digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

US Census: Households headed by singles now outnumber married couples

msn.match.com — What's more, 31.7 percent of American children are being raised in unmarried homes. The article acknowledges that cohabitation, divorce, and single parenthood are no longer cause for social ostracism. On the other hand, it does not address any of the negative effects of the loss of marital and family stability.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -61/+63Wake up, America! You [I already have] need to set a positive example in your marriages, then you need to support your kids actions when they get married. Let them know that marriage is forever, that marriage is a contract that Adults consentually agree to, and that only the worst of circumstances should ever break that contract.

    My kids have been married for 5 years. Those first 2 were not easy, but today they are on solid ground. My grandkids deserve to have both a mother, and a father. I'll continue to see that they get exactly that.
    • Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+51Congrats to your children for keeping their marriage together, I hope for their continued happiness and that they can work through any problems. The only thing that bothers me is that you have some notion that if they get divorced, your grandchildren will no longer have a mother and father. If they are both good parents, your grandchildren will never have to worry about having a mother and father. Good parents don't disappear with a marriage.
    • majordannyboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Kind of reminds me of a Chris Rock skit. "My kids have been married for 5 years" "You're SUPPOSED to stay married"
    • dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -27/+14Who do we blame? The Muslims, Atheists or Gays?!?!? Won't somebody think of the children!!
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -39/+32Marriage is a semi-ridiculous ritual that really doesn't carry much meaning anymore (despite people wanting it to or not).

      I'm all for life partners, but who actually wants the law and the government to be involved with their romantic relationships? If a person REALLY NEEDS you to marry them, what the hell is going on in their head? Do they not trust you enough? They need to get the legal system involved? I'm sure thats not the case, and that they just want to follow a beautiful tradition, but you shouldn't follow tradition just for tradition's sake. I'm tired of hearing all this bullcrap that marriage is the end-all of relationships! 'We're getting married so it must mean that we really love eachother!'

      No, I could care less about the tax breaks, I'd rather just be with a woman for the rest of my life and not be TIED DOWN BY LAW and SOCIETY.

      Now lets see how fast I get dugg down.
    • meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+43If people would stop getting married, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high. ;)
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24"...express that love in its most perfect form: a binding legal contract!"
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -21/+20@Ignignokt01

      I'm not sure how you can say marriage carries no meaning anymore. Maybe to you it doesn't, but to me and my friends, it still does. To Christians, marriage is set by the example of Christ and the church. That meaning is still felt today.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14@"Marriage is a semi-ridiculous ritual that really doesn't carry much meaning anymore (despite people wanting it to or not). "

      My problem is that Government is not supposed to recognize or favor any type of religion, but it recognizes marriage via tax benefits and various other governmental regulations. I think this is would be unconstitutional myself.

      I don't have a problem with marriage, but it shouldn't be recognized by the state as something holy or under religious aspects at all. It should be between two people and their god or church or whatever they believe in but the fact that government recognizes it means they favor a certain type of religion over others. Mostly Juedo-Christian over say Islam, atheism, or other non-majority religions.

      If government would just say marriage is not recognized and you don't get any tax benefits or monetary allotments from your partner this would solve the problem. Really... This whole issue is really about money and not marriage at all and kind of makes me think marriage has really lost its value if we can't remove it from the hands of government officials.

      Lastly, what about people who don't or can't have kids and don't get married. We don't give them any benefits for that. It is hypocritical.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@DiggsOnlyNeoCon

      I understand that. What I meant is by 'not carrying meaning' is that people don't take it as seriously anymore, in terms of 'staying together because we're married'. Marriage is not a bad thing overall, that's not my point.

      My point is that society shouldn't expect EVERYONE to get married, or that its the ONLY way to prove you truly love someone.
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@Ignignokt01

      Fair enough -- I just misunderstood your point.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Yeah I mean why not throw out all the rules you don't like?

      Marriage isn't stupid or archaic. If you cant commit to being with someone for the rest of your life then don't do it. No one is forcing you to get married.

      You won't get Government tax benefits while being single, but why would you? The laws were created for people who are married and committed to running a house hold. No one has any reason to believe you and your girlfriend of 5 years are going to stay together. No one has any reason your marriage will stick together either, but you do have a binding legal contract that says you are running a household.


      I could care less if they allowed same sex marriage, I don't really personally think homosexual relationships are any different than heterosexual relationships aside from pro-creation. So don't turn this into some fag bashing hate thing.

      Marriage is a sacred union between two people, if you don't like it then don't worry about it.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You don't have to be a Christian to be married, you don't have to be a member of any sort of religious sect. You could be married by a notoriezed official.

      Why do people insist on throwing this crap out there, it's really common sense. If you don't understand how something works then don't preach to other people like you're educated on the topic.
    • cmwotring, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I agree that marriage is not something that should be taken lightly. My grandparents have been married 60 years and it's awesome. It would be great if that were the outcome for all marriages. The reality is that people change during their lives. I have a hard time believing that most people get married and divorced on a whim. When there are issues in a marriage that cannot be resolved, it's not inexcusably bad to get divorced. The way I see it, if there are children involved, is it really good for the growth and health of the family to be a part of an argument every night?
      I'm not saying that a couple should take the easy way out and get divorced. There was something that brought them together in the first place and maybe it needs to be found again. I'm tired of hearing that marriage is an unbreakable bond and implying that staying together is the best solution. I'm sure it's a wealth of growth and positive energy in a house where the parents are just staying together for the children.
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"The only thing that bothers me is that you have some notion that if they get divorced, your grandchildren will no longer have a mother and father."

