothing wrong with that, especially considering our high divorce rate.


Except that reliable, peer reviewed, and revered studies show that children do much better in all catagories when raised in household with BOTH parents present, and committed.


j-mac
 
This is one of the primary reasons household income has stagnated in the U.S.
Contrary to all the claims that the rich are stealing from the middle class/poor.

I think they break up because there are few consequences in doing so.
You can just leave, no legal proceedings required.

I'm not sure about that. When there are children involved, there are always legal proceedings required when a couple living together separates.
 
Except that reliable, peer reviewed, and revered studies show that children do much better in all catagories when raised in household with BOTH parents present, and committed.


j-mac

To note, not all of them are single parent families. As noted this trend makes it far easier for one or the other to just walk away as opposed to working on their problems but back to my original point.

Get a babydaddy, boyfriend, significant other or whatever you want to call your partner and just move in together. If he makes decent money, the woman isn't tied to this money. So she can file for all the credits and get a check from the government for $6000-$7500 (I don't know if these are the exact numbers but they are close) each year from the government.
 
I'm not sure about that. When there are children involved, there are always legal proceedings required when a couple living together separates.

I mean, the mother has the handle the child support stuff, but other than that, there is no legal divorce mess to comb through.
That's if she decides to go through with collecting child support though.
 
I mean, the mother has the handle the child support stuff, but other than that, there is no legal divorce mess to comb through.
That's if she decides to go through with collecting child support though.

It's still messy, even if there are no legalities involved. The article states that these relationships last an average of 10 years. Many marriages don't even last that long. Separating after years together and having children together is never easy. Married or not. You still have to figure out who keeps the house, dog, car...whatever.
 
It's still messy, even if there are no legalities involved. The article states that these relationships last an average of 10 years. Many marriages don't even last that long. Separating after years together and having children together is never easy. Married or not. You still have to figure out who keeps the house, dog, car...whatever.

I agree to a point.
The legal process makes it more difficult to wade through though.

The articles says live together relationships like this are more likely to end than standard marriages.
Really, I'm not passing judgement to all people who live like this, I can understand the reasoning.

I, generally, oppose these relationships, because it mostly doesn't serve in the best interest of the child/children and there are some ethical problems with the tax/state benefits system, which these people can exploit, that married people can't.
 
Except that reliable, peer reviewed, and revered studies show that children do much better in all catagories when raised in household with BOTH parents present, and committed.


j-mac

well there you've put your finger on a key difference. marriage is no longer about the kids, it's about self-expression. the kids are mostly there to make you feel good about yourself, and take a definite second-seat to "whether or not you are happy".
 
Last edited:
It's still messy, even if there are no legalities involved. The article states that these relationships last an average of 10 years. Many marriages don't even last that long. Separating after years together and having children together is never easy. Married or not. You still have to figure out who keeps the house, dog, car...whatever.

indeed. and then you need to deal with the fact that you have thrown all kinds of extra burdens and disadvantages onto your children, who deserved better from you.

the rise in cohabitation is of a piece with the rise in divorce rates, and the subject of the OP: we have become a society with a degraded level of long-term commitment. too late we learn that there was good reason for all the social structures society had raised around the institution of marriage.
 
The government subsidizes this. Stay single and get all sorts of tax benefits and a huge refund. Get married and lose it.

which is why we need a constant standard deduction for each individual; along with an extra credit for children.
 
which is why we need a constant standard deduction for each individual; along with an extra credit for children.

It's also why people need to grow the hell up and take their responsibilities as adults, and we as society should hold them to it. Shame goes a long, long way toward curbing poor behavior.
 
I was confused by the article. Were they referring to white women only the entire time - or just for a portion of the relayed statistics?

That part is stupid, though:
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.

What - only educated people know how to get married? LOL

Maybe it's this: people who value a solid family dynamic, higher education, and exercise personal restraint and responsibility are more likely to marry and postpone having children . . . or something?
 
It's also why people need to grow the hell up and take their responsibilities as adults, and we as society should hold them to it. Shame goes a long, long way toward curbing poor behavior.

It used to, anyway. These days, not so much. Instead, all it gets is the well-intentioned being condemned for being “bigots” and “judgmental”.

