50% children in UK are born out of wedlock.

[aupmanyav]

Today's snippet surprised me. Firstly, there are not enough children, and those that are, are born out of wedlock. The snippet then goes to say that out of wedlock children are underpriveledged in many ways. One out of five children is not white. The proportion in Asians in out of wedlock children is 1 out of 50. Why this social disintegration, religion loosing control over materialism and pleasure seeking, and responsibility at a discount?

[pete]

Is this from a news report? .. can you give link?

There is a lot of points in your OP ... but I would agree that there is something 'lost' about the UK... we dont know who we are or what we are doing or where we are going.

I am a windowcleaner .. and like the taxi-driver I get little snapshots of peoples lives ... lots of people have had enough and several of my customers have sold up and moved out ... Spain, France, Canada, Australia....

Its hard to see a common cause though... some people say there is too much government and not enough freedom, others say too much crime not enough punishment, some say too many immigrants.

The ruling elite seem to be in one world where the big problems are 'carbon footprints' and endless reforms of education and the health service.... There is a violent and tribal lower class.. and a frightened and beleagured middle class.

The government seems as lost as the rest of us ... maybe we are ripe for another dose of Maggie Thatcher style authoritarianism...

[aupmanyav]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Most_UK_kids_born_outside_wedlock/articleshow/3224979.cms

Hope the British find their way.

[purple_kathryn]

You know this obsession with people being married is a relatively recent thing.

Marriage used to be about land and power.

[premjan]

Well, it isn't the fact of marriage itself, but the stability of the partnership between the parents which makes a difference for child-rearing I suppose. In the US I believe that divorce appears to have no effect on the IQ of children for instance.

[aupmanyav]

More than IQ, it is social adjustibility which is at stake.You know this obsession with people being married is a relatively recent thing.You are right. Earlier that was not the question (nearly everybody was married).

[anders]

Not too long ago, parents in one part of western central Sweden didn't allow their youngsters to marry until they had proved that they could produce children.

The reason? The farm must stay in the family, so heirs were needed.

[premjan]

This is reasonable - marriage is for children. In fact marriage could take place upon childbirth as it is a childrearing partnership. The romantic part of it doesn't need to be as hard a commitment.

[Illusio]

Today's snippet surprised me. Firstly, there are not enough children, and those that are, are born out of wedlock. The snippet then goes to say that out of wedlock children are underpriveledged in many ways. One out of five children is not white. The proportion in Asians in out of wedlock children is 1 out of 50. Why this social disintegration, religion loosing control over materialism and pleasure seeking, and responsibility at a discount?

Although I'm not extremly familiar with the UK, similar statistics can be found in Scandinavia and the cause is probably similar. People aren't religious and therefore do not "marry" but rather establish some form of formal secular partnership contract which serves the same purpose. The claims in the bold statement almost certainly has nothing to do with the reality of the situation if taken to mean that the UK has collapsed into a hedonistic anarchy.

It's also worth mentioning that divorce rates tend to be extremly high everywhere in the west, so marriage in itself is no guarantee that the parents are "responsible".

But yeah, religion is losing ground, which is good.

[Ovazor]

People aren't religious and therefore do not "marry" but rather establish some form of formal secular partnership contract which serves the same purpose. The claims in the bold statement almost certainly has nothing to do with the reality of the situation if taken to mean that the UK has collapsed into a hedonistic anarchy.


That's probably right, the "out of wedlock" does not automatically mean that the parents aren't living in a long-term relationship. It only means that they have not married each other.

In Finland, among my relatives, of the dozen or so of my generation, only one has actually married her partner. Of the others, several have been living together with their partners for a decade and got children, but not just gone through the ceremony. I see no social disintegration there.

[aupmanyav]

Thanks, Ovazor, for your post. If the parents lived in a long-term relationship, there would not be any social disintegration and harmful effect on children. (btw, the quoted portion is from a post by Illusio. Don't say you are sorry, I understand, it sometimes happens.)

[Ovazor]

I found some statistics about the situation in Finland. In 2005, about 59.6% of all children are born to a married mother, but only 40.6% of first babies are born to married parents. Which probably means that many people move together, live together for a while, get a baby and only then decide to marry (or not).


BTW, I know a family where the mother has three children, all living in that family. None of the children had born out of wedlock, but all have different fathers. She had divorced twice until marrying her current husband. This just demonstrates that "in" or "out" of wedlock does not actually say very much.

[aupmanyav]

We had polyandry in some parts of India where brothers would marry one woman. The system used to work perfectly satisfactorily.

Then there are Tibetans. Young men marrying old women. Young women living with older people. Changing partners, living together happily, with children not caring who their biological parents are. I do not know what exactly their system is, but it is sure, different.

[AdamWho]

This sounds more like a Political Social forum thread. What is the motivation for placing it in Non-Abrahamic Religions?

[aupmanyav]

What do East and West think about marriage and rearing of children. The lower strata of the Indian society have a custom called 'nata' (relationship). It can be dissolved by any one party any time, of course, the bride price has to be paid to the husband. Children many times suffer.

[s-o-i-d-p]

So many UK children are born out of wedlock. Er, so what?

