Experts argue new study shows Americans are optimistic about marriage
By Marianne Medlin, CNA
Marriage and family experts argued against media coverage of a recent study that claims a large numbers of Americans view marriage as obsolete. Rather than endorse a negative interpretation of the figures, the experts argued that the same study shows the majority of young people today still want to get married.
The interpretations come after the Pew Research Center and Time Magazine issued a report on Nov. 18 in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, saying that 39 percent of U.S. citizens view marriage as “obsolete.” This figure is an increase from the 28 percent of Americans who stated the same belief in 1978.
A media firestorm erupted after the release of the study, with major news outlets questioning whether or not the figures heralded the end of traditional notions on marriage and family life in America.
Opposing this idea, were Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, president of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, and Chuck Donovan, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They argued that a closer look at the study reveals more promising news.
Donovan said in a Nov. 19 e-mail that because the “forces against marriage” such as casual sex and abortion have been “powerfully corrosive” in American society, “it’s quite amazing that pro-marriage attitudes are so tenacious.”
Sixty-one percent “of adults think it’s by no means obsolete,” he said.
Citing additional figures from the Pew study, Donovan said that in fact, most single young people who were evaluated expressed a desire to get married. “The vast majority of the rising generation expects to marry someday – 85 percent or more will do so.”
“Young people want to get married and stay married,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse remarked in a phone interview with CNA on Nov. 19, adding that the problem in our current divorce-ridden society is that many are unsure how to effectively go about this.
“The responsible thing is to help people figure out what to do,” she said. Morse argued that “the real story is the enthusiasm of the mainstream media” in attempting to signal the demise of marriage.
Backing this idea, Donovan noted that the Pew numbers would serve as a “wake-up call” on the need for more of what he called marriage-supportive policies in the U.S.
A New Definition of Family?
Reports covering the Pew study also claimed that Americans’ definition of what constitutes a family has drastically changed.
Eighty-six percent of those who participated in the study said they viewed a single parent and child as a family; 80 percent said an unmarried couple living together with a child is a family; and 63 percent say a gay or lesbian couple raising a child is a family.
“I would be exceptionally cautious about concluding that Americans have really changed their definition of family,” Donovan said in reaction to the numbers. “We have never denied ‘family’ status to other arrangements, but we have also been clear to use such terms as ‘broken family,’ or ‘fragile families’ in the case of unmarried, cohabiting parents.”
Morse agreed that recognition doesn’t necessarily signify approval. “Everybody knows someone who’s living in a non-traditional lifestyle,” she said. “But do they approve of it? Do they think it’s a good thing?”
Donovan thought that the frequency of non-traditional arrangements caused people to agree they could be called a family more out of civility than anything else.
“People are expressing compassion in these matters, but the Pew study shows they also retain ideals,” he said. “This suggests to me that not appearing judgmental – but holding on to the traditional value – is important to many Americans.”
The Increase of Cohabitation
Both Donovan and Morse conceded, however, that the Pew’s statistics on the drastic rise of cohabiting couples proved troubling.
In the Pew Research survey, 44 percent of all adults – and more than half of all adults ages 30 to 49 – say they have cohabited at some point in their lives. Additionally, two-thirds of those who lived with someone said they believed that doing so with their partner was a step toward marriage.
“Cohabitation has been described not as a marriage preparation class but as a school for divorce,” Donovan said. “These relationships are more common today, but, in the American context at least, not more stable.”
“In all the research that’s been done on cohabitation,” Morse added, “no positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found.”
“When people are living together because they think it’s going to give them a better marriage, that’s completely false,” she said. Young people choosing to move in with their boyfriends of girlfriends because they want a good marriage is “completely counter productive.”
Morse went on to say that a primary reason young couples are cohabiting “is because they’re afraid.”
“Young people want to get married, stay married, they’re afraid of divorce and so they think that cohabiting is a good alternative,” she said, noting that “running your life on the basis of fear is usually not a good idea.”
Donovan added that the “figures on the outcomes for children born to and raised by unmarried couples do not match up with those for children raised by their married, biological parents.”
“This is true for everything from juvenile delinquency rates, to educational outcomes, to relationship stability and marital happiness when these children become adults,” he said. “The best gift that parents can give their children is still the witness of lifelong married love, or at minimum a lifetime working at it.”
Loading ...
Yes we are optimistic! The state of Maryland is moving towards extending marriage to all its citizens, joining the growing ranks of states to do so, and this is a wonderful thing.
I guess the sight of gays and lesbians fighting tirelessly for the right to marry *does* send a strong message about how important it is!
