Bizarre Paradox of the 20th Century

[Aussie]

Some facts for those who find them a nuisance.

[Rorschach]

No nuisance at all thanks...

From the ABS.
The 121,176 marriages registered in 2010 represented an increase of 1,058 (0.9%) from the 120,118 marriages registered in Australia in 2009. This is the highest number of marriages registered in a single year and continues the relatively steady increase in the number of marriages since 2001.

Bloody graph looks like a W.

Total marriages below 104,000 in 2001, increasing fairly steadily to over 120,000 in 2010 with a small hiccup in 2006.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... endocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AiA in Atlanta]

“globally 277 million people live alone”

Almost 50 percent of the 311 million people in the United States live alone

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/fashi ... ng-It.html

And it isn't just America. The number of urban singles is rising around the world.

[Rorschach]

But singles aren't necessarily gay nor are they looking to marry and your original point was same sex marriage.

Social conservatives complain not only about the demise of traditional marriage but also the rise of same-sex marriage

Even if I take it you mean "demise of traditional marriage" to include singles... my other questions go unanswered... and marriage is on the rise here.

Another trend here is that people are getting married later in life.

[Aussie]

From the ABS site I linked:

'Over the last two decades, the crude marriage rate fell from 6.9 registered marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population in 1990 to 5.4 marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2010. This decline in part reflects a changing population structure.'

My bolds.

[Rorschach]

Oh was poor wittle Aussie twying to get even with me because of some imagined slight?
Sicko.

Too bad buddy.

I used your info and guess what... the graph and figure show that marriages have been on the rise since 2001.
Check the link.
Look at the graph.

ABS... your link... 1.1 Total marriages, Australia - 1990-2010
Let me try to simplify things for you Aussie... plot a straight line between 1990 and 2010.
How does it slope?
It slopes up.
That means from 1990 to 2010 there has been an overall increase.

You should give payback a miss... you suck at it.

(This has been another reason why unbalanced people shouldn't be mods).

[Jovial Monk]

From the ABS site I linked:

'Over the last two decades, the crude marriage rate fell from 6.9 registered marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population in 1990 to 5.4 marriages per 1,000 estimated resident population in 2010. This decline in part reflects a changing population structure.'

My bolds.

Of course we don’t know the composition of that figure, if there are less first marriages and more 2nd, 3rd. . .

And the singles, how much of that is due to ageing of the population?

[AiA in Atlanta]

But singles aren't necessarily gay nor are they looking to marry and your original point was same sex marriage.

Social conservatives complain not only about the demise of traditional marriage but also the rise of same-sex marriage

Even if I take it you mean "demise of traditional marriage" to include singles... my other questions go unanswered... and marriage is on the rise here.

Another trend here is that people are getting married later in life.

No, my original point is that marriage is changing as a result of economic changes that conservatives have pushed for decades and these same conservatives are complaining about those same changes in marriage while applauding the economic changes.

[mantra]

Perhaps it was the second and third wave of feminism which has contributed to the decline of marriage. Feminism and the traditional marriage vows aren't well matched.

From Wiki....

The second wave of feminist activity began in the early 1960s and lasted through the late 1980s.

During this time, feminists campaigned against cultural and political inequalities, which they saw as inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.[7] The feminist activist and author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political", which became synonymous with the second wave.[10][11]

In the early 1990s, a movement, now termed the third wave of feminism, arose in response to the perceived failures of the second wave feminism.[12] In addition to being a response to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by second-wave feminism, the third wave was less reactive, and had a greater focus on developing the different achievements of women in America. The feminist movement as such grew during the third wave, to incorporate a greater number of women who may not have previously identified with the dynamics and goals that were established at the start of the movement. Though criticized as merely a continuation of the second wave, the third wave made its own unique contributions.

Feminist leaders rooted in the second wave, such as Gloria Anzaldúa, bell hooks, Chela Sandoval, Cherríe Moraga, Audre Lorde, Maxine Hong Kingston, and many other feminists of color, called for a new subjectivity in feminist voice. They sought to negotiate prominent space within feminist thought for consideration of race-related subjectivities. This focus on the intersection between race and gender remained prominent through the Hill-Thomas hearings, but began to shift with the Freedom Ride 1992. This drive to register voters in poor minority communities was surrounded with rhetoric that focused on rallying young feminists. For many, the rallying of the young is the emphasis that has stuck within third wave feminism.[7][13]

[Jovial Monk]

Maxine Hong Kingston

:jump