DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on October 16, 2006, 09:24:47 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061015/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleussociety
in all this talk about marraige very little said about why it`s good or what to do to make it work.
-
in all this talk about marraige very little said about why it`s good
So you have someone to drive you to the hospital when needed.
-
Funny article. So now it's official - - the Moral Majority is the Moral Minority. This is gonna cause some righteous fulmination in the various Houses of God. I can hardly wait for Falwell's take on this, or Pat Robertson's. Probably praying right now for al Qaeda to chastise the ungodly nation and prepare it properly for the End of Days.
-
in the giant effort to save marraige they never did anything to make couples happy.
if anything it almost treated as a trivial thing.
note how little attention is give to make couples happy.
those statistics shouldn`t really be that surprising really.
-
Commitment is a good thing, but marraige is a legal binding contract with many nagative aspects, i.e liabilty for debt, power of attorney issues, joint property issues and getting out of the contract, if it fails to a bad contract for one or both parties. When people place themself in legal bondage, they give up their right of individual freedom. If people understand these things, then I say fine, get married and live a happy life.
-
Funny article. So now it's official - - the Moral Majority is the Moral Minority.
For those who have less then adequate math skills, a married household is 2 adults, while the vast majority of unmarried households were shown to be single people.
So, married people outnumber single people by nearly two to one.
Interestingly enough, my daughter caught this - before I even said anything - when it was reported on Headline News this morning.
-
Non-married households: 50.2 %.
Married households: 49.8 %.
"In addition, there were more than 30 million unmarried men and women living alone, who are not categorized as families, the Census Bureau reported."
So I guess I don't understand your point, Ami.
-
<<For those who have less then adequate math skills, a married household is 2 adults, while the vast majority of unmarried households were shown to be single people.>>
I make it 19 million households headed by single men or women and 36.7 "non-trad" being mostly gays. Since each "household" is by definition a grouping of at least TWO individuals (the live-alone singles were counted separately) I make that 19 + 36.7 = 55.7 households, minimum 2 people per household or 111.4 million individuals in households without a marriage holding them together and 55.2 "married" households, minimum 2 people each for a total of 110.4 million living in households held together by marriage.
The article even went out of its way to assist people who have trouble grasping the significance of these facts by pointing out that it was a FIRST. There is obviously some significance to this article that you are incapable of comprehending, but why take it out on the rest of us?
-
So I guess I don't understand your point, Ami.
Married couples were reported as "households", while others were reported as individuals.
Married households: 55.2 million (x2) = 110.4 million people
Unmarried: 36.7 million
Single: 30 million
Single heads of family: 19 million
Total: 85.7
So, it's not 2 to 1, but more like 1.5 to one. Still doesn't make married couples a "minority" as Mikey called them. Unless you want to remove the vote from the women or something.
-
Since each "household" is by definition a grouping of at least TWO individuals (the live-alone singles were counted separately)
You're making an assumption I did not make. I have yet to see the definition and data the study used.
The wording "while 36.7 million belonged to a category described as 'nonfamily households,'" is ambiguous.
It could mean "36.7 million (groups of two or more)" - your read - or "36.7 million (people)" - my read.
-
Since they established a specific and separate category for the live-alones (30 million if I recall) it seems "household" meant something other than live-alone. That "something" could only be either a totally vacant household or one with two or more members. Somehow I would think the latter is what they had in mind.
-
Since they established a specific and separate category for the live-alones (30 million if I recall) it seems "household" meant something other than live-alone. That "something" could only be either a totally vacant household or one with two or more members. Somehow I would think the latter is what they had in mind.
Looking at the CSV file of the 2005 data (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2005/tabH1-all.csv), it shows "all non-family households" at 36,485,000, and "one member non-family households" at 30,137,000, with the balance being spread among 2 or more member households. Look specifically at cells H7 and H8.
Since they have a "one member household" listed, I would say that your assumption is most likely incorrect. Unless, of course, you now want to argue that there is a difference between "one member household" and "people living alone."
-
It seems that the 30 million was a portion - - and obviously the biggest portion - - of the 36.7 non-traditional households. In other words, most of the non-trads are just single men or single women living alone and counted as a household. The "in addition" wording of the article threw me off, making it sound like the singles were counted in addition to the non-trads instead of being a part of them.
You still missed the significance of the story. The trend is downward for marriage and in fact as a percentage of households if not of individuals, non-married has already crossed the 50% line and is growing.
-
You still missed the significance of the story. The trend is downward for marriage and in fact as a percentage of households if not of individuals, non-married has already crossed the 50% line and is growing.