Gay couples have energized interest in marriage. Perhaps marriage will be in better hands when “the gays” are allowed to participate!
I honestly believe that marriage will become increasingly popular as same-sex couples are allowed in. We will show the rest of this country why marriage truly matters and why it’s worth preserving. However, if we are not allowed to marry, I predict that marriage becomes more obsolete. My daughter’s generation doesn’t like the idea that their friends and loved ones can’t marry, so they tend to view it as a discriminatory institution right now. Trust me, I talk to these kids all of the time. That’s one of the wonderful benefits of being a young mother–my daughter actually likes to talk to me, as do her friends! I definitely was not the same with my own mother, who was 30 years old when I was born. My daughter is still a bit too young to marry, but I wonder how her mother’s inability to marry will affect her own choice to do so? Hmmm…
I volunteer at a youth center for LGBT young people, and I can tell you LGBT youth are optimistic, too. They talk regularly about the desire to have a husband or wife one day, and the desire to have and raise children.
That’s great John!
@Emma
“The state of Maryland is moving towards extending marriage to all its citizens”
I hope that we will keep the current restrictions on granting licenses to have sex to:
Living
Humans
of Opposite Sex
Unmarried
Adults
Two in number
Who are not closely related.
The only change that needs to be made in our marriage laws is to make a marriage much more difficult for one party to dissolve.
Our society, in order to be just, needs to acknowledge the interests of children in having a Mommy and a Daddy who are married to each other for life.
Anything else must be acknowledged as a loss.
John maybe you should instruct the youth at LGBT that in order to have and raise children there has to be one husband and one wife. Not two wives or two husbands. God didn’t make a mistake. Our bodies were created by him and in order to create life you need a woman and a man. Gay couples can’t make and have children.
True Love…. good stuff here. I can only imagine the difficult vetting process that come up with the winners. Your winners – and all who submitted their entries are winners because they grasped the ineffable quality of lasting love – understand what it means finally to cherish the other in marriage: To embrace, long after looks have faded and loins cooled, the broken, bent, disheveled, forgetting and forgetful other whose life has merged with your life, graphing a part of one heart to the other’s heart in tender and blissful caring. As my wife whispered to a friend as I was trundled into the OR for a triple by-pass, seven years back:”He’s half my heart…” Alas, I’m alive and well. She, the other half of my heart, is alive and well with God.
Good work!
ron
@Rachel
“Gay couples can’t make and have children.”
Well, not necessarily together. However, God created all of us so He must have a plan for gays and lesbians. Perhaps it’s to show that two people can love and form a relationship without the need to procreate.
John
If he feels that way about gay couples then why does he refer to homosexual relations as a sin and perversion and abomination in the Bible? Homosexual relationships were not created by God. If he intended for them to be a form of family He would have made it so they could procreate. Again, He does not make mistakes.
@Rachel
“If he feels that way about gay couples then why does he refer to homosexual relations as a sin and perversion and abomination in the Bible? ”
Because of a poor translation and a lack of understanding of what the Bible says (not to mention centuries of discrimination). Actually, there is NOTHING in the Bible about a loving same sex couple (well, except for the stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and the Centurion and his slave – blessed by Jesus, no less).
Those couples were NOT same-sex, Mark! Where do you get that lunatic idea? It’s already been refuted on here yet you still say it. As you love to say, (aside from LOL and [sic]) “Where’s the proof?”
Mark I don’t think it was at all unclear nor a poor translation when he destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah for the sin and wickedness that abounded there, one of those sins being homosexuality.
Not to mention that Ruth and Naomi were relatives and not lovers. Ruth married a man. Also the centurion and his slave were friends, not lovers. Where on earth do you get off claiming that David and Jonathan were sexually involved?!!!! What a ridiculous load of nonsense mixed with ignorance towards the gospel of Jesus Christ!
@Kristina
Since the words in the Bible used in many wedding ceremonies (that represent love and commitment) are the words Ruth says to Naomi, it is reasonable to say they were lovers. I have yet to see it refuted.
@Rachel
“Mark I don’t think it was at all unclear nor a poor translation when he destroyed Sodom and Gemorrah for the sin and wickedness that abounded there, one of those sins being homosexuality.”
No. Homosexuality is not one of the sins of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin of the cities was in-hospitality. Even as a kid I couldn’t imagine why it would have been OK for the men to have raped Lot’s daughters. It was the sin of rape and force, not homosexuality.
