 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
April 12th, 2012
12:01 AM ET
More cohabitating couples having childrenAfter publishing a report Tuesday on the record low teen birth rate, the National Center for Health Statistics is releasing more numbers on babies in America. Gladys Martinez and her colleagues at the NCHS have written a report on the fertility of men and women aged 15 to 44 in the U.S. based on numbers from the National Survey of Family Growth that was taken between 2006 and 2010. The survey collected data from more than 22,000 face-to-face interviews. A few interesting tidbits emerged from the report. The NCHS survey found that a greater proportion of births to unmarried couples are happening in households with cohabitating partners than in years past. But between 2006 and 2010, cohabitating couples accounted for 22% of first births, up from 12% in 2002. Of all pre-marital births, nearly half were to cohabitating couples. "The primary reason that we even look at that is because studies have shown that there’s differences in the resources available to children born in families with only one parent," Martinez said. Children born to unmarried mothers statistically have less stability and therefore, more environmental stressors in their lives. The survey was also, for the first time, able to distinguish between foreign-born Hispanics and U.S.-born Hispanics. For instance, 78% of foreign-born Hispanic women surveyed had a biological child compared with 51% of U.S.-born Hispanic women. "In general, U.S.-born Hispanics look [more] like non-Hispanic whites than other groups," Martinez said. Most of the rest of the statistics remain similar to those reported in 2002, according to Martinez. The mean age of women having their first child is 23 years old; the mean age for men is 25. On average, women in America have 2.1 children. White women are less likely to have children and are less likely to expect to have children than other races. Higher-education women and men waited longer in life to have children and on average had fewer. Women with household incomes lower than 150% of the poverty level were more likely to have four or more children. Martinez also found an increase in the number of women who started having children after the age of 35 who went on to have two or more kids. Unfortunately her team couldn't really see the full expanse of the increase because they only surveyed women under 44 years old. The statistics in this report were weighted to reflect the 124 million men and women in the U.S. The data was self-reported so results may be subjected to some "recall error," where the person being surveyed makes mistakes about their past experiences.
Next entry »'Vacation sex': Just what your love life needs
« Previous entryPronounced dead, baby found alive in morgue
|
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love. Recent Comments
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
If ya wanna pop out kids, go get married first. Period.
Why? How does signing a piece of paper change anything about the commitment of a loving couple? It really doesn't. It's just that it's tradition.
This article is showing that more couples are living a wonderful life with their family and don't feel the need to sign the paper.
Traditions are traditions for a reason.
Name one "reason" Ron.
Very true. And different people follow different traditions.
I think this article is just showing that a growing number of couples are deciding that having a marriage certificate doesn't affect the level of commitment they have for one another.
My sister in law and her b/f have been together for 15 years and have a 4 year old son. They choose to not get married and live a happy and productive life. Who are you to say different?
@Ally: Why are gays fighting to get married if it's just a piece of paper? (scratching head)
Jerry, I have no idea.
I would think it has something to do with never having been able to get married before. Not all gay couples want to get married. Not all straight couples want to get married. ~shrug~
I agree. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues but I think there is something to be said about spewing out kids without benefit of marriage. If you want kids, fine, but don't do it until you are married & with someone who you think would be a good parent. Otherwise, I see it as a selfish venture. The kids usually end up with the short end of the stick. Also, the number of welfare single Moms where I live continues to go up. WE are paying for that, I might add.
I totally agree. Too many women get pregnant by men who treat them like garbage, thinking they will stick around once they have a child. Once the man bolts, they don't want to be alone, so they find themselves some other dirtbag, and get pregnant again. The cycle continues. Next thing you know, she has four kids by four baby daddies and we, the taxpayers, keep giving her more money to keep popping them out. Ladies, ever hear of birth control, and actually using it properly? Try finding a decent man and getting to know him first, then you can find out if he's right for you before you subject some poor kid to a life of poverty and rotating daddies.
People in America don't marry for "traditions". They marry because otherwise the other partner is denied health insurance. As soon as you have national healthcare, most people will be cohabiting like in Europe.
I have NO problem with cohabitating couples with kids, but there I think there is value in marriage for some people. I think long-term, committed monogamous relationships are sometimes really, really hard. The traditions of marriage helps people keep it together by providing all kinds of cultural incentives and reinforcements. (Not to mention things like taxes and health care, etc). Plus, it's a way to quickly communicate to the rest of the world who these two people are and exactly how they relate to each other. (That, by the way, is why gay people are fighting for marriage equality.)
