The author, a sociologist, ticks off a few of the problems some of the co-habitating poor encounter, and then concludes that what we have here is nothing less than a critical concern involving social justice:
When I give campus talks on the risks of cohabitation, I can always count on some smarty to challenge me saying that the risks are not really so great to people like himself. What he usually means (and it is almost always a "he") is that the statistics are skewed by a large number of poor, uneducated cohabiting couples who are at higher risk for all sorts of problems anyway. Unspoken, but implied, is that he is cohabiting himself and plans not to change based on anything I say.Check out the rest. Discuss amongst yourselves.
So, he might argue, this particular boyfriend was just a loser, while the cohabiting men of his own social circle are not. Women of higher income and education will not face such serious problems as this woman living in a hotel room with a creep. But studies that control for education and income still find that cohabitation is risky.
We have created a culture that says sex, marriage and childbearing have no necessary relationship to each other. This culture, like any culture, is made up of the decisions of all of us: the things we choose to do and not do, the justifications we offer for our actions, the things we celebrate and the things we condemn. We have an indirect impact on the culture and therefore on the people around us. Every problem of the poor is exacerbated by the failure of marriage. The "alternatives to marriage" are destroying the culture of the poor.
So I present this challenge to my young friends on campus: "You might get away with participating in social practices that become much more destructive as they trickle down into the lower classes. It is not social justice to claim for yourself the rights to behaviors that you can manage but are a disaster for the less fortunate. Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?"
Or, better yet, with your Significant Other.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There are several questions that I have regarding this post. First, is cohabitation something that has trickled down from the more affluent to the poorer classes of people? Or is it something that has always been there?
Second, would marriage really change the risks these people face? Is the fault in that they did not marry, or does the fault lie in a personality that cannot make a commitment? I would like to see the statistics of abuse in married couples of this cultural level.
Third, because there is a group of people that cannot handle certain actions, does that mean that I should abstain from that action in the name of social justice? For example, there is a fairly large population of people that cannot handle alcohol (I am one of them). Does that mean that those who can drink safely should give up their wine with their meals? It seems to me that the social justice argument is to say the least, a bit forced.
There are several questions that I have regarding this post. First, is cohabitation something that has trickled down from the more affluent to the poorer classes of people? Or is it something that has always been there?
Second, would marriage really change the risks these people face? Is the fault in that they did not marry, or does the fault lie in a personality that cannot make a commitment? I would like to see the statistics of abuse in married couples of this cultural level.
Third, because there is a group of people that cannot handle certain actions, does that mean that I should abstain from that action in the name of social justice? For example, there is a fairly large population of people that cannot handle alcohol (I am one of them). Does that mean that those who can drink safely should give up their wine with their meals? It seems to me that the social justice argument is to say the least, a bit forced.
I agree with the previous posts. The argument appears to be irrelevant. When one offers an irrelevant argument one's case is severely weakened.
So often I fall into the same trap -- a negative argument. It would be much better to argue for the positive rewards of commitment and marriage than against the consequences of their absence.
Though I cannot quote research, I suspect most people are drawn to a choice more effectively by possible positive gains than by fear of negative consequences, particularly when the consequences seem contrived.
Maybe the motto is "Promote virtue rather than fear of sin." If the virtue is presented as the gold everyone desires, it gains more power to attract.
I read a recent pamphlet on cohabitation that has one sentence that really struck me as very true..."By 'living together' you are telling your boyfriend or girlfriend that sex outside of marriage, (or adultery) is acceptable and normal. "
I guess I never thought of it that way.
Be careful imputing moral weakness to rational creatures based soley on their lower income. These folks may have a healthy natural law inclination to bond and commit (see response re: 'common law' marriage) but the positive law (ie the democratically instituted legislation of the polity in which they attempt to make a home for themselves and their dependents) warps the economic incentives to the detriment of a civilization of love, as documented in this commentary on a Forbes article at "Intentional Disciples blog:
http://blog.siena.org/2009/10/marriage-costly-luxury.html
Many poor folks are forced to negotiate irrational institutional barriers to a true social justice (charity in truth) - why marry to become WORSE off? That's stupid, and don't we Christians claim sin makes you stupid?
Catholics need to get off their *rse's and start acting like concerned citizens rather than indifferent pontificators... Is it any wonder why the culture rejects our pontiff and his Lord and God when we Papists are so complacent towards repenting of injustices of our own making?
Why should marriage be a sacrificial act only for the poor? Imagine how many orthodox marriages would be intact if the same tax burdens were levied onto couples struggling to pay for the parochial school education for their (planned parenthood) offspring and their negative equity mortgages? American Catholics have long ago rejected living a life of social justice, instead they chose to live an "I'm alright" social contract paid for by borrowing from the next generation as yet unborn. There is a lot more to be said, but suffice it to say a lame appeal to chastity isn't going to cover all the bases of the moral bankruptcy looming. You reap what you sow...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.