i'm hoping to provoke some discussion and get a feel for others' thoughts on this =) From U.S. Trends in Marriage, Divorce, and Cohabitation » Sociological Images (where you can read more if you're really interested) I think this gradual change makes sense, and i think it possibly demonstrates either (or perhaps both) of two things. 1: The obvious - People are becoming less mired in social taboos regarding actions taken by consenting adults in the absence of wedlock, and foregoing the rite... possibly for monetary reasons, perhaps because de facto benefits are identical to those imbued by marriage which renders it redundant, perhaps because the exclusive monopoly long held by marriage in the portrayals of romantic love in fiction is slowly eroding, or maybe just plain old laziness; my brother has been engaged for 8 years, no signs of a ceremony yet 2: The speculative conjecture - Humanity (or some of it anyway) is perhaps slowly beginning to embrace its non-monogamous past (I recommend The Naked Ape by Desmond Harris to everyone, it's very enlightening regarding humanity's extremely promiscuous pre-history, but it can also teach us all a lot about our underlying nature), as a result of both sexual instinct and the abovementioned abandonment of long-held standards of moral normality. Serial monogamy, which until recently in western society (and most societies) has always been reacted to with moral indignation, is probably only the first step; i can see - in the long term, anyway - polyamory becoming more socially feasible. I would be interested to see the results of a social study into the prevalence of mutually undertaken partnerships involving more than two people. I suspect that over the last few decades there has been significant growth, and further predict that over the next few decades it will continue apace. You heard it here first! =P I'm going to give myself away as an anti-traditionalist (if i haven't already) by saying that "until death us do part" seems an absurdly fatalistic and unrealistic oath to swear to uphold, anyway. It ignores the fact that people change, as well as other facts of life. Unless i happen to meet someone dead-keen on 'tying the knot', i don't see myself undertaking such a redundant ritual which, let's face it, is a residual construct from a less enlightened time, invented as a means of control and ownership, with a basis in mysticism and superstition. I don't care what the local gentry say, i think it's an institute you can disparage, hehehe =P
I think this has a lot to do with jobs too, which is something that you didn't mention. Women are outnumbering men at colleges and universities across the country at a rate of almost 2 to 1. My university's population is 70% female. Traditionally, a couple gets married and has children but with more girls and women going to school and pursuing careers, perhaps they want to establish themselves first before they settle down, get married, and bring children into the world. Just food for thought...
But the percentage of people of both genders and in any age group being married has dropped sharply, not just young people.
Lower amount of marriages is kind of depressing though I still know that is what is happening over time.
Marriage is just a symbol anyways for the most part, apart from the benefits. So I'm glad people are realizing how unnecessary marriage is.
Yeah. I think that a lot of couples would like some sort of legal union, but imo, a civil union-type thing would be better. And if they want a religious marriage, they can have it, but it should have no legal significance. Myself, I don't think I'll ever marry. Or get a civil union (as same sex couples can do in Britain)
idk. I don't necessarily have a problem with a lack of marriage, or even polyamory per se. My concern is for the children. Perhaps binding vows before God "till death do us part" haven't made a massive impact in the last half century or so, but in the past such things (and social pressure, of course) played a considerable role in keeping families together. Which, although not universally, is a generally good thing for the children. I fully accept that such things are social constructs, but the comparison to pre-history is important. Early humans (I'm talking off the top of my head here, but it'll mostly be right, I hope) tended to be more tribal in structure, and upbringing of the kids was a job for the whole tribe. In fact, especially since so few of them survived to puberty, they were seen as an important resource for the entire tribe and treated well accordingly. Of course, this is never going to happen in the modern world - people care far more about their own children than others, and often are fiercely competitive for them. In fact, society is to some extent predicated on the nuclear family being the basic building blocks of domestic stability. Basically, whether it's defined marriage, civil union, de facto or whatever, people are going to have to overcome millenia of training to change the way they think. I don't know if any of that was particularly on point, but it was what came to mind
