For first time, unmarried households reign in US

[Diolla]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

I'm not marrying until I meet someone I know I will be with for the rest of my life. You can consider it sad, selfish and immature, but I like to think of it as showing the institution of marriage the proper respect.

I realize that you certainly weren't talking to me specifically, but I did want to point out that you're painting all us single folk with a mighty wide brush there.

Come on, you can't tell me that half or more of the unmarried households aren't because people just gave up on marriage or don't want to commit. No not EVERYBODY who is unmarried is selfish and immature (BTW what do you call the husband who walked out on her? Not selfish? The wife who leaves her husband because she "doesn't love him anymore" mature?)

Just forget it...

[ren]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

No, certainly, those situations are pretty common. Hell, my biological father divorced my mom because he found someone he 'loved better'. I just wanted to say that some of us are just taking longer to make the commitment for reasons that aren't bad.

This attitude, of course, drives my grandmother (married 66 years and counting, as she likes to remind me) completely insane. I think she's convinced I have a 'sell by' date. *g*

[neatdesign]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

Bad news. My view is from a religious standpoint. I do believe in the Book of the Law (The Bible) that marriage is sanctioned and sacred to God. I feel SOME people tend to do better in life when they are committed to one another. (Some will never be committed no matter if they are single or married).

Funny, because there are a lot of couples out there who are deeply committed to each other AND believe in god and the bible but who are prohibited from legally celebrating that commitment or benefiting from it, by the very people who proclaim the importance of marriage and family in society.

I'll just never understand the hypocrisy of that. (Don't worry, that was a rhetorical statement.)

Just like tithing, things just seem to work out better when one follows the principles in the Bible.

Try telling that to Warren Buffett, Sir Richard Branson and George Soros, among others. I think they'd disagree with that statement. On the other hand, if you're talking about "the golden rule" then that's not something Christians (or followers of ANY religion) have the market on.

~ Jenney

[BCHGRL]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

I think that it is fine IF there are not children in the picture. Children need a stable family environment.

On the other hand, I think that it can be attributed to how expensive housing AND weddings are today. The national average cost of a wedding today is $27K and the national average cost of a home is $220K. The national average salary remains $45K. DH and I lived together and bought a home together prior to our wedding. Doing it the "old fashioned way" would've been great. It wasn't feasible from an affordability standpoint.

I think that it is better for a couple NOT to marry if one of the members knows it is wrong. I know too many young women and men that have rushed into marriage with the wrong person. Their families and friends tried to talk them out of it but they wouldn't listen. If they were lucky, they got out of the marriage without a child. I know a few who eventually left the relationship with a child. I dated plenty of wrong guys, but something in my gut told me NOT to marry them. If I was stuck in a relationship with the wrong guy, I never would have met my DH, who is the most amazing guy I know.

[tabbycat31]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

I'm not marrying until I meet someone I know I will be with for the rest of my life. You can consider it sad, selfish and immature, but I like to think of it as showing the institution of marriage the proper respect.

I realize that you certainly weren't talking to me specifically, but I did want to point out that you're painting all us single folk with a mighty wide brush there.

I agree. I've had flings, boyfriends, etc. But I would not consider spending the rest of my life with anyone that I've dated.

[abowers]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

We are living together first because...
well, we dated while we were in college, at different colleges. After graduating it was time for grad school. 4 years of a long distance relationship was plenty. So we coordinated grad schools to be in the same city...which is 6.5 hours away from where we are both from, so living with parents still was not an option. And in this area it would be stupid to get two 1 bedroom apartments (and probably anywhere, it would be stupid).

But it worked out alright, after living together for a year and a couple months we are engaged. How are we are paying for the wedding next year? Savings our butts off. We're shooting for way below the average wedding budget of $27k to something in the $9k area. Which I still think is ridiculous, but we are getting a little help from family.

Anyway. I agree with BCHGRL.

[Homebody]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

You don't have to have a $27,000 wedding. You can get your license and have the justice of the peace do it very cheaply, which is what YD and her husband were going to do this last summer. We talked them in to a wedding that we put together in 13 days for $7500.00 total and it was an absolutely lovely wedding with brunch afterwards.

[tinapbeana]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

boy, my 'wedding' was real odd, then, and apparently the ultimate exercise in frugality: i was in jeans, a t-shirt, and flip flops in the park w/ DH a notary and a witness. all we paid was the fee for the license. 24 hours later i was flying out of the country for a month long business trip and he was here taking amonth off from work. we both had pretty enjoyable honeymoons, just not with each other!

[LuxLiving]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

Mine is then even odder: Paid the $10 license fee, both worked all morning, met at the courthouse, judge tied knot, we went out w/best persons for a 10 minute drink (their treat), then I went home and he went back to the office to work - worked overtime that night. A month later we hitched a ride w/in-laws to Pennsylvania for our 'moonhoney'.

Literally broke the bed. at a relatives house no less.

Garsh, how embarask'ing'!!


(WHAT? too much information???)

[Snoopy2645]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

Wow I did the same thing well all we paid was about $10 for the license & that was it

And I thought I was the only super cheap person on the planet!!!!! We never had a honeymoon oh well think we did that years before the wedding!!! Well who knows maybe someday when the kids move out & we have money again LOL!!

[tinapbeana]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

lux & snoop, i'm so glad to hear i'm not the only person with a super frugal wedding! as i'm sure you know, i've had some people look at me dumbfounded when they hear this story...

"But it's your big day!!!"
"Yes, it was"
"But you didn't have a dress or a cake or anything!"
"True, but a year and a half later I bought both a house and a car."
"But you don't even have any pictures!"

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[lrjohnson]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

I think even if you want a "big day" you can have it at a decent price. My close friends had a wedding with a catered reception, with all the trimmings, for less than $3,000. Both of them had a lot of friends and they both really wanted to have a big party. It was a great bash-pictures, cake, flowers, beverage including wine and beer and toasting champagne, dress, "favors," DJ for music, all that-but they don't owe any money on the wedding. I'd spend less than that if i was the marrying kind, but mostly because I'm not interested in the wedding stuff-they were, and they got it.

[tinapbeana]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

I think even if you want a "big day" you can have it at a decent price. My close friends had a wedding with a catered reception, with all the trimmings, for less than $3,000. Both of them had a lot of friends and they both really wanted to have a big party. It was a great bash-pictures, cake, flowers, beverage including wine and beer and toasting champagne, dress, "favors," DJ for music, all that-but they don't owe any money on the wedding. I'd spend less than that if i was the marrying kind, but mostly because I'm not interested in the wedding stuff-they were, and they got it.

great point, LR!

if i'd been a weddingy type, i'd have done the same i suppose. instead, i put a downpayment of 3k for my house and for me, that was the better decision. different strokes for different folks!

[SuzeOFan]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just pass the 300,000,00 population mark? (something like that).

So apparently children are just as plentiful as they ever were?

...and unmarrieds now outweigh marrieds?

From these simple facts i think its safe to say there are more children in this country who live in home enviroments are less than stable or desirable.

When children are involved there is no better enviroment to grow up in than with a mother and father (man and woman) legally committed to each other in a legal marriage.

That's the way it's always been. That's the way it will always be.

No matter what the politically correct 'social architects' want you to believe.

When you upset the balance of nature, be prepared to reap the consequeces. It's a warning us (if we have the eyes to see) as well as a sad statement of our times.

[SuzeOFan]

Re: For first time, unmarried households reign in US

Correction:

I meant to say 'lovingy' committed to each other in a legal marriage.