I didn't miss it. I was just pointing out that your math skills were lacking, since married couples are still a majority. I guess you missed my point.
-
Math skills my ass. If the article implied that the single households were counted apart from the other non-trads, my math skills drew the correct conclusion and yours did not. The error was in the article that misinterpreted the survey. You were fortunate that when the error of the article's interpretation was corrected, the conclusion that you had incorrectly drawn became the correct one on balance, although the factor of 200% that you originally calculated is still pretty far off the actual factor of 150%.
-
If the article implied that the single households were counted apart from the other non-trads, my math skills drew the correct conclusion and yours did not.
But it did not imply that fact; it was an incorrect assumption on your part.
-
"The growing length of time partners spend with only each other for company, in some instances, has made individuals less willing to put up with an unhappy marriage, while women's economic independence makes it less essential for them to do so," Coontz wrote.
Back when Women depended on Men, Divorce was less common.
Now Women are less dependant, divorce is more common.
Was it always Men that liked the arrangement?
-
Replying to Plane:
Yes.
-
Replying to Plane:
Yes.
Hmmmmmmm....
-
It really doesn't matter whether there are more or fewer married households. Marriage is a personal thing. It is good for some people, adequate for some, barely tolerable for others and a pain in the ass for others. The statistics are meaningless here, just like statistics that seek to prove that tomato soup is good for you because a majority of people like it.
People need to evaluate the entire question of whether to get married, including ythe pros and cons, and do whatever floats their individual boats.
The popularity of marriage proves only how popular it is. This is irrelevent to any specific individual.
-
Marriage is a personal thing>
Not really,when I got married thee most common thing I`ve been asked is when are we getting kids.
there are sooo many implied obligation in a marraige.
It`s hardly something between a husband and wife.
people can say they only married each other.
but most times a marraige involves friends,family,friends of family & sometimes pets.
the support is nice
but lets be truth families don`t always provide it without strings attached .
p.s. when parents pay for the wedding,it NEVER free to the couple NEVER free
-
By marriage is a personal thing, I mean that the DECISION to get married is a personal thing. Whether the marriage is a success or a disaster also depends on the couple nearly all of the time, though having a child with physical and/or mental problems could certainly;y affect the outcome.
It would be a personal decision for a man to have a vasectomy or a woman to have her tubes tied prior to the wedding, too.
My point is that statistics have zilch to do with the degree by which any two married people succeed or fail at having a happy marriage.
-
and sometimes only one of them made the decision.
a friend of mines boyfriends proposed with thee most romantic proposal
your not getting any younger.
i very much doubt this is a rare line used.
funny ,but sad
-
a friend of mines boyfriends proposed with thee most romantic proposal
your not getting any younger.
i very much doubt this is a rare line used.
===========================================
It is about as obvious a line as could exist.
The thought behind it would have to be, "You are going to get married anyway, and your time is running out. Better settle for me, because it's probably the best you can do. IN a few years, you will be old and wrinkly and no man will be interested in you."
True, but unromantic, and the sassumption is that a bad marriage is better than a life unmarried is dubious at best.
I was married twice, for 25 years (of which five were happy) and 6 years (of which 6 months at best were tolerable).
-
your right!!
the line a bad marriage is better than a life unmarried
is said alot in my youth.
I think the thinking is marraige is a duty to maintain the family ,but the happiness of the couple is of low priority
I know someone who doesn`t love her husband at all,but doesn`t care as long as the family is together.
and she don`t care about her relative that much at all.
it`s all about duty to her.
and strangely I think it`ll last longer than most other marriage.
-
Some people can't be happy , no life situation is going to "make " them happy.
Should people like this marry each other even though it will not be about happyness?
-
your right!!
the line a bad marriage is better than a life unmarried
is said alot in my youth.
I think the thinking is marraige is a duty to maintain the family ,but the happiness of the couple is of low priority
I know someone who doesn`t love her husband at all,but doesn`t care as long as the family is together.
and she don`t care about her relative that much at all.
it`s all about duty to her.
and strangely I think it`ll last longer than most other marriage.
__________________
Sure, there's duty. Especially in some ethnic or religious groups. It's a must, to marry and have kids.
-
but lets be truth families don`t always provide it without strings attached
You're damn right about that kimba!
Sure, there's duty. Especially in some ethnic or religious groups. It's a must, to marry and have kids.
That's true Lanya, different cultures view marriage very differently. As far as religion goes, it might have to do with the very purpose of intercourse itself. For some Christians intercourse is supposed to only take place for the sole purpose of procreation.
For some interesting comparisons look at the culture of Mali and then the nearby bedouins (sp?) of the Sahara. They have some interesting practices along these lines.