Don't get married, you'll screw yourself on taxes. After being a single parent for several years, I got married. Our tax bill went up 6,000-10,000 PER YEAR. The only thing that changed was a piece of paper.
because married adults with children have never split up, right?
How about no? How about you take your antiquated, worthless beliefs and keep them to yourself. Period.
The rich get richer and the poor get children.
So are we talking about cohabitating couples having kids or kids born to single mothers? This article seems to lump both together even though there is a huge difference.
Finally....someone else on this board who gets it.
It bugs me that the article does try to lump those 2 situations together. It talks about cohabiting couples. Your level of commitment and ability to raise a child together is in no way changed because of a piece of paper. My boyfriend and I have been together for years. If we have a child it certainly won't be a broken home. It's a two parent household regardless of being married or not.
Well, on paper they are the same. For example, I have a child, and I live with the father of the child. We are a co-habitating couple, yet I am still technically a "single" mom.
And for all those screaming "get married" and such, get real. Marriage is no indication of the ability of two people to have, and raise, a child.
Good point, Katie. But you conduct yourselves as a traditional two parent family.
I'm just a little miffed that so many here assume that if you're a "single mom" you obviously have 4 kids and 4 absent baby daddies, and all of them were unplanned pregnancies and you refuse to mary one of the guys so you can get assistance.
No, Katie – you are not a "single mom." You are a co-parent. True "single moms" get no financial assistance or help with raising the child. They are on their own for everything. Anybody who gets help from the child's other parent – either in time or money – is NOT a single parent. I hate when people refer to me as a single mom for this very reason. I have help – very little – but it is help. I'm not a single mom even though I do put in 90% of the time/money. So, don't let people lump you into the single mom category. It's an injustice to the people who is giving you help.
Thanks to those anti-society couples with their twisted view of "sexual freedom" without commitment of marriage, they sure have given their "illegitimate off-spring" a wonderfull life to look forward to!!
Marriage is just a twisted invention of religion & government. To classify a child based on the parents status is simply ignorant and outdated. All it takes is even a single parent to love and provide for the child to raise a quality child. Just go back to WWII and see how many men and women were single and did just fine raising children. Your sense of values doesn't equal how I should live my life.
Hey m as long as the single parent can support the kid. Don't go having a kid and expecting welfare, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, day care, etc. out of the taxpayers pockets. People shouldn't be having kids unless they have a committed partner that is going to stick around to raise them. And unless they can AFFORD TO HAVE THEM. I'm a taxpayer. If I want to pay for raising some kid, I'll have one of my own. Otherwise, you pay for yours. Don't ask the government to do so.
I agree. Only with traditional families and good moral standards can you have a strong society.
You are pathetic. Clean up your own house before you cast dispersions on others.
The only reason my husband and I are married is due to health insurance. You religious types need to stay out of other people's lives.
> good moral standards
Except, of course, nobody has the same agreement on exactly what those are.
Why do the people in the main picture have on wedding rings....
Cause they had the sense to get married before having a kid. Duh.
I'm confused. Straight couples don't want to get married and gays are fighting for that right. What?
I won't marry specifically because gays can't :p
Jeff... logically speaking that means that you're gay then, right?
@ Ally responding to Ron: Its because the courts are not made to easily deal with the splitting of assets of cohabitating couples when they separate. That "piece of paper" ,with all sentimental values aside, provides legitimacy. Cohabitating couples also have much higher rates of separation than married couples (even though their separation rate is high as well). Cohabitating couples, as a group, tend to be less choosy about who they live with than people are with who they marry and thus, more likely to leave when conflict arises (http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40261). It is known that a sense of commitment is a key factor of success within successful marriages. It is also known that living together before marriage is also a factor that often leads to an unhappy marriage and reason for divorce (Aging and Development, 2007).If cohabitating couples are more likely to separate than even married couples, then it makes sense to not only think of the stability of the children of such a union, but also the realistic nature of it not being the best way to take a relationship to "the next level."
I appreciate your well thought out response, AnDrade. I do agree that the stats show more cohabiting couples split. I'm mostly focusing on the aspect of the article that seems to show that committed cohabiting couples are on the rise. Is it possible that the increase of divorce and possibly the drop in liklihood that you'll feel shame if you're a parent without being married that may show that the value of marriage vows will hold less water in the future?
I mean, it's all in the level of commitment in the relationship. And if more couples are saying that the marriage doesn't enhance commitment...(and if they aren't religious)...then why get married?