      Biologically, yes kids will still have a father and mother. But psychologically, they may not. Divorces are often bitter, nasty, and soul-destroying, especially to the children. In the old days, we still have divorces, but parents often wait until after the kids are all grown up and mature enough to handle the separation. These days, people marry and divorce the next day, week, month, year, take your pick. Who gives a ***** about what your kids think.

      People jump into marriage like it's a night out at the movie theater or something. If they don't like the show they just walk right out.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@"No one has any reason to believe you and your girlfriend of 5 years are going to stay together. No one has any reason your marriage will stick together either, but you do have a binding legal contract that says you are running a household."

      Are you aware of the countless people who don't even live together who get married just for the tax benefits?

      Although you have to have one hell of a pre-nup I've known a few gay men marry straight women just for the tax benefits.

      I think marriage should be holy and remain within the church (or whatever you believe in) and not be tampered by the government. I believe you should get tax benefits for not having kids because having kids costs the government and society more than choosing not to.

      Again... Getting married for the tax benefits makes it unholy and ruins what marriage is about. If you want to have a legal partnership with the person you live with then you we should have some other type of law for it like making a partnership, LLC, or S-Corporation and make it so any amount of people regardless of sex can join together for those benefits.

      Otherwise it is just government recognizing religion. The church and state should be separate.

      [Edit]

      @"You don't have to be a Christian to be married, you don't have to be a member of any sort of religious sect. You could be married by a notoriezed official."

      If it is non-religious then why can't same sex couples marry each other or multiple people get married?
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Vertinox,

      So you're just a pissed off religious person who is offended by all of this?

      ""You don't have to be a Christian to be married, you don't have to be a member of any sort of religious sect. You could be married by a notoriezed official."

      If it is non-religious then why can't same sex couples marry each other or multiple people get married?"

      What? Are you just like typing things and hoping they come out making sense?

      Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Christians of all kinds, Satanists, what ever it doesn't matter you can or cannot be religious and get married. There isn't any sort of requirement.
    • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"Who do we blame? The Muslims, Atheists or Gays?!?!? Won't somebody think of the children!!"

      Actually there is someone you CAN blame: the feminists.

      That and young, hip, successful males are discovering their inner homosexuality, or they're straight but realizing they don't need to marry their gold-digging sluts just to get laid.
    • Twango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"My grandkids deserve to have both a mother, and a father. I'll continue to see that they get exactly that."

      Caring about your grandkids is wonderful. Pressuring the parents is not.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@DiggsOnlyNeoCon:
      "I'm not sure how you can say marriage carries no meaning anymore. Maybe to you it doesn't, but to me and my friends, it still does. To Christians, marriage is set by the example of Christ and the church. That meaning is still felt today."

      Wow... the irony! Marriage was set by an example of Jesus, the guy who was never officially married and hung out with a prostitute and also the church ( celebate priests)?
    • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ BabyWookie

      Why don't you actually read the Bible, then get back to us on that?
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@CarpeFishem:
      It's been a while, but I have read it. Personally, I prefer the Iliad. Both are rather fascinating works of fiction though.
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@BabyWookie

      Okay, I'll bite... even though it looks like you're just trolling.

      There were no priests when Jesus was on Earth. He "hung out" with prostitutes to set the ultimate example that followers of Him are no better than anyone else. Not only did he "hang out" with them, he had dinner with them and talked to them like the religious elite would not.

      And here's one passage from Ephesians:
      "And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. "
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@DiggsOnlyNeoCon:
      I know all that *****. I was just making a joke out of the fact that the character of Jesus was celibate and that the priests of the largest Christian denomination are celibate. If you don't see the irony in that... sorry. BTW, marriage is a joke too.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"To Christians, marriage is set by the example of Christ"
      @DiggsOnlyNeoCon - Christ got married?
    • CarpeFishem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ BabyWookie:

      Then you might recognize the phrase that the church is the "bride of Christ," hence the marriage analogy.
  • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -45/+11The unfettered growth of our illegal immigrant population (or a guest worker program that allows for anchor baby citizenship) will only make things worse. Hispanics already have a nearly 50% illegitimacy rate:

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_4_hispanic_family_values.html

    You can forget all that PC talk about Mexicans having "great family values." Some undoubtedly do, but statistically speaking, Mexicans, as a whole, do not.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32Is your child being raised without a mother? Blame the mexicans!

    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20According to the CDC, THX is, as usual, wrong. The actual number is 36%, which is above whites but lower than blacks. Most likely explained by poverty levels.

      "In 1988, more than 1 million infants were born to unmarried mothers, accounting for 26% of all infants (Table 2) (18% of white infants, 63% of black infants, and 34% of Hispanic infants); these percentages reflected increasing trends for 1980--1988."

      Additionally, unmarried white women have almost doubled their output of "illegitimate" births. But THX's knee jerk hatred is nice too.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Double checking more recent data from the CDC indicates that he's right for 2004 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#010 ) insofar that if you include Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and other south Americans et al their unmarried births is 46.4%

      What he doesn't mention, of course, is that white unmarried births are (in 2004) at over 30%.