How about just reading the Book of Ruth and seeing that Naomi was her mother-in-law. When her husband died, she had no place to go but to her mother-in-law’s native land with her. It was there that she met her second husband. Sorry, but the full story speaks louder than one simple line with a very flimsy spin on it.
@Rachel
“Not to mention that Ruth and Naomi were relatives and not lovers. Ruth married a man.”
Oh yes, that is ALWAYS proof someone cannot be gay.
“Also the centurion and his slave were friends, not lovers.”
The slave is referred to as a special friend which was usually translated as lover.
“Where on earth do you get off claiming that David and Jonathan were sexually involved?!!!! What a ridiculous load of nonsense mixed with ignorance towards the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
Why, from such verses as
1 Samuel 18:1-3: ” 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. ”
1 Samuel 20:16-17: ” 16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD call David’s enemies to account.” 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself. ”
2 Samuel 1:25-26: “25 “How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women. ”
Especially those last two sentences: “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” If two men said that to each other today, wouldn’t it sound like they were more than good friends?
Mark, did you ever read the Bible? The men didn’t rape Lot’s daughters. They wanted the men who were in Lot’s party, not his daughters. Again, this has already been stated on this blog. Why do you refuse to read it or acknowledge it? There is a reason it is called SODOMY! Sodomy isn’t synonymous with in-hospitality for crying out loud!
If two men said that to each other today, yes it would be seen as you say. But that was said a long time ago. Doubtlessly it had a different meaning then. Plus, that’s just how it was translated. It could have been understood as something entirely different when it was originally written, perhaps in words we don’t even use today. I can’t help myself here, but “duh.” Seriously, Mark. You make it sound like it’s not possible for someone to have close platonic friends without there being something more there. Do you have any friends? Did you ever have a “bosom pal”? Besides, using your own translation here, he also calls him brother. If you were married, would you call your wife your sister? I don’t think so.
@Mark
First of all that explanation of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is laughable and the most illogical explanation I have ever heard. If you go back one chapter in the book of Genesis before the destruction occurs there is a conversation between Abraham and the Lord. Abraham is pleading with the Lord to spare the people and the Lord replies “I will go down now, and see whether they have done althogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.” Then the Lord sends the holy men to see if the people of the city are committing the sins that the righteous were crying unto him about which was sexual sin which included homosexuality. So then the holy men go visit Lot and the first thing they encounter are the men that want to have sex with them!!! (homosexuality). “And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men whcihch came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. “Know” here is translated from Hebrew in this context as a euphamism in place of a sexual word. Then the holy men save Lot from these wicked men and the first thing they say to Lot is to go tell his family to leave because the city would be destroyed immediately. So if it was actually Lot commiting the grievous sin, then why would they protect him and his family and tell them to leave so they would not be destroyed. Yet they did not warn the men who wanted to have sex with them to leave. THEY WERE DESTROYED!!! So the logical conclusion here would be that they were the ones commiting the grievous sin worthy of destruction, NOT Lot!
Just to give further clarification read Leviticus 20:13 “And if a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”
I don’t know how much clearer it can be said, if a man does with a man what he does with a woman in bed then it is abomination. There is no vagueness about that statement.
Also Naomi and Ruth loved each other as family members. My husband and Father love each other and have a very close relationship and yet they are not sleeping together. How is it that you can honestly think that every close relationship with a member of the same sex has to be sexual? Do you have a brother? Do you love your brother? The problem is that our language uses the same word “love” for all kinds of love. We say “I love french fries and in the same breath say “I love you” to our spouse. Other languages are not limited to one word for love and they express different forms of love. That is why the expressions of love in the Old and New testament mean different things than what we say today. Also I would like to point out that if Ruth really was a lesbian with her mother-in-law(ridiculous) than she would have been perfectly happy to never marry another man. So why did she leave her and marry a man?
As far as Jonathan and David are concerned. Jesus says that He and the Father are one in spirit and one over and over again in the New Testament. John 10:30, 17:22. Are you seriously implying that they are gay because they are “one”? I can’t think of a more blasphemous idea!
Not to mention that if David were gay then why did he give up all his powers and blessings from God because he lusted after and had sex with a woman. Would he seriously risk all of that if in fact he really liked guys? These arguments are just completely illogical.
@Kristina
I agree with you. These specious arguments force a same-gender spin on the text, with no cause.
When we practice and approve sexual activities that are against God’s law, we lose the good of marriage, but we also lose the good of friendship, of parent-child relationships, pet ownership, etc.
To love a friend, a mother-in-law, a child, or a pet includes making a commitment not to have a sexual relationship with them.
Regarding Sodom, there are many similarities to that perverse culture and the downward trajectory of our own society.