Actually if couples are engaged to be married when they started cohabitating they have the same chance as married couples who did not live together before marriage. It is the cohabitating couples that move in together without the intent of marriage are the ones who are more likely to have failed marriages.
See "Cohabitation no longer a predictor of divorce" by Mike Stobbe – Associated Press
Screw marriage!!
Why not? You already want to screw everyone else. LMFAO!!!!
Well, life is filled with highs and lows. I am reading the comments and I read a lot of "as long as one parent can support the child", and " as long as there is a commitment...", or as long as this, or that; but we should not get ourselves so enslaved to certain conditions; we should not impose ourselves so many obligations because we are going to be sad when we can't meet our own expectations. Parents get sick and die, or economy makes people lose their jobs, children get sick and demand care that is way beyond normal budgets, etc. So why are we imposing so much? I remember highs and lows growing up, and I am happy. We can't control the universe.
It's easier for the single mother to get government aid if they are not married. The mother lives with the coparent still, but his income does not count towards her household income. She gets free healthcare and welfare. This way they get to coparent and government aid. Best of both worlds.
Yeah. Friggin fraud artists who belong in jail. I have to report my income, you report yours. All of it.
That may be true in some cases but very shortsighted also. Many parents (mainly women but not always) would like to get out of hte welfare cycle but quite frankly the system works against them. Buy a car to get to your job and it affects your abiltiy to qualify for aid. So you don't and get labeled as taking advantage of the system. Yes there are those who abuse it. Marion Barry, bless his heart, told a wlefar emom 25 years ago the plain old truth – stop haivng kids to get more money. But there must be a graduated way for single parents to get out of the cycle. That way it is not jsut a dollar vlaue threshold that you are either below and get 100% coverage or above and get 0% coverage.
haha, wow.
so true about co-parents who do live togheter but becasue the mother is "single" she can collect all the freebies, yet still have the "fathers" income. I heard of someone who did just that, was getting money from baby daddy, and collected welfare, food stamps, medical..... thank goodness for the "we Tip" line at the county, was found out, they shut it down..... that is NOT right.
“Women with household incomes lower than 150% of the poverty level were more likely to have four or more children.” Can we please get rid of Welfare programs already, HELLO! I believe this is proof of abuse and fraud against the U.S. Taxpayers
“Of all pre-marital births, nearly half were to cohabitating couples.” Duh! Because judges allow for gold-diggers to get things they don’t deserve, and people get taken advantage of in divorce court and scre,wed over. Oh and don’t forget with our lovely tax laws if you get married your income gets taxed more because its combined or you lose tax deductions if you file separately. There is no longer a benefit to getting married it’s just one more way our government can take advantage of people.
“White women are less likely to have children and are less likely to expect to have children than other races.” Maybe because they see those other races producing disrespectful children that they have chosen to avoid putting their children through schools that do nothing to stop the ill mannered children from misbehaving and becoming menaces to society who grow up to suck off the system as well. Or maybe just maybe they know they can’t afford to have children and then choose not to and go to work instead of taking advantage of the system by having too many kids like the first quote “Women with household incomes lower than 150% of the poverty level were more likely to have four or more children.”
This is not about cohabitation it is really abotu being responsible parents regardless of how you become a parent. My issue is not how you end up living together but the likelihood of the parents separating. What is the rate of separation from parents who are married versus those who cohabitate? I don't care which is better. What I care about is the child support and the effects that this trending toward cohabitation is causing on the child support enforcement system. If cohabitatiing parents are more likely to separate, what happens when the non-custodial parent drops off the radar. What affects is this going to have across child support collection, health care, tax base, public education, etc.
Eugenics is evil and should not be allowed.
Eugenics is evil? Maybe. Maybe not. If we could stop every person with a disease that is passed on genetically to offspring, from having offspring, we would completely wipe out that disease within one or two generations. Natural selection works wonders in nature. Ever wonder why humans have so many more ailments as a species than other species? Because medicine prevents those that nature would have weeded out from being weeded out, thereby enabling them to reproduce and pass on the genetic factors that increase susceptibility to certain diseases. I'm not saying we start euthanizing people. But preventing some people with certain medical conditions from reproducing and passing on the condition makes sense in a way and is just what mother nature, left alone and un-interfered-with, would do.