      And he certainly doesn't mention that Cuban unmarried births are about the same as whites at 33%.
    • Ryan83, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15How can you take yourself seriously? First you reduce a nation wide phenomenon to a problem faced primarily by illegal immigrants. Then you reduce all illegal immigrants to Mexicans. Then you act as if the fact they're illegal has nothing to do with the fact they're not married. Show me the court that will marry two illegal immigrants. Moreover, show me two impoverished immigrants who care about the formalistic luxury of a marriage certificate. Then you assume as if the absence of marriage is a moral deficiency, not produced by any socioeconomic forces.

      If I had a flux capacitor I'd send you back to 1955 when this ethnocentric drivel sounded plausible.

    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4In order to answer Ryan83, I'll repost:

      bigdavediode,

      "Double checking more recent data from the CDC indicates that he's right for 2004"

      Imagine that. Right again. As usual.

      And the percentage is increasing, as you may have noticed.

      "What he doesn't mention, of course, is that white unmarried births are (in 2004) at over 30%."

      That is about the worst argument I've ever heard for continuing to allow the unrestricted immigration of a population that has around a 50% illegitimacy rate. In other words, "this hole isn't deep enough, we must dig deeper!"

      "And he certainly doesn't mention that Cuban unmarried births are about the same as whites at 33%."

      Frankly, the Cubans in our country are descended in large part from the predominantly white bourgeoisie that was expelled by Castro. That might explain why the rate is similar. In any event, the Cuban population is making up an ever smaller percentage of the U.S. Hispanic population.

      Ryan83,

      "First you reduce a nation wide phenomenon to a problem faced primarily by illegal immigrants."

      Not true. I'm saying that illegal immigrants make a serious problem even worse.

      "Then you reduce all illegal immigrants to Mexicans."

      Not true, but as bigdavediode's mention of Cubans indicates, certain groups of Hispanics are more likely to have high rates of illegitimacy. Mexicans are the biggest contingent of the illegal immigrants and one of the most prone to illegitimacy.

      "Then you act as if the fact they're illegal has nothing to do with the fact they're not married."

      Now you are leaping to conclusions! Not all Mexican-Americans are illegal immigrants I might remind you. It isn't necessarily illegal immigrants, but rather their American-born descendants that are especially prone to illegitimacy. The rate of illegitimacy in Mexico is quite a bit lower than the rate among Mexican-Americans, for example. Furthermore, Mexican-Americans have high fertility rates compounding the problem.

      "Then you assume as if the absence of marriage is a moral deficiency, not produced by any socioeconomic forces."

      Socioeconomic forces or not, illegitimacy tends to perpetuate poverty. Furthermore, Mexican-Americans have very low rates of academic achievement even four generations into American life which doesn't help the situation. As a culture, they don't value education very highly:

      http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html

      As you can see by this story, spending massive amounts of education doesn't necessarily fix the problem either. Not by any means:

      http://acrossdifficultcountry.blogspot.com/2007/02/we-cant-even-spell-our-own-gangs-right.html
    • TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Honestly I've noticed in my area that many mexicans are out together with their families on the weekends, in fact I'm kind in awe of what I've seen with my own eyes of the mexican family structure.

      Whereas I see many black people who have never ever met their own father.(like me)

      I also see many white people who have like four fathers, 3 mothers and 12 step-siblings and some creepy ass dude named "Steve/Jan". You don't know much about him, other than that he loves your mother/father and he/she gives you stuff. Also don't forget the crazy hyphenated names "Jones-Smith-Davis-Parker"

      From what I've seen of the asian family it's also very strong. Mixed families as well.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2THX:

      >That is about the worst argument I've ever heard for continuing to allow the unrestricted immigration of a population that has around a 50% illegitimacy rate.

      What immigration? You included Puerto Ricans in your dishonest statistics, and they mostly live in Puerto Rico. Take them out and your "massive birthrate" drops.

      Additionally, you pretend that all hispanics are immigrants, which is just stupid. You need help.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1bigdavediode,

      "What immigration? You included Puerto Ricans in your dishonest statistics, and they mostly live in Puerto Rico. Take them out and your "massive birthrate" drops."

      For the second time on a single thread, you've spoken without doing your homework. Fertility rates among Mexican immigrants:

      From: http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html

      "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in Mexico." Both Mexican and Mexican-American birth rates are higher than the United States mean.

      "Additionally, you pretend that all hispanics are immigrants, which is just stupid. You need help."

      I stated:

      "Now you are leaping to conclusions! Not all Mexican-Americans are illegal immigrants I might remind you. It isn't necessarily illegal immigrants, but rather their American-born descendants that are especially prone to illegitimacy."

      Since when is stating that many ethnic Mexicans are American-born (and thus citizens) an example of implying that all Hispanics are immigrants? You need to read more carefully.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Attempts by open borders advocates to divorce (no pun intended) the effects of Hispanic, particularly Mexican, immigration from the effects of the descendants of Hispanic immigrants are unbelievably common, even though they extremely dishonest.

      It is a little like arguing that when calculating the costs of illegal immigration, we cannot count the costs incurred of educating so-called "anchor babies" because those children have citizenship and are not illegal themselves. It complete sidesteps the problem.

      Both liberals and open-borders libertarians try this sort of gambit all the time.

      Certain Hispanic illegals, particular the largest contingent of them, Mexicans, have high birth rates of children who, in turn, have high illegitimacy rates (and high birth rates themselves). It is a vicious cycle.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2THX:

      >"Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in Mexico." Both Mexican and Mexican-American birth rates are higher than the United States mean.

      Brilliant, so rather than ascribing this to socio-economic factors, you know it's because they're Mexican, or as you later tried to plaster onto your argument, descendants of Mexicans. Since black unmarried birthrates are higher, I can only envision what you have pictured for the blacks, since it's not because of poverty, in your mind it's because of their ethnicity.

      As I said, you need help.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Brilliant, so rather than ascribing this to socio-economic factors, you know it's because they're Mexican, or as you later tried to plaster onto your argument, descendants of Mexicans."

      Is that an admission you were wrong the facts once again?
  • Coven, on 10/12/2007, -16/+44The gays are threatening the sanctity of marriage! We have to stop them from ruining what is pure and wholesome! Straight people could never ruin marriage!


    /sarcasm
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -24/+2bigdavediode,

      "Double checking more recent data from the CDC indicates that he's right for 2004"

      Imagine that. Right again. As usual.

      And the percentage is increasing, as you may have noticed.

      "What he doesn't mention, of course, is that white unmarried births are (in 2004) at over 30%."

      That is about the worst argument I've ever heard for continuing to allow the unrestricted immigration of a population that has around a 50% illegitimacy rate. In other words, "this hole isn't deep enough, we must dig deeper!"

      "And he certainly doesn't mention that Cuban unmarried births are about the same as whites at 33%."

      Frankly, the Cubans in our country are descended in large part from the white bourgeoisie that was expelled by Castro. That might explain why the rate is similar. In any event, the Cuban population is making up an ever smaller percentage of the U.S. Hispanic population.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Sorry, that response should have been posted with the groups of posts directly above this one.
  • Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57I have a friend who's parents "stayed together for the children." You know what he says now that he's 35, "They should have just gotten a divorce." They sleep in separate beds, stay in separate parts of the house during the waking hours, and have always communicated negative things through their kids. "Go tell your dad not to touch my stuff." "If you see your mom using my tool, tell her that I don't want her to use it."

    My parents got divorced and both got remarried. You know what, I was better off being raised by my mother and step father. At the age I am now, I can look at my biological dad who has no compassion, can't even hug his grand-kids because he fears showing emotion and say "Thank god I wasn't raised that way."

    So, my question is, what's better? Growing up being raised by the "married" couple above, learning from that type of "marriage", or having your parents get divorced, and possibly move on to a relationship that shows you how a REAL relationship should function? With adults communicating and working out their problems in a civilized, adult manner, without dragging the children into it. My wife (soon to be ex) and I went to three different marriage counselors and still could not work through our problems. We were together for 11 years, from high school on, and married for 5. We have one son, and you know what, I don't want him to grow up with us arguing about what I don't do, or what she doesn't do. We tried to work it out, we did the best we could, and we couldn't make it work. Just as we both agreed to get married, we both agreed to get divorced. We still talk, help each other out, but just aren't able to have that type of relationship anymore. Sometimes, marriage just doesn't work, period.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The parent post cannot be dugg up enough.
    • JerryCant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You hit the nail right on the head.

      My two kids agree the divorce was a great idea, having them watch their parents fight all the time is like the worst thing you can do to your kids...
  • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42It's sad, but today marriage is viewed as nothing but a legal excuse for a girlfriend to take half of her boyfriend's money when they "break up". If you're not willing to spend the rest of your natural life together (like you both ***** pledge), don't get married. It's that simple.
    • Oculus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Well, that's the boyfriends fault for not getting a pre-nup if he has a lot of money to begin with. If you make a lot of money while you're married, your spouse is entitled to half of everything since you built it "together". You know it going in, so don't bitch about it on the way out.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Not everyone gets a Christian marriage that is "until death do we part"...some have temporary marriages on purpose.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Are you digging me down because it's true...that pagans get married for a year and a day or five years?

      Look it up. Marriage can be temporary.

    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I think we are talking about state-sanctioned marriage, not religious. State marriage is not temporary. The only purpose of it is to get tax benefits and half of a guy's earnings as the above poster said. Also to prove to the world that its socially acceptable to be gay. Other than that there isn't much of a point unless you get off on signing papers.
    • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Christians have the highest divorce rates of any religions!! Atheists have the lowest!!! Look that up! BTW, Jessica Simpson is a devout Christian. Divorced! Britney Spears is a Southern Baptist. Divorced - twice!! Amy Grant, miss peachy clean Christian singer, cheated on her husband and married her co-adulterer! Christians are the worst like I said!!
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Christian" is just a word. Nothing else. Do you honestly think that if Jesus were alive today, he'd want anything to do with the people that ran around preaching hellfire, genocide, slavery, and taxation in his name? Jesus hung out with the gentiles, the Samaritans, the tax collectors, the romans, the prostitutes, and the lepers. The Jewish priests wanted nothing more than to see him dead for challenging their religious authority over the people. Jesus said that he loved and died for each and every living creature that God made. That includes all the murderers, atheists, muslims, and satan worshipers. Jesus said he died for Adolf ***** Hitler. Say what you want about the people that use him for a mascot, but leave Jesus out of it, they sure do.
    • profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2George Carlin's rule: Before you marry someone, ask yourself, "Am I willing to give this person half of my stuff?"
  • Performance, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Lets put it in realistic terms here. If say in the mid to late 20th century US didn't loosen up immigration policy and allow the influx of immigration the economy would have stagnated. You need more people if you want to keep growing. Basic macroeconomics here. Beware what you wish for, it doesn't matter if they're broke as long as they work.

    The US economy would be nowhere near its current real GDP without the immigration policy.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10Nonsense. Even if the most optimistic projections of what illegal immigrants contribute to the economy indicate they contribute, in savings, a negligible portion of the GDP. Those optimistic projections are also likely incorrect since they usually fail to take into account the high costs that American citizens incurred as a result of the illegal alien burden on our education, welfare, prison, and health care systems.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Left-wing economist, Dean Baker, points out that simple economics demonstrates that the constantly cited need for low-skilled workers is ridiculous:

      http://beatthepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/immigrants-and-low-wage-jobs.html
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Left wing "economics" isn't economic, as the last century shown. I would suggest a new word but there are many, maybe people should just be more careful when putting left-wing and economic in the same sentence.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Or right wing for that matter...look at how much in debt we are from the previous Republican held Government.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6'Left wing "economics" isn't economic, as the last century shown.'

      I said he was a left-wing economist, not that he was employing left-wing economics (let alone Marxist economics). Dean Baker is anything but a Marxist and his article is based on stuff anyone with even an elementary understanding of economics, regardless of political affiliation, should be capable of comprehending. Enough of the ad hominem.
  • morandomdanu, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18I must say, coming from a long term (heterosexual) Committed relationship the tax breaks KICK @$$ for 2 non-married head of household adults. Sometimes the kids have a hard time explaining the relationships, thats OK, it lets them be creative. It seems to me that a lot of conservatives view divorce as a bad thing, but most of the divorces think of are far better off than before. it seems that Sticking it out, is not always the best plan.
    I say do what is best for the family and screw all of this "traditional" garbage.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7"I say do what is best for the family and screw all of this "traditional" garbage."

      Well, then what is your solution to the numerous well-documented social pathologies accompanying single-mother families?
    • Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@ THX

      Link to said well-documented social pathologies?
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@THX1212 -- The problem, of course, is that your implicit solution is some sort of government ban on divorce or unmarried cohabitation. There is no government solution to broad social trends. It'll all work itself out.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5For starters: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"the problem, of course, is that your implicit solution is some sort of government ban on divorce or unmarried cohabitation."

      I've never said any such thing. You are implying too much.

      "There is no government solution to broad social trends. It'll all work itself out."

      What evidence do you have for that?
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Well, okay, THX, what *are* you suggesting as a solution then? I searched up and down this page -- had to "show all," since so many of your comments were buried -- and your only suggestions include government restrictions on divorce. These choice quotes were found among your drivel:

      "If you get divorced there should be a time limit before you get remarried. Maybe five years or so. This might reduce the tendency of people to go from one short marriage after only a few months of dating to the next."

      "Well, one might argue that quite a few of our problems today are a result of exactly that: the government allowing marriage to be treated as merely an arbitrary contract between two people without any concern for the foundational role played by the family in society."

      Without stating outright, you imply heavily that government should restrict divorce. It is well that you stick to implication, because you are proscribing a fascist society.

      Of course, I don't think you really think that. You'd prefer that society, of its own volition, turn back the clock on decades of social change and resume eye-rolling and and finger-wagging at the mere mention of a loving unmarried couple "living in sin." But that's not going to happen, for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of a digg post. Moral crusaders are free to move to Utah. The rest of us will continue ***** arbitrarily in consumerist two-income childless hedonism, unless your lot gets in power and illegalizes divorce and unmarried co-habitation.

      Finally:

      ""There is no government solution to broad social trends. It'll all work itself out."

      What evidence do you have for that?"

      The evidence is that we're all still here. The fire-and-brimstone crowd has been shrieking for the last millenium that moral decay will bring God's wrath. And it never comes. The problems associated with the decline of marriage in Western society are merely the corrective costs we're paying for decades of social progress. Women are no longer tethered to loveless indentured service arrangements; they are free to pursue their own careers and goals outside the context of legalized slavery. There's a price to be paid for this disruption of authoritative stability, and free Western democratic societies have decided that this price is worth it. Feel free to sulk in moral indignation; you are a minority.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Ah! A gliding argument:

      First we have:

      "The problem, of course, is that your implicit solution is some sort of government ban on divorce or unmarried cohabitation."

      I respond that I'm not advocating a ban on divorce. I state that you are implying something that I haven't said. Then you state:

      "and your only suggestions include government restrictions on divorce."

      So, we've moved from "you are denying you advocate a ban on divorce" and when I deny it, you respond "liar, all I see are calls for restriction on divorce."

      You can't any distinction between a total ban on divorce and placing some restrictions on divorce?

      When you can learn to discuss issues honestly, without shifting your argument in midstream, come back and talk to me.

      By the way, I'm an agnostic so stop implying another thing I'm not; namely, a member of the "fire and brimstone" crowd.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Actually, I didn't change arguments in midstream. My first post was written before (or around the same time) you wrote those other two insipid quotes. I could only assume what suggestions you might have to correct the social ills you so vehemently railed against, because I had not seen any of your actual suggestions, merely empty rhetoric. I was actually quite surprised to find that, exactly as I had suspected, you *were* advocating big government social engineering.

