Ok...

In light of a number of threads and conversations that this board has spawned in recent months, I've been thinking about poverty and its consequences.

Of course, in order to best understand how people become and/or stay poverty-stricken, I've come to understand that the seemingly largest common denominator among research is that single-parent families are the most likely to be poverty stricken.

With that in mind, I've decided to begin an open-ended debate about poverty and single parent families.

http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=9353
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA02-04.cfm



Questions for debate:

1. According to the Center for Data Analysis, in 1960 the number of children living in single-parent homes was 12%. By 2000, it was over double at 27.6%. Why is that?

2. According to the heartland institute, an average child born outside of marriage will spend over 1/2 his/her life outside of poverty, while their counterparts born into marriage will only spend 7% of their lives in poverty. What could be the cause of this?

3. Are there social and/or cultural reasons that some races/cultures are less-likely to marry?

4. Is or isn't marriage the cornerstone of an emotionally and economically healthy family?

5. Considering the data, should America make an attempt to market the value of marriage to parents?

In relation to the quote at the end of each of my posts by John Adams, it seems the same was true 200 years ago. I think this illustrates why more single parents and their children are living in poverty than those families that are more "traditional".


I can predict that there will be a lot of liberal vs. conservative values discussed and the "They're taking God out of our lives" arguments to this. Thought I won't completely dismiss some of the validity to it, I don't think it is completely to blame. I don't know much about this, but if I were to speculate, I would have to say the baby boomers have something to do with it. Not because of their values, but because of the sheer number of them. That generation was pretty rebellious and some might go as far as to say they kind of rewrote the acceptance of many different issues such as this. I think a lot has to do with what is morally acceptable today than nearly 50 years ago. Sex, drugs and rock n roll, if you know what I mean. There is a completely different level of acceptance of seeing sex in movies and on TV today than in the Leave it to Beaver days. People today get married for all the wrong reasons, including sex. People also get divorced for the wrong reasons. Sex brings people to the alter, and when that gets boring, they step out of the marriage for "better" sex. There many reasons people get divorced, but infidelity is certainly a main reason. Sex also creates single parents. One night stands, weekend flings and short term relationships create babies just as much as marriage. It is more accepted in today's society to be a single parent.

A local radio show recently discussed a similar topic. In relation to the divorce rate, someone suggested making it harder to get married. Right now, if you wanted to go get married, you could do it for less than $100 (depending on state laws). You can also go get your marriage liscence in the morning and be married by that afternoon. You used to have to wait a certain amount of time between the time you applied for your marriage liscence and when you could get married.

People don't always take the seriousness of marriage into account when their hormones are raging and the newness of the relationship hasn't worn off. This leads to people getting married because they are infactuated with the other person and not in love. It is easy to confuse the two.

4. Is or isn't marriage the cornerstone of an emotionally and economically healthy family?

I would actually reverse that. Emotional and economic health (not wealth) is the cornerstone to a healthy marriage. A healthy marriage is the cornerstone to a healthy family.

I'm not liking your implications. You seem to be saying that the only reason there are single parent homes is because people CHOOSE to have single parent homes...


1) Divorce rates are higher.

2) Because there's only one income, and maybe they live in a place of lower economic status. Dunno.

3) Who said that some races/cultures are less likely to marry? Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. If, say, African-Americans have a higher rate of single parent homes, it's not because culturally they don't believe in marriage. It's because the men ran out. It happens all the time.

4) The marriage CERTIFICATE is not the cornerstone of an emotionally and economically healthy family.

5) Uh, no. You can if you want, but I certainly wouldn't stick my nose in where it doesn't belong.

This topic and the questions posed bother me. If a woman is widowed while her children are small, should she remarry as soon as possible to the first agreeable mate she comes across, just so she can fill your definition of family values? Same for a single mom who's been dumped by her husband/boyfriend/whatever? No, I don't like these implications at all...

1)Why are divorce rates higher?

2)This is agreeable

3)I take issue with your statement "It's because the men ran out. It happens all the time." Are women unable to step out of a marriage? Off the top of my head, three of my friends that are divorced are because their wife cheated on them.

4)I don't remember the certificate being brought up by anyone but you....

Your response bother me! Why do you insist that single parents are only women? I don't like your implications that men are the evil-doers in relationships and women are innocent. I have plenty of friends that are single parents...and male. Believe it or not, it happens! This discussion isn't about men vs. women, I suggest we all stay away from that.

No one has suggested that someone that is either divorced, widowed, or that has a child out of wedlock needs to get married because of the child.

The data implies something, but not my questions per se.

The issue I have with your arguments (as a whole) are that they indicate a lack of accountability and don't discuss the notion that the largest consistent demographic in poverty is the single parent family.

Furthermore, you imply a victim attitude on the woman's part. Are you saying that women in certain demographics are being raped, or is it safe to assume that maybe certain women are having unprotected sex and children are the result?

I think that deadbeat dads are often the problem in relation to women being left with an unwanted child. I believe that consentual sex that results in an unwanted child is a shared blame practice.

Marriage, unfortunately, doesn't always involve the infatutation that people expect it to. Marriages 50 years ago were subject to the same strife that they are today, but the issue is that (at least in TX), divorces can happen for a couple hundred bucks and a 6 wk waiting period. It's dispensable. Throw it away once it's old.

The consequences are often that the nuclear family is beginning to fall apart.