As long as the childern are in a loving, caring and suportive home and you are NOT on govenrment assistance of any kind then who cares if you are married or not.
i think it is wrong for women to just live off the system and have children just because they know tax dollars will provide for them instead of working and being able to support chidren that you have decided to have... at the same time i think being married has nothing to do with your ability to ake care of a child nor does it ensure that a man or women will stick around and support the child. I have been married and i am honestly more happy with the father of my child that i was not married too. so i agree marriage is just a piece of paper commitment comes from within and that is nothing a piece of paper can justify.. its all for legal or religious purposes as was stated earlier. as far as gays tey arte just fighting for the right more so them not being married doesnt change the way they act towards one another it just will change they way they file their taxes basically!!!
the response "if you want kids, get married...period!" is ignorant. Marriage is what people make of it, same with cohabiting parents. As long as you have parents or a single parent (if that's the case) that have their child's best interest at heart is what is most important. Kids can thrive in any environment as long as they are offered unconditional love and support.
I agree. As long as that "unconditional support" doesn't come from the taxpayers!
You know we didn’t always have marriage licenses. How about we require people to obtain a license before they can have children – they would have to qualify of course (can they afford to have them as one possible qualification). If they didn’t get a license then they are fined every year until the child turns 18, and they do not receive any government assistance, oh no that would mean they would have to get a job :O imagine that.
I love it LT... call your congressman today!
The best way to end your sex life is have a kid. I have multiple girl friends and no shortage of sex and I like it that way.
Marriage is just a stupid name for health insurance.
There is a difference between living together in a commited relationship and shacking up. Learn it.
It's and indvidual choice to marry or not, but don't collect various kinds of social welfares to support your kid to claim as a single parent, or worse with different sexual partners, that is my bottom line. Most important, it's not fair to the children.
How about sterilization after the first two kids? That would solve a lot of problems!
It should be a Federal mandate. Any government benefits or services should be withheld until certified to have been sterilized after two kids. Excellent idea!!
John
znhcats
Sal
Great Posts!
Do you have a problem with me too?
Just shows the influence of church is waning. Being married just doesn't have the sway it used to. Half of marriages end in divorce. People marry for money, citizenship, health care, etc. etc.
@Ron,
It seems you have a very biased viewpoint of pushing your marriage agenda. If your "traditions are traditions for a reason" mantra is important, than are you still in favor the Christian Crusades, correct? Or perhaps some of the more darker points we grew out of that from both old and new testaments push?
Marriage suited our race well going back as little as 3 decades ago. However, we are growing in our new 'world centric' view that a formal piece of paper is not needed to raise and provide for a family. You offered no retort when called out on your very obvious trolling comment.
I personally have 8 children, a well-paid stable career, and a wife that enjoys the ability to stay at home and homeschool our children. Until very recently, we were not married. We did not need nor want the government’s official seal. We made the simple choice to commit to each other, and that was enough. Much like it is shown to becoming the preferred ideology today. If you cannot adapt or offer an open mind and heart, then you are part of that group that continues to hold us back, generationally.
To answer your question I'm sure you asked yourself, we got married for the simple act of consolidation of governmental paperwork, such as replacing our power of attorney, parental declarations, retirement and health insurance, etc. It was done quietly in the courthouse, and too little fare, and still not a reason to push a marriage certificate.
I hope you can open your mind and heart to others Ron. It's a great world out there when you can put aside your bias thoughts and pre-conceived notions of normalcy and accept others and new traditions
Unfortunately, I'll bet you'll find that most couples having children without being married do so very soon after co-habitating. They have no intention of being together long-term, but are only together for the sex, the excitement. And unfortunately, children need stabiltiy. They would better serve humanity as a whole if they would adopt a homeless animal and not jump into bring more children into this world.
we need another round of the Christian Crusades
Yea boy. Those new traditions of today have really done the country a lot of good. Another 20 years of new traditions and the country that we knew will no longer exist.
Even the crusades had a few good points... lol
blackie james sounds like you should be more concerned with std's than pregnancy anyways!!!
I cohabitate with garden gnomes. Sometimes I kick them in their little gnome nuts though.
fukm both
I wouldn't doubt a lot of those guys are losers with no jobs mooching off the women too. that's how my relationships went, the guys (they weren't men that's for sure) would not work, I paid most of the bills, and had to get police to throw the father of my child out after threats I only see in the news. Most of these couples won't last forever, I couldn't get the father to marry me and I found out later it was because he was such a coward he would not deal with his warrants for arrest that I knew nothing about. too many men are loser moochers hiding things.
a lot of this information was before the internet became readily available. It was a lot harder about 10 years ago to find out people's criminal backgrounds, even in some countries you still won't find out much. Now I look up people and it's a little easier to find people's arrest records. but still some aren't found out yet, look at Sandusky, he got away with evil crimes for years.