It has always, been, is now, and will always be true that a stable human society must be built on families that consist of a husband and wife, united permanently in marriage, faithful and committed to each other and to whatever children they may produce. That this is no longer considered politically-correct does not make it any less true, nor will that political-correctness in any way shield or protect us from the destructive ills that society inevitably suffers when we deviate from this model.
 
It used to, anyway. These days, not so much. Instead, all it gets is the well-intentioned being condemned for being “bigots” and “judgmental”.

It has always, been, is now, and will always be true that a stable human society must be built on families that consist of a husband and wife, united permanently in marriage, faithful and committed to each other and to whatever children they may produce. That this is no longer considered politically-correct does not make it any less true, nor will that political-correctness in any way shield or protect us from the destructive ills that society inevitably suffers when we deviate from this model.

You seem to be forgetting societies that raise children as an extended family and their bio parents don't have much to do with it. Faithful and committed? How prevalent is infidelity and divorce? What about polygamist societies? What specifically are these ills that you speak of. Plenty of societies / cultures deviate from the model you speak of.
 
I agree to a point.
The legal process makes it more difficult to wade through though.

The articles says live together relationships like this are more likely to end than standard marriages.
Really, I'm not passing judgement to all people who live like this, I can understand the reasoning.

I, generally, oppose these relationships, because it mostly doesn't serve in the best interest of the child/children and there are some ethical problems with the tax/state benefits system, which these people can exploit, that married people can't.

It's not my place to oppose or approve of other people's relationships, but I guess I can see where you're coming from. As for the benefits, that's really not the couple's fault if the system is set that way. I was just curious about the comment in the article on US live-together couples breaking up at a higher rate than in other countries. I'm guessing the Scandinavian countries where living together is pretty much common-place, although the article doesn't really specify.
 
It used to, anyway. These days, not so much. Instead, all it gets is the well-intentioned being condemned for being “bigots” and “judgmental”.

It has always, been, is now, and will always be true that a stable human society must be built on families that consist of a husband and wife, united permanently in marriage, faithful and committed to each other and to whatever children they may produce. That this is no longer considered politically-correct does not make it any less true, nor will that political-correctness in any way shield or protect us from the destructive ills that society inevitably suffers when we deviate from this model.

Has always been, will always be?

Obviously not :shrug:

You guys put too much value in your selves. We're no longer a hunter/gatherer society in which someone MUST stay home wit hthe kids nor tend the fields in earshot of the shack.

What does a father/mother couple do that a single parent can't? Child is cared for in day care, Mom works, everyone's fed and clothed. :shrug: Why be married if you don't need to be married? Why is there this assumption that the child and mother are the only two in the family dynamic: no boyfriend, best friend, aunts and uncles?

You believe the husband/wife family dynamic is the oldest and best - but more societies have a familial society based on the women living together and supporting eachother - men are less needed in that sense.
 
Except that reliable, peer reviewed, and revered studies show that children do much better in all catagories when raised in household with BOTH parents present, and committed.


j-mac

True but statistics don't apply to the individual, just because you are statistically averaged to do something, doesn't affect your situation in the least.

Wiseone
 
I agree to a point.
The legal process makes it more difficult to wade through though.

The articles says live together relationships like this are more likely to end than standard marriages.
Really, I'm not passing judgement to all people who live like this, I can understand the reasoning.

I, generally, oppose these relationships, because it mostly doesn't serve in the best interest of the child/children and there are some ethical problems with the tax/state benefits system, which these people can exploit, that married people can't.

I'm sure gay couples would like to know about these tax advantages; a few may rethink their position.
 
That part is stupid, though:


What - only educated people know how to get married? LOL

People with college educations generally make too much money to qualify for all the tax credits that lower incomes get for staying single.

Maybe it's this: people who value a solid family dynamic, higher education, and exercise personal restraint and responsibility are more likely to marry and postpone having children . . . or something?

In part but any action that the government subsidizes is going to grow.
 
I believe divorce rates climbing can be traced back to teh first air date of Lifetime network programming to be honest...

On a serious note, this shouldn't shock anyone, at all. The 1960's radically shattered the social structure of America, and we're seeing the consequences. "Consequence free sex", do whatever feels good... personally I don't see why gays are in such a bother about not being able to enter into Marriage, the whole institution has been possibly fatally wounded by radicalism 50 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom