Will rising illegitimacy be our downfall

[prisonchaplain]

I have no desire to heep guilt or judgment on any individual. We all have our stories and experiences. A big part of faith is redemption, after all.

Nevertheless, this story does not bode well for the U.S.: WORLDmag.com | Another tipping point: Births outside marriage | Marvin Olasky

[Bini]

To some, in a sense, you have less to lose if you're unwed and things go wrong. Both parties simply pack up and vacate. No legal bindings. Of course, the emotional toll can be just as upsetting, regardless of marital status. In my 2011 birth club, a vast majority of the women were not married, some were even single. I recall, not certain though, that even if you're not married to the father, you can claim child support. Does anyone know if this is true?

Anyway, it's too bad that people look at the small picture instead of the big picture. A family consisting of a husband and father, wife and mother, has potential to create a foundation unmatched by unwed parents or single parents. That said, I'm sure those statistics account for the teenage mothers that really hadn't planned on marriage or parenthood all together. That kind of responsibility typically isn't considered when you're 14, 15, 16, etc..

[prisonchaplain]

Increasingly we're seeing two groups have babies...mid-range teens and mid-30s career women who realize the biological clock is ticking. As for those in the prime ages range (say 18-30)...smart enough to wait, and too smart to take the plunge. Overall, the U.S. is only maintaining its population because of consistent immigration. Other countries, such as those in Western Europe and Northern Asia are beginning to see their populations age, and the looming prospect of depopulation. BTW, I believe Russia's situation on this is already quite dire.

Population decline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drunken Nation: Russia’s Depopulation Bomb | World Affairs Journal

Edited February 21, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[RMGuy]

Short answer...

No.

-RM

[prisonchaplain]

Short follow up...why not?

[RMGuy]

Short follow up...why not?

I believe and look for the good in people. I don't believe that an individual is who they are because of who their parents are. I dont' think it matters whether they were born in wealth or in poverty, to a liberal family or a conservative one. While all of those things have an influence in life, I have seen too many people overcome humble or less than ideal births to lead lives of greatness. I have also seen individual with every opportunity amount to very little.

I believe that who an individual becomes, and what they contribute or take from society is more a function of the choices they make, and who they wish to be, than any other external influence. Look at individual like William the Conqueror, Opray Winfrey, Sophia Loren, John Audabon, Pope Clement VII, Fredrick Douglass, T.E. Lawrence, Booker T. Washington, Leonardo Da Vinci, to name just a few.

I think the fact that the child is loved and nurtured and cared for, or if they are encouraged to explore, learn, and grow plays a bigger role than whether or not Mom and Dad have a wedding certificate on the wall.

-RM

[prisonchaplain]

RM...I agree with all of that, on an individual level. It would be tragic for those who were born out of wedlock to take this kind of discussion as some sort of fatalism that says they are destined for squalor.

On the other hand, on a societal level, this is a tremendous burden. I remember 30 years ago when we were seeing these numbers in a particular minority community. The comment at the time was, if this trend becomes society-wide we're finished!

I really hope we are not finished. However, it might be worthwhile for leadership to look at policies and approaches to stemming this tide, and also encouraging intact families.

[Jennarator]

The fall of family and family values will be, and already are, a downfall.

[annewandering]

The most troubling thing is that it is merely a symptom of the destruction of the family. The family is really being attacked on all fronts and lack of marriage for children to be born into is the biggest sign of that attack. Family is not the way our 'tribes' are based on now. People center themselves in groups for other reasons with nothing to do with family and are used for social bindings instead of families. Many of those reasons are self centered and with only shor tterm purpose, such as jobs, partying, hobbies, etc. Those would be ok if they were not taking the place of family.

[applepansy]

To some, in a sense, you have less to lose if you're unwed and things go wrong. Both parties simply pack up and vacate. No legal bindings. Of course, the emotional toll can be just as upsetting, regardless of marital status. In my 2011 birth club, a vast majority of the women were not married, some were even single. I recall, not certain though, that even if you're not married to the father, you can claim child support. Does anyone know if this is true?

Yes this is true. What happens here in Utah is the mother will file with the State for services. The state will send a summons to the "father" who then has to do a paternity test. Once paternity is established the State then collects the child support and sends mom a welfare check.