What rights of inheiritance do illigitimate children have to a parent's estate?
I love all the assumptions people make. I am a single and have a BA. I had my first child at age 27. I was single, using BC and not in a relationship. However, his dad and I care for him 50/50 financially and in parenting time. I am now 37 and pregnant with #2. This time, I am in a committed relationship with someone I've been with for almost five years. Then I am done having children. We have no plans to marry at this time. He was married previously and went through a bitter 3 year divorce, fighting for more time with his children. The ex barely works although the kids are all over 10 and takes almost half his salary in alimony and child support. We have NO problem paying child support but since we also have his kids half the time, it's kind of ridiculous. Gee, I wonder why he doesn't want to get married again? Marriage is basically a business relationship – who gets your money if you divorce or die? Sad, but true. I have never been on welfare (aside from WIC for a few months while pregnant with baby #1 who is now 10 and who is happy, healthy and doing great in school. Both my partner and I do very well financially and are committed. There is nothing requiring two people to stay together including a marriage certificate. That piece of paper just makes it possible you and your kids will now have to be dragged through the court system should one person decide to divorce. Most fathers want to support their children and be active parts of their lives regardless of the relationship with their mother. Yes, we are bitter but sadly that is our experience.
Marriage can be looked upon as a "business" to some, with the tax laws, insurance etc, yet if you do not look at it on a spiritual level, sure, you'll find negative reasons to not do it. it is the most intimate level of love one can offer another human bening... as 2 become one- plain and simple... what is sad is that people trash marraige, put it down as though it is a disease... sure, divorces are high, but truly, lots of people marry for the wrong reasons and then marriage is shut down.. celebrities are a prime example of that... Marriage was ordained by GOD and what I am reading here is, many people have no FAITHin their elationships.... to "shack up" is a waste and only gives the people involved a quick way to bounce because they are shacking up... ok, you love em, are committed, no "paper" can sum it up... people the "paper" has nothing to do with it, it is the convenant between you, the other person and GOD.... living together to me, is a waste. and I know, I did it twice. I cannot speak for all as some of you have had long standing "shackin up" realtionships but why not go for the real deal holy field..... marriage does work with the right person and there are plenty of beneifits to it and I do not mean cash..... people play house, but fly below the radar... why settle for mediocricy, when you can have fullness? would you want to be a temp on a job your whole life and not reap the benefits of permanet job? health care, raises, tenure? the same goes for marriage people... I am sorry, shacking up,serves no benefit and the children, well heck, they are loved yes, but people skip far quicker when there is no convenant... many split, leave "girlfriends' behind... I dont want to miss the point here, marriage is a beautiful works and is good when it is with the right person.. all I am saying is... quit downing marriage, if you havent tried it, dont knock it. by the way, I was marreid, but marreid the wrong guy, my bad.... will never shack up again,
Many years ago, I worked with 2 idnicetal twins. It was really hard to tell them apart until you got to know them. One April Fools day, they decided to pretend to be each other. I caught on right away, but pretended I didn't know. They really had everyone fooled, and it was so funny to watch.
Gee, if only they could get government paid birth control.
Sorry Little House on the Prairie is a TV show. The world has changed so get over it.
BTW, poor people world wide have more children than rich people, in fact many more. I have read numerous articles on why and generally it is lack of access to birth control and irresponsible men. Want to lower the birth rate? Help people get out of poverty rather than push them into it.
I would say irresponsible poeple would be more accurat, it takes two to tango. Men cant "Will," a pregnancy with their minds. Tthe number is indeed significantly smaller but I know women walk out on children and their husbands/ partners/ whatever, as well. My friend's mother walked out on her and her father when she was very young. Her mother to this day has a new family, four children, and has maybe contacted her twice in the last 8 years over the phone.
What a great way to begin harming a child. Nothing quite like the uncertainty of shacking up to help a kid feel secure.
Say that Navin! look, like it or not, this country, as old as it is, has looked upon marriage quite favorable.... look at all of our Presidents... have we had one Prez who "shacks up" wont happen here... like it or not,,, none of them shacked up, yes, Jefferson had kids with slaves, but he had a wifey.... and you bet, kids grow up insecure because no matter how much people shut down marraige today, it is still far more accepted to be raise in a married home, than a "baby daddy, baby mamma"... having children unmarried... come on now...... it is what it is!