Our society is, unlike India, a liberal society. And I doubt there's much evidence that states that children being raised by unmarried parents are less adjusted and developed.

[aupmanyav]

"But the story has nuance. Yes, growing up with two parents is better for children, but only when both mother and father are the biological or “intact” (as opposed to remarried) parents. In fact, there is some evidence that second marriages can actually be harmful to adolescents. Moreover, marriage can help children only if the marriage is a healthy one. While the definition of a “healthy marriage” is itself subject to debate, it is typically characterized as high in positive interaction, satisfaction, and stability and low in conflict. Unhealthy marriages characterized by substantial parental conflict pose a clear risk for child well-being, both because of the direct negative effects that result when children witness conflict between parents, and because of conflict's indirect effects on parenting skills. Marital hostility is associated with increased aggression and disruptive behaviors on the part of children which, in turn, seem to lead to peer rejection, academic failure, and other antisocial behaviors (Cummings and Davies, 1994; Webster-Stratton, 2003)."
(http://www.mdrc.org/publications/386/testimony.html)

[figuer]

Yes, growing up with two parents is better for children, but only when both mother and father are the biological or “intact” (as opposed to remarried) parents. In fact, there is some evidence that second marriages can actually be harmful to adolescents. Moreover, marriage can help children only if the marriage is a healthy one. The above amounts to saying NOTHING. Marriage is unnecessary, what children need is responsible adults providing proper care and guidance, be it their parents or a teacher, or whomever can do so.

[Will.L]

I know that in scandinavia is it a trend that people just don't see the need to marry. For all functional purposes, their relationship probably is not much different than if they were married.

To me, marriage is very important symbolically, but seeing this made me realize that this might not be the case for others, and who am I to judge them? At first glance, I was somewhat surprised to see that this is the case in England too, but after giving it a thought, it makes sense. All of these countries have transcended Christianity in many ways, and perhaps this is just one of the (neither good nor bad) byproducts.

[aupmanyav]

Yes, it is not for us to say whether this is right or that is wrong. The mating of men and women has been tried in various ways throughout the history of mankind. Somewhere in Tahiti or Samoa, a spouse it treated like an enemy, read it in Margaret Meads books eons ago. What is important is raising of children. They belong to the whole humanity.

[badger3k]

People aren't religious and therefore do not "marry" but rather establish some form of formal secular partnership contract which serves the same purpose. The claims in the bold statement almost certainly has nothing to do with the reality of the situation if taken to mean that the UK has collapsed into a hedonistic anarchy.


That's probably right, the "out of wedlock" does not automatically mean that the parents aren't living in a long-term relationship. It only means that they have not married each other.

In Finland, among my relatives, of the dozen or so of my generation, only one has actually married her partner. Of the others, several have been living together with their partners for a decade and got children, but not just gone through the ceremony. I see no social disintegration there.

I read an article online recently that said something similar (maybe even about Finland, I am not sure). In some countries, marriage as an institution is on the decline, since the country (businesses, etc) had a support structure that provided similar benefits as marriage used to. A lot of people are finding that there is no reason to get married, and the ritual itself has lost a lot of the meaning that people put into it. It used to be that being born out of wedlock was (to some) shameful and meant ostracization. Now, it is generally no big deal if someone's parents weren't married.

Add in higher divorce rates (although they are nowhere near the 50% mark commonly quoted) and there is a lot less stigma with not being married. Even in Japan women are waiting longer before getting married, something that is unusual (I think you can google "Christmas Cake", but I'm not sure).

I do agree that this loosening of religion's hold on society is a good thing, and I think we as humans can come up with the replacements for those things that are essential for us as humans (such as social groups, etc).

[badger3k]

I know that in scandinavia is it a trend that people just don't see the need to marry. For all functional purposes, their relationship probably is not much different than if they were married.

To me, marriage is very important symbolically, but seeing this made me realize that this might not be the case for others, and who am I to judge them? At first glance, I was somewhat surprised to see that this is the case in England too, but after giving it a thought, it makes sense. All of these countries have transcended Christianity in many ways, and perhaps this is just one of the (neither good nor bad) byproducts.

I've got married to my college girlfriend back in 91. By 92 we were divorced. After she got out of school she wanted to come back to our house (and dogs) and I had few problems (we were still friends). Now, some 14 years later, we are for most purposes married, but we have not done the ritual again. We are looking at the practical aspects (will it save money, etc), as well as the social - I am not comfortable claiming these rights while others are denied them - but who knows.

The important part for me is the strength of the commitment between two (and who knows, maybe more) people. The ritual is just a legal seal that confers certain rights, but is not necessary (although it does make inheritance simpler, but can cost more if a lot of money is owed).

[sylvan]

In good economic times, another mouth to feed isn't a problem since the state and the children's relatives are all doing relatively well.
But where I live, the government is renegotiating alot of benefits because people aren't paying into the tax coffers since their own purses are slack. As well, crimes within families are increasing here so domestic tensions already seem to be rising.
Since there are no longer any church sponsored orphanages, religion will have little to do with raising children caught without support. (I threw that last factor in since this is a NARP forum. ;-) )
With word of economic tides turning, now what do we do?