The decent people had been killed or silenced, the marauding men were looking for variety and women were no longer interesting to them. At that point, God destroyed that city.
If the issue were inhospitably, then our own culture stands in grave danger, for what could be more inhospitable than a women not finding room within herself for her own child?
@Kristina
“Mark, did you ever read the Bible? ”
Yes, I have. Have you? Lot offers the men his daughters which, seems OK to satisfy God.
“Sodomy isn’t synonymous with in-hospitality for crying out loud!”
LOL, so a term that has been misused for centuries has a truth all it’s own?
At the very least, the story of Sodom is about forced sex (i.e. RAPE) and not consensual sex. It has NOTHING to do with loving consenting same sex couples, despite your failure to comprehend the Bible.
@Kristina
“If two men said that to each other today, yes it would be seen as you say. But that was said a long time ago. Doubtlessly it had a different meaning then. Plus, that’s just how it was translated. It could have been understood as something entirely different when it was originally written, perhaps in words we don’t even use today. ”
OH, so the Bible can be interpreted differently depending on the times in which it is read? And yet you STICK to the concrete verbiage against homosexuality? That the words that have been translated into homosexuality mean the EXACT same thing it did back then? Why do you ‘assume’ that the words describing the relationships of David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi may mean something different today than it did back then but the words referring to homosexual mean the EXACT same thing today. How can you determine which words and phrases have different meanings and which ones are IDENTICAL to when they were written?
@Rachel
“So then the holy men go visit Lot and the first thing they encounter are the men that want to have sex with them!!!”
No, they wanted to RAPE them. VERY different.
And it’s nice that God didn’t see fit to incinerate Lot’s daughters (and Lot) after they committed incest. I guess God doesn’t consider that a sin.
“I don’t know how much clearer it can be said, if a man does with a man what he does with a woman in bed then it is abomination. There is no vagueness about that statement.”
Considering it is about pagan temple rights, it does not apply to consenting same sex couples. If one assumes that the words mean today exactly what they meant back then.
“Also I would like to point out that if Ruth really was a lesbian with her mother-in-law(ridiculous) than she would have been perfectly happy to never marry another man. So why did she leave her and marry a man?”
It’s cute that you see sexual orientation as concrete when studies are clear that for many, it is a continuum. Also, a woman at that time would have had very little protection and no rights. It would make sense that a woman would marry, not because she was heterosexual, but to survive.
“Not to mention that if David were gay then why did he give up all his powers and blessings from God because he lusted after and had sex with a woman. ”
He was bisexual.
@Ruth
“Regarding Sodom, there are many similarities to that perverse culture and the downward trajectory of our own society.”
I will agree, Ruth. The lack of hospitality, and respect for one another is very similar to that time.
“The decent people had been killed or silenced, the marauding men were looking for variety and women were no longer interesting to them. At that point, God destroyed that city.”
LOL, how many men do you know who would look to other men for “variety”? Honestly, try reading a bit.
I can’t help but see all this and have to comment. Mark, this is ridiculous! And where is your proof to all these bizarre theories? You said something about interpreting Scripture how one likes, and is that not what you’re doing? Did you come up with all this on your own, or did you copy the ideas from some other nut job? You are totally stretching it with these Bible people. And what arrogance! Alert the presses! Tell the whole world that “sodomy” has been defined wrong for thousands of years! Why? Because MARK says so. Seriously, you should write science fiction. You are out there.
@James
First, where is your proof that the words in the Bible, that were spread orally for centuries before being written down, and then copied over and over for centuries (no copy machines or printing presses), then translated from language to language. mean EXACTLY the same thing they did when first written down? If someone in the future were to read 20th century literature and sees a sentence like “He was a gay man”, the meaning of the sentence depends on what half of the century the story was written. It would have two completely different meanings.
But, here’s a nice article that will give you some insight:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibg193.htm
And this one:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/homosexuality_in_sodom_and_gomorrah.html
And even, this one:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
Sounds like everyone is guessing with these new theories. I’ll stick with what has been believed for eons.
@James
Did you read the articles, James? Many religious people HAVE believed this for eons.
Course, people believed for eons that the sun went around the earth, that the heavens were made up of water, and that the earth was flat so if you want to believe that then, OK.
“Course, people believed for eons that the sun went around the earth, that the heavens were made up of water, and that the earth was flat so if you want to believe that then, OK.”
I think you may have shot yourself in the foot there. Those were disproved to the point of the belief being changed. Your Sodom theory hasn’t been changed in the eons that it’s had the opportunity to be changed.