      If you don't want to be lumped in with the fire-and-brimstone crowd, you should stop talking like one of them. As an agnostic, you can't possibly believe that marriage is sacred, merely that the appearance of its sanctity is a pragmatic necessity. That's a considerably less self-righteous position than you pretend to hold.
  • JJsays, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Its 2007.
  • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5Here is an idea to throw everyone's way. Tell me what you think about it:

    If you get divorced there should be a time limit before you get remarried. Maybe five years or so. This might reduce the tendency of people to go from one short marriage after only a few months of dating to the next.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22here's a better idea:

      how about the government gets out of the marriage business.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5"here's a better idea:

      how about the government gets out of the marriage business."

      Well, one might argue that quite a few of our problems today are a result of exactly that: the government allowing marriage to be treated as merely an arbitrary contract between two people without any concern for the foundational role played by the family in society.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11but the thing is, your solution involves having the government regulate social relationships and activities. You'd love to see marriage regulated by the state--how about childbirth? How far should we go?

      Or, how about this, we let people make up their own minds when it comes to their own lives and relationships. Crazy, isn't it, this whole 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' thing?

    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5"Crazy, isn't it, this whole 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' thing?"

      Those words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were penned at a time when there were far fewer grounds for divorce than today.

      Today's motto might be: "life, liberty and the pursuit of hedonism (screw the kids)."
    • thruyersternum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Heres an even better idea: hows about the shadow government gets out of the marriage business.
      http://www.sweetliberty.org/nobarbarians1.htm - from a 1969 NWO lecture, regarding the changes leading up to now: "Divorce would be made easier and more prevalent. Most people who marry will marry more than once. More people will not marry." "More women will work outside the home. More men will be transferred to other cities, and in their jobs, more men would travel. Therefore, it would be harder for families to stay together."
    • DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think the New World Order should get out of marriages...
    • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Marriage was originally about sustaining blood lines and transfer of property to heirs. This love ***** is a 20th century American invention which is why marriage disappoints so many disillusioned youngsters.
  • johnwc723, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yeah, I think the main (non theological) argument against gay marriage just went out the window, "kids growing up without a mother or father figure" oh no!
  • chaoshauk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Wouldn't unmarried head of households be counted twice as often as a married couple. (Meaning you count a married couple once, yet if they were divorced, they would count as 2).
    Maybe I'm just wrong in my thinking, though.
  • Koushiro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Screw children and getting married. Single-life for the win Alex!
  • Adamesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How did this info that was out years ago ever get to the front page?!?! Would that be the 2000 census!? Alright Digg...you've managed to put stories older than yourself on front page!
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I think people get married too quick without considering what they are getting into. It's a lot harder to keep a commitment than it is to make one.
  • maestroh, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6most of the problems in our society can be attributed to women entering the workforce. sad, but true
    • osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Who knew Rick Santorum was on digg?
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And I'm a sexist...geesh...
    • 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's a clip where Aaron Russo explains why the Rockefeller foundation wanted women in the workforce so badly. It's not about sexism. It's about money and control.

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm
    • wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5As much as this guy comes off as a sexist ass, he's right on one count -- the addition of women to the workforce was one of the most turbulent sociological phenomina of the 20th century. When women began performing jobs traditionally held by men, society was forced to compensate for the lack of the role of 'wife and mother' that she traditionally filled. We had to invent things like day care and preschool to compensate, as well as maternity leave, sexual harassment legislation, and more. Women began to see men not as the protector and provider that she needed to get through life, but as an equal partner that she could do without if she decided she wasn't happy. Likewise, men had to perform tasks traditionally performed by women -- cooking, cleaning, caring for children -- and he began to see his wife not as someone he couldn't get through life without, but as more of an equal partner that he could do without if he decided he wasn't happy. Add into the mix the no fault divorce, and the divorce rate naturally evolved to what it is today. If we keep going this way, we'll wind up like Russia -- with a 70% divorce rate.

      The sad part is that, without the incentive that used to be there for husbands and wives to work out their issues together to preserve their families, their children are suffering from improper role models. Studies show that children from two parent homes fare better than children from single parent homes. Children from single parent homes are more likely to wind up in jail or dropping out of school.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Ok ok so socially upsetting yes but well over due.

      Men do not protect, they beat and destroy women...and if they ever did it was only because the wife was super submissive and couldn't protect herself.

      Personally as a female. It would be nice to be protected, but he who makes the gold rules, which means he could decide to beat or kill you (me) with no one the wiser.

      This probably happened more than was reported.

      I choose to have a husband. I choose to raise a family. He chooses to stay home while I work.

      A marriage based on choice and love is a marriage..not a socially imposed death trap.
  • sirjimbob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I've been together and living with my girlfriend for over four years now. Its a life long commitment and neither of us see any reason to get married as it doesn't particularly mean anything besides what we already have. I guess us being two children of divorced families has had an impact.
    • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I agree. I DO NOT want to get married. My parents fought alot and separated. That was a really tough period in my life, and I swore I would never put my kids through that. I still cringed every time I heard the neighbors living below me yelling and screaming. (They moved last year.) Unless you can BOTH agree with 99% certainty that you will never leave each other or argue in front of the kids, don't get married. Marriage is not a mortgage or car loan. It's a lifetime commitment that may involve kids. Forget the crap about God. It's the kids you have to worry about.
  • BLish, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4let's stop all this reproducing and just have more oral and anal sex! .... just remember... you cannot ATM!