I thought this article was about marriage? Since it has turned to children, here's a few rules we should live by.1) Wait until you are 25 to have children. What's the hurry? This way you'll get to know each other first. 2) If you live in a 2 bedroom place, 1 child, 3 bedroom place 2 children etc. If you can't afford to put your child in its own room don't have any more. 3) Take your children on vacation. I see so many children during spring/summer breaks that don't go anywhere. If you can't afford a vacation with your child, don't have any.
Additional rules. You should have children if you a) Graduated high school, b) have a job WITH HEALTH CARE.
Disagree about the diploma. My Mom raised me and two siblings virtually by herself and didnt get her GED until later and did just fine. WITHOUT government help I might add. Came close a couple times but pulled through on her own.
Apparently those "modern" couples do not know the word for illegitimate babies, born out of wedlock. Sadly, those children will carry that label all their lives due to the ignorance of their lazy, irresponsible parents.
I know three unmarried couples with children. Each mother is receiving food stamps because she's a "single mom." So they have no incentive to get married and a big incentive not to. And we the tax payers pay for it.
What's your point? I know 2 married couples with children that are receiving food stamps. Are you that ignorant in not realizing married couple get food stamps too?
I think its also because we are becoming overall less religious. Marriage has its roots in religion. I am married but if it weren't for the help with our taxes, there would have no other reason for my wife and I to get married. And we have decided not to have children.
Another example of how Obama and his liberal drones want to take money away from Christians you work for a living and get it to sinners who only want to watch TV and smoke crack cocaine.
Ah the comments......I have been in a domestic relationship for 17 years. We have two beautiful children, own our home, have jobs – and health care. Reaons for not getting married – none. It is our choice. This works for us and to be honest, we have lasted a lot longer then most "modern" marriages. Our kids don't carry the out of wedlock stigma. They carry both of our names and as long as they know we are here to love and support them what difference does it make. As for rings, I have a past,present & future ring. It is a symbol of our commitment to each other. We don't need a piece of paper to show we are commited to each other.
Love produces healthy children, not legal bindings
I just don't get why this is such a surprise! Co-habitating and having children have been going on since I was 20 yrs old and that was 40 yrs ago. Why is this such a big deal?
I had my first child in 2009 with my boyfriend, and we still aren't married. Marriage doesn't define if you're ready to be a parent or not. My child and commitment to her is for life, but it's not that easy to marry someone. Not being married doesn't change my parenting abilities. Marriage is a huge commitment and people don't take it seriously anymore. The divorce statistics speak enough.
Well I married my wife the old fashioned way; I got her pregnant first. It's been 20 years so it's not so bad.
Looks like the government supplied contraceptives are not working.
Marriage is a vestigial organ.
We need more kids to pay our ss
Am I the only one to notice the survey was only white and hispanics? What was the percentage of black women having babies?
That would be racist right?
Are we all Americans? Or is that "2 much for you 2 handle"..?
The statistics about the hispanics was for foreign-born and non foreign born children. I believe the hispanics have taken over as the minority, so they probably took into the account for only the major minority. The african -american isn't even the 2nd major minority.
CNN avoids reporting unflattering things about black people.
The survey covered all races. Another story on CNN.com talked about its results for hispanic, whites, blacks and Asians.
How ridiculous is this? They are sharing a home and have founded a family – what difference does it make if they went to the jewelry store and the courthouse and the church first?
It makes a difference in how the couple looks at the relationship-a couple not married though love each other are more easily able to seperate whenever they choose. Marriages are a little harder to sever and still present more stability for the children. Marriage is 100% about the children and not the couple at least it used to be.
You are naive
What Ashley said!
Actually, this is something of a return to our roots. Among people who did not own large amounts of property, it used to be common to never go to the courthouse or church and be officially married. If a couple lived together and were socially acknowledged as being together, they were husband and wife. Later as official marriage for everyone became the norm, the definition of marriage narrowed and cohabitators were no longer called husband and wife.
My parents never married and cohabited for 16 years. The biggest difference is that my mom was not afforded the same divorce protections that a wife would have been. And my father basically got to keep all of the assets because of that.
it can be an intensely stupid thing to do if there is a disparity between incomes or assets, especially if one parent stays home to raise kids. if both partners are on equal footing economicly then, meh, it's fine.