It seems that the facts say a ton in themselves.
From the Newcoalition article:


It seems as if common sense is easy to use on this one.

If I'm a 2 income family with 2 mediocre incomes of $25-30K and 3 kids, one parent leaving causes a set of problems. What happens is then the father will be forced to pay a % of income (often up to 1/2) to support children he may or may not see regularly. Then the family, who wasn't rich anyway, has 2 sets of rent, utilities, 2 insurance payments, etc. These are often some of the largest expenses a family has... when money wasn't probably prevalent anyway.

It works in 100% reverse too. If a woman has a kid and makes $30K, and pays all of her expenses on her own, but then marries a man who makes similar income, her expenses are cut in half (ostensibly).

Furthermore, and I can attest to this, there is a likelihood that married people and single people work in a different (more/less serious) fashion and that often times the earning power of a married man is better than a single person. (the data in the articles support this).

I'll agree that healthy marriages are the be-all-end-all to this topic. How does that happen? Are young people who fall out of love and divorce really a victim of the disposable nature of our marriages? Are they victims of "grass is greener" mentality?

I believe so. I have seen it in my group of friends, have seen it in my extended family, and see it in society endlessly. Many people decide that the dude at work, or the lady at the bar, or whoever is better than being with their spouse. Maybe it's true, but more often than not they throw away something they shouldn't.

Furthermore, unwed mothers are the norm. It's not shameful to get pregnant, so women often times don't sweat it. "Getting pregnant isn't such a big deal". As recently as my HS career (11 yrs ago), people that got pregnant were shipped off to alternative schools. Now? of course not. That's unheard of.

Unwed young mothers SHOULD be ashamed. How will they support the baby without a living wage? Without support, etc?

America needs to wake up. It shouldn't have a message that says "Marriage is for everyone", but rather close your legs or at least use protection if you're going to have sex. Birth control is a covered expense by nearly insurance in the US. Use it. Another mouth to feed causes an unwanted burden on the tax payer dole, forces people out of college and into low-level jobs, and causes a vicious cycle.

Hmm...I'm sensing a vague undercurrent of misogyny vs. misandry here. Being a man, I suppose its my sacred duty to put the women down when they get too uppity.

I'm kidding, of course. I don't think divorce rates are the general fault of men, or women. But it is equally unreasonable to use this as a reason to treat both genders equally. Women, as we well know, are generally on the losing end of the spectrum here. They get sick in the mornings. They feel terrible. They get fat. They're forced to skip work for months at a time. Men? Not really. So I think its safe to say that single parent homes are definitely more difficult for women, pregnant ones anyways. (and that is generally true; most of the male abandonment cases occur when they find that the woman is pregant).

As for cultures, I don't know...the consensualists from the sixties? the jive, horny hepcats of today? Who knows what kind of environment makes or breaks a marriage. If culture plays a part at all, it results in two individuals who only stay together out a warped sense of duty, and the conflicts that ensue will be far more traumatizing to a child than any divorce.

Marriage is essential, or at the very least, convenient, for raising children. But it uis my belief, that two incompatible individuals who would raise their child in a house of conflict, should seperate, lest they do more hurt than help.

1. According to the Center for Data Analysis, in 1960 the number of children living in single-parent homes was 12%. By 2000, it was over double at 27.6%. Why is that?

Things have changed over the past 47 years. Marriage is not the only option available, whereas in 1960 it was expected.

2. According to the heartland institute, an average child born outside of marriage will spend over 1/2 his/her life outside of poverty, while their counterparts born into marriage will only spend 7% of their lives in poverty. What could be the cause of this?

I would guess the lack of money. One income, low rent areas, costs keep rising, wages keep dropping. It's pretty easy to see.

3. Are there social and/or cultural reasons that some races/cultures are less-likely to marry?

I doubt it. People often get married. They often do not. I don't see any connection with society or culture, maybe more so with age.

4. Is or isn't marriage the cornerstone of an emotionally and economically healthy family?

Wasn't the case in my family. It was pretty messed up emotionally and economically, but we muddled through. Then there was this family down the block, quite loud, very screwed up. I knew some single mothers in college who seemed to be doing pretty well, kids too. So from personal experience, marriage isn't a cornerstone. It's just different. Love is the cornerstone of any relationship.

5. Considering the data, should America make an attempt to market the value of marriage to parents?

If marriage has any true value, it does not need marketing. Marketing is the art of lying straight-faced to sell a product.

Some products don't need marketing, just information dispersal. For example, a new car needs to be advertised by looks, performance, efficiency, hands-on test drive and so on. Marriage should be handled the same way, with honesty and candor. Right now the emotions rule too much, so we get bad marriages that split up and cause single-parent homes.

There's another part of this whole issue, and that's the instability of employment. I've stayed away from having children and getting married because of this, starting in my hometown, a single-industry place having to do with iron mining. The nomadic life began shortly after high school.

Well, can't expect everyone to be like me, so lots of people trust that employment will always be around. Then when it goes away, the family often must move to another place. That's pretty stressful on families and can lead to divorce too, and even worse tragedies.

In effect, I think it is simple-minded to expect marriage to be the cornerstone of family. Love works because it can take the family through thick and thin. A legal agreement might help in some situations by making a split more difficult, but as we see in reality, not often enough.

Wonder how the numbers would look comparing job security in 1960 to that of 2007? I'm pretty sure that's a stronger correlation.