    /sarcasm
    //was raised by a lesbian mother and her lover.... (not joking) ...
    • apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7...what?
    • wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4And this, everyone, is an example of someone raised by a gay couple.

      /sarcasm
  • verstohlen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Single parents, gay parents, mom and dad both working, no one home to take care of the kids, except Jerry Springer on the TV. And today's kids are better emotionally adjusted than ever, aren't they? And hey, everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay!
  • CanadianGuy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4And we wonder why there are so many screwed up people in society.
  • mikefitz2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6the world needs more christian values
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6what would those be exactly....

      I hear so many versions today like...love, faith, trust, compassion...

      But I see so much more like, hate, murder, sexism, intolerance, vulgarity,
    • phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem is the people who try to spread them do it incorrectly and give Christian values a bad name.
    • hode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@mikefitz2
      Please keep your crusades to yourself, thank you.
    • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Read my several posts which point out that Christians have the highest divorce rates in the country of all religions next to Jews. Atheists are last. More hypocritical a holes talking about good Christian family values. Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, and Amy Grant - ALL DEVOUT CHRISTIAN DIVORCEES!!!!
  • Niddik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I doubt that it's actually headed by "singles." It's probably headed by people who "shack up" instead of marry.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"shack up" what century are you from? Let me guess your 80, Republican, Christian, and Southern.

      Well not everybody else is...GET OVER IT.
  • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The culture, or lack thereof, is to blame. America has no culture. Also, the media plays a huge role. Think of all those popular sitcoms that convey divorce, premarital sex, etc. as the norm (i.e. "Friends"). These are sitcoms that the youth take seriously and believe that the characters' actions are normal.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Obviously it is the norm if there are more single households then married ones.
  • phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I think we are all going to ban THX212.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I never ban anyone on my posts. I think that is a pretty cowardly response when you don't have much of an argument. Do as you will though.
  • Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4“What will happen if we break up?” Those who marry don’t have to wrestle with that.

    Ummm... huh? Divorce takes months, if not years. It is agonizingly painful to have your entire life dragged out into the public and just makes the pain last and last and last... and after the divorce, the chaos just continues, espeically if you have kids.
    • JerryCant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The marriage lasted 8 years, the divorce took 2 months and that was 7 years ago in my case, being dragged out to court was just a formality, smiling to the judge and signing a piece of paper ;-)

      If you have kids, think about them, for better or for worse, etc...


    • Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kentucky or one of it's neighbors is putting in place a "cool down period" of 6 months where you have to file intention to get divorced, wait 6 months, then you can start the process.

      Fun, fun, fun!
  • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@ krymore:

    Of course, that's only true in America. Everywhere else [with a few exceptions; i.e. maybe Canada], the connotation of marriage certainly has not been degraded to that.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Sometimes I feel like the last sane person on earth. My parents raised me, stayed together and argued maybe one time. Now, trying to create my own life, that sort of life seems like it belongs to another era. I know so many divorced people, people who were beaten, mentally and physically by their parents, parents cheated on each other. It's very hard for two people, one from a calm and "boring" upbringing, another from a turbulent upbringing, to relate to each other. The calm person is happy while the other person is constantly reliving the past while their partner cannot relate or offer help to the demons. I've found that having a turbulent past is like an infectious disease that spreads not only at the individual level but throughout society and culture. At its roots I believe it's the pressure of modern day life and making a living that contribute to this. People move around for jobs, worry about getting rich, worry about everything except loving your family.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5feel sorry for you...

      you missed out on all the gripes of a whole generation.

      Actually I would say your lucky except you can't relate.
    • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ geronimo
      Would you agree that that holds true mainly for America?
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@punjabimobboss
      It's mainly true in America but I know that Europe has its share of problems, not due to job-seeking reasons but due to a culture of cheating on your spouse. Having a turbulent past does make you interesting and aware of things other people aren't able to grasp. Look at all the people with difficult childhoods.. Rockefeller for example. His drunken father made it so Rockefeller matured early and the rest is history. But heaven help the less aware/boring person who must live with these eccentric but interesting people.