Once the State gets involved its a nightmare for the non-custodial parent. Their check is garnished... no choice. That's just how the State does it.

[annewandering]

Yes this is true. What happens here in Utah is the mother will file with the State for services. The state will send a summons to the "father" who then has to do a paternity test. Once paternity is established the State then collects the child support and sends mom a welfare check.

Once the State gets involved its a nightmare for the non-custodial parent. Their check is garnished... no choice. That's just how the State does it.

Its a nightmare for the single mom not having money to raise a child too. Chastity is such a great choice!

[cwald]

I don't think so.

I know many folks in the LDS church believe this, but, I think they need to keep it in perspective. I heard at church recently that abortion and homosexual behavior would be the downfall of America. Really? Maybe we need to remember our history and not get so worked up about the current standard of morality. 140 years ago, the LDS church was saying that MONOGAMY was immoral and is what caused the Roman empire to fall. (see sources below)

Im not saying we don't need to preach morality --- only maybe we should not jump on the "world is going to hell in a hand basket" fear because many in the world do not share our values and standards.

"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."

- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."

- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."

- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

[Just_A_Guy]

The article doesn't strike me as the mere clucking of social conservatives about eee-vul.

The challenges presented by a large number of children being raised by just one parent are not just theological, or even "moral" (whatever that means). They have implications for a society's physical and emotional health, its crime rate, its economics, its government revenues, and its general overall quality of life. Sure, single parent homes can produce as good results as a two-parent home. But the question is whether most of them do.

I have trouble seeing how homosexuality really relates to this discussion. "Breakdown of the family" is not always a right-wing code phrase for "gays".

Edited February 22, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[marshac]

Not directly, but perhaps indirectly- It seems to be the general feeling that boys get into serious trouble without a good male role model... historically this was dad's job. Without a dad in the house, who are these kids to turn to for guidance on what a man should be, or how a man should treat women? As for the girls- statistically they are likely to repeat the actions of their mothers- teen pregnancy begets teen pregnancy just as much as poverty begets poverty. Normally I would locate resources and cite stuff to back up my musings, but i'm pressed for time tonight. :)

[LDSJewess]

After reading this entire thread I have seen a lot of comments regarding the parents or the two parties involved in making a baby out of wedlock. There are comments about how it is easier to back out of an unmarried relationship. More comments about how how the outcome of one's life or their success and happiness does not necessarily have anything to do with a marriage certificate.

The interesting thing about this thread is there is talk of the couple that make the babies, but not a lot of talk about the babies.

No matter how easy it is to vacate a relationship, rationalize how people living together outside of marriage can be happy, who gets child support payments etc: What about that baby who has no say in the matter and the child who grows up in such a situation.

I can speak of this from very personal experience. I am 63 years old and when I go to the Doctor I am given a form to fill out regarding family history... is father living, if not how did he die, any diseases and all I can fill in is unknown, unknown, unknown.

I had visited the LDS church long before I actually joined 20 years ago. My main reason for not joining the church earlier was that I did not feel I fit in with all of the family oreinted teachings. I remember seeing an LDS video with a song about Heavenly Father giving us earthly parents "kind and dear". And I thought I must have been absent when those kind and dear earthly parents were being handed out.

To this day now that I am a grandmother and a great grandmother, I go to the family history library and cannot do geneaology on my fathers side because when mom and pop conveniently "vacated" their relationship they failed to leave a forwarding name no less a location. And since mom was pretty much estranged from her family, the family records on her side are very sketchy at best.

Did I grow up to be a successful adult. Yes I did. Good career, good husband, although not on the first try. Since I had no parental role model, I spent most of my youth and young adulthood surviving and I learned to parent my own children by trial and error. Life would have been easier for them and subsequently easier for my grandchildren had I learned parenting skills from my parents and then passed the same values on to my children. Life is good now. But it could have been better for me and my children. I would have loved to actually know grandparents, and my children would have liked to know what is was like to have grand parents.

Having babies is a life long commitment which takes a life long committment between the two people that bring those babies into the world. It not only effects their babies but their babies babies throughout generations. Not having a life long committment before making babies is selfish and irresponsible at the very least.

Am I bitter? No. But I once was and spent a lot of precious time getting over the resentment of not having a "normal family."

In spite of it all, I love life and thank Heavenly Father for it every day. I also know that had abortion been legal in 1947/48 I would likely not be here because mom would have "vacated" her problem early for convenience. So you can say I am pro life and glad for the laws back then that gave me the opportunity to life long enough to have children of my own and enjoy the generations that follow them. (I know perhaps this last paragraph is a different topic but unfortunately this too is the result of non-committed couples making babies.

[Jezebel2011]

We are going to have major problems in a few areas -

Firstly young adults inter-marrying other family members since they don't know whom their biological Fathers are - and neither do their Mothers (in a high percentage of cases). One only has to watch Jeremy Kyle to see that fact.

Secondly - it poses huge problems for our Temple Sealings when doing work for the dead. Simply because if a couple aren't married they cannot be sealed, and therefore the children cannot be sealed to the parents.

Have experienced this with an LDS friend at Church whom is 83 shortly. Her parents were only 16 and not married so she cannot be sealed to her natural parents. Yet SLC have allowed the Sealing of her Mother to her Step-Father and herself to them. Which is very odd to me. The lady concerned is very upset about all of this.

Our Society is falling apart at the seams and yet nobody seems to be the slightest bit bothered about it.

.

[RMGuy]

The article doesn't strike me as the mere clucking of social conservatives about eee-vul.

The challenges presented by a large number of children being raised by just one parent are not just theological, or even "moral" (whatever that means). They have implications for a society's physical and emotional health, its crime rate, its economics, its government revenues, and its general overall quality of life. Sure, single parent homes can produce as good results as a two-parent home. But the question is whether most of them do.

I have trouble seeing how homosexuality really relates to this discussion. "Breakdown of the family" is not always a right-wing code phrase for "gays".

Maybe I am confused and someone can help me out. JAG, and many of the other posters as well, seems to be talking about single parents. The original question was asking about illegitimacy. While a child born illegitimate may indeed grow up in a single parent household, these two are not synonomous. Are we talking about a child born without benefit of legal marriage or a children of single parent homes?

-RM

[Blackmarch]

I have no desire to heep guilt or judgment on any individual. We all have our stories and experiences. A big part of faith is redemption, after all.

Nevertheless, this story does not bode well for the U.S.: WORLDmag.com | Another tipping point: Births outside marriage | Marvin Olasky

I don't think it does directly, tho it may help us merrily on our way... it seems to me that when civilizations fall theyve tended to fall further than just ignoring/doing away with marriage... generally there is also some sort of thirst for blood as well.

[Guest]

Maybe I am confused and someone can help me out. JAG, and many of the other posters as well, seems to be talking about single parents. The original question was asking about illegitimacy. While a child born illegitimate may indeed grow up in a single parent household, these two are not synonomous. Are we talking about a child born without benefit of legal marriage or a children of single parent homes?

-RM

Child born outside of marriage is my understanding - a good portion of which are raised by single parents.

The marital paper is supposed to be a conscious expression of commitment. In America, it's just another one of things that doesn't mean much really. I mean - it's just as easy to walk out on a marriage as it is a non-marital union in the USA.

If you are talking Philippines - then yes, illigitimacy is going to have a giant impact on that society that you will probably see a very sharp increase in poverty within a generation, probably to the point of unsustainability even with the giant footprint of the Catholic Church mission. In the Philippines - there's no divorce. You get married, it's a lifelong commitment. The entire culture is dependent on that stability to function. Hence, there's not much welfare, insurance, or much governmental "entitlements" because the family carries that burden. When you have a family carrying the burden of all its members, you have a reason to stay as a family and be protective of it. And so, if God's intent was to have us live as families, then you have a better chance at achieving that in the Philippines than in America. Because...America doesn't work that way anymore.

And so, if you are talking about downfall - the US is already on that road well before illigitimacy rose to this statistical level. So, the question is - is economic and military power the yardstick by which to measure the success of a society, or is the stability of a family unit the better yardstick? Because, if we are going to measure societal success by the stability of the family, then the Philippines is a better country than the US.

[jayanna]

This thread reminds me of this:

The Proclamation On The Family (the last two paragraphs are as follows) (here is a good talk The Family - Ensign Feb. 1998 - ensign )

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

That statement was made by the Apostles and published all around the world. To read the full proclamation go here The Family: A Proclamation to the World - Liahona June 2006 - liahona

So, yes, as the family, which is the basic unit of society fails, so society will fail. I think that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ would agree with you. It was a warning put out by them over a decade ago, before a lot of the controversy that we are currently seeing had fully come to light.

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe I am confused and someone can help me out. JAG, and many of the other posters as well, seems to be talking about single parents. The original question was asking about illegitimacy. While a child born illegitimate may indeed grow up in a single parent household, these two are not synonomous. Are we talking about a child born without benefit of legal marriage or a children of single parent homes?

-RM

Both. I do not have statistics for children growing up in blended families. It is easier to guess that children do better in them, in many categories since there are two parents to support them. Perhaps they have a different set of struggles though. It's an easy assumption that over all, children growing up in stable homes, with both birth parents have the best chance of success.

Yes, yes...many anecdotes of those who did well without this. There is no fatalism here--no condemnation of the children. However, as they say at the races, "The favorite does not always win, but it's still the best bet." Likewise, children who grow up in two-birth-parent homes still mess up. However, it's still the most successful way to grow up.

[jayanna]

It is the most successful way for the parents to grow up, too.

[RMGuy]

I think then that we need to be very clear. There is a distinct difference between individuals that do not grow up in a two parent home, and children born to parents that are not married.

Christ himself fits the latter category, but not the former.

Others fall into a wide variety of situations in between:

Children born and put up for adoption to two parent families

Children born and adopted by single parents

Children born to a single parent

Children born to two parents that are not married and never become married

Children born to two parents that later get married

Children born to two parents that are married and stay together

Children born to two parents that are married and later get divorced and then are single parents

Children born to two parents that are married, get divorced and later remarry to provide a two parent household.

The possible permutations of this are almost endless. To blame the downfall of society on one of these groups tells me that someone hasn't put a lot of time and effort into thinking this through very well. Thomas Aquinas wrote on this in the 1200's.

Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining how a baby born to two loving parents, and raised by these same two individuals (living together but not leglly married) to adulthood is iinherently more of a menace to society than an indivdual that is born in the covenant to two parents who divorce a few months after the baby is born? The first child is illegitimate, the second is not.

-RM

[Guest]

I think then that we need to be very clear. There is a distinct difference between individuals that do not grow up in a two parent home, and children born to parents that are not married.

Christ himself fits the latter category, but not the former.

Others fall into a wide variety of situations in between:

Children born and put up for adoption to two parent families

Children born and adopted by single parents

Children born to a single parent

Children born to two parents that are not married and never become married

Children born to two parents that later get married

Children born to two parents that are married and stay together

Children born to two parents that are married and later get divorced and then are single parents

Children born to two parents that are married, get divorced and later remarry to provide a two parent household.

The possible permutations of this are almost endless. To blame the downfall of society on one of these groups tells me that someone hasn't put a lot of time and effort into thinking this through very well. Thomas Aquinas wrote on this in the 1200's.

Would anyone care to take a stab at explaining how a baby born to two loving parents, and raised by these same two individuals (living together but not leglly married) to adulthood is iinherently more of a menace to society than an indivdual that is born in the covenant to two parents who divorce a few months after the baby is born? The first child is illegitimate, the second is not.

-RM

Excellent point RM. And that is why I say if we consider the breakdown of the ordained family as the benchmark for the downfall of society then USA have been heading that way for a while.

Children born and adopted to a married couple cease to be illegitimate. And then you have those who are born legitimate and then one or both parent dies. In a society with strong families, these orphans are usurped into the extended family to fill the void left by the parents.

[Just_A_Guy]

Very good point, RM. As a legal issue, it's well settled constitutional law that there is not--cannot be--any legal difference between children born in versus out-of wedlock.

It strikes me that the the commitment is the main thing. That commitment often--but of course, not always--overlaps with a formal marriage.

Of course, if you're in a common-law marriage state, sooner or later that "commitment" can easily morph into a bona-fide marriage whether there's been a legal ceremony or not.