      As a side note I see arranged marriages work extremely well.
  • punjabimobboss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ THX: You speak the truth.
  • xXAzraelXx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ostracism being removed is a step towards people no longer being scared to leave abusive relationships, however it can lead to easier "flights of fanatacism" like whirlwind romances a'la Britney Spears (who shaved her head over the stress of herself being an abusive/abusing cohabitator).
    I would like to see a world where people mate for life, you know, penguins can do it sheesh... :)
  • Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I blame Henry VIII
  • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Fundies are out in force be warned! Digg has become fundie land to try and brain wash the masses.
  • parent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Society has changed, people get married after knowing each other for a few weeks, marriage doesn't seem to carry as much weight as it use to. Married people use to stay together for life in the 50's and 60's, and also didn't get married in the spur of the moment. When you have people that have only known each other for a few months getting married, of course the divorce rate is going to go up.
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, and for a good example of how wonderful a society is where people are trapped in a marriage, may I suggest http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808403975/info
    • DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Starting in the 60s, I believe, people started getting married to people with whom they had good sex. This is perhaps the single biggest mistake that most people are at risk of making. NEVER EVER EVER marry someone because of good sex. EVER. It is a terrible reason to get married, and this is the opinion of a guy who has counseled people in relationships (author of "How can you tell if you're really in love") for a long time. Good sex is a good reason to have sex, but if you want to get married, ask yourself the 15 questions (scroll down to see them).
  • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I find it appalling that Christians who are so gung-ho about family values make up the largest percentage of divorcees in the U.S. by religion next to the Jews. Atheists have the lowest divorce rates! Christian kids are talking about their 2 daddies more than gay parents who have kids - their biological dad and their stepdad (or whoever mom is bringing home tonight). What's that old saying about throwing stones while living in a glass house?
    BTW, I get alot of ***** at work for being single because everyone around me is married. Well, I've seen them and their wives. Neither side has anything to brag about. As the old saying goes, I wouldn't stick my dick in her with my eyes closed and 10 people pushing behind me - for all the wives. There is only one guy in my office that I could say I'm jealous of beause he has a hot blonde wife that looks like Kim Bassinger. The rest have dogs and I know they will be divorced or cheating soon. They are no prizes themselves, so I suspect the wives may be getting action on the side too. ANyway, I keep my mouth closed because I don't want to make them cry. I really could go off on them one day though. ;)
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow, your post shows JUST how shallow you are. No you shouldn't get married ever.

      I wouldn't introduce you to my model friend if you paid me!
  • SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1A nation of sluts!
  • galore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why is it that so many people care about other people's way of life? What does it matter to YOU, if a stranger is married or not?!

    If you want to get married and are allowed to, go ahead and marry. If you want to divorce, go ahead and divorce. It is none of my business and neither should it be anybody elses business.

    I swear, people are just WAY tooooo nosy. Especially the "moral" ones.
  • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I think Paul McCartney won't be getting married again. Neither will Eminem, especially after his twice-divorced-from-him wife went of the radio and said he was a pencil dick. ;)
  • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This means quite a lot to someone living outside of the US. It is very easy for us to get the idea that all of you are religious freaks. This statistic shows us that you are less religious than we expected.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes most of us AREN'T Christian religious zealots.
  • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Serious question for married Christians: doesn't giving/getting blowjobs, doing it doggy-style, porking her in the ass, etc. conflict with your Christian values? And if you don't do these things because you're a "good Christian", does this jeopardize your marriage? Maybe that's why Christians have the highest divorce rates among all religions. (This does ot apply to Catholic women, because they do the dirtiest, filthiest ***** to you without any guilt.)
  • gerham, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"I believe you should get tax benefits for not having kids because having kids costs the government and society more than choosing not to." AMEN TO THAT!
  • DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4From the New York Times:

    Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying

    Published: December 17, 2006

    Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:

    What questions do you think are important to ask before marriage?

    1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?

    2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?

    3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?

    4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?

    5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?

    6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?

    7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?

    8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?

    9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?

    10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?

    11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?

    12) What does my family do that annoys you?

    13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?

    14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?

    15) Do each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What questions do you think are important to ask before marriage? (Easiest to do by living together)

      1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver? This we did...and my husband decided he would be the primary care giver.

      2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh? Yep did this too by living together first.

      3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?yep.

      4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?yep.

      5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?yep.

      6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?yep.

      7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?nope.

      8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?try to.

      9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?kinda...we understand each others beliefs or lack there of and we equally educate them accordingly.

      10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?nope. Friends we're cast out as a result.

      11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?yes and no. Main problems died though.

      12) What does my family do that annoys you?done that.

      13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?yep...discussed while living together.

      14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?done.

      15) Do each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?hmmm? dunno.

      Lived together for 6 years and you'll know the answers.
    • pingveno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16 years is an awfully long time. As just a comparison, that's the amount that it takes for a child to go from middle school (7th grade) to graduating from high school. Waiting is good in my opinion, but it's very possible to go overboard.
  • Female, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Singles are the ones who get the tax break, unless there's a wealthy one in there. That's why its called the marriage penalty.
    Marriage is not religious, but it can be made that way, it's just one of many customs you can use to make it personal.

    It is, however, outdated. If 2 people love each other, and are committed to each other, how they express that commitment is up to THEM. And apparently, marriage just doesn't matter so much anymore. It's not biological, it's social, and social norms change. The laws do need to catch up.
    There is nothing wrong with people who live together. Marriage is not an end game. No one is a "slut" or a "whore" or "just wants to weasel out of a commitment", because if the person isn't committed to you, they won't be. Period. Better to get out. If you want to get married so you can feel you have a commitment, you've already lost. Marriage is not a commitment, it's just a way to EXPRESS one.

    And to DannoJyd: You have just shown what is wrong with many relationships. An pompous in-law is often a problem. Your children's relationships are not YOUR relationships. Nose out. Gladly most people are more concerned with having happy children and grandchildren over "solid" marriages.
  • 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you found yourself living on Mars, would you carry on as if everything were normal?

    Sure, you could keep up the act for 20, maybe even 50, years, but eventually you'd say, "***** it," and just let it all hang out. You'd stop brushing your teeth, getting haircuts, behaving like a normal human being, and so on. You'd essentially participate in the total breakdown of human civilization that we are witnessing now.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.