Christian Newswire very concerned about out-of-wedlock births in France: same-sex marriage to blame!

[Bluebear]

It's a threefer, folks! All sorts of outrage for: 1) sex outside of marriage; 2) France; and 3) Homoseccctuals!!


======

French Out-of-Wedlock Birthrate Shows Impact of Marriage Substitutes

Contact: Larry Jacobs or Don Feder, 815-964-5819, 513-515-3685 cell, [e-mail]

ROCKFORD, Ill., Jan. 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Last year, France became the first non-Scandinavian country in Western Europe where a majority of births are now out-of-wedlock. World Congress of Families International Secretary Allan C. Carlson called it, "a troubling development which underscores the danger of weakening the natural family by accepting marriage-substitutes."

In France, 50.5% of the 816,500 births registered last year were to unmarried parents, up from 48.4% in 2006 and 40% a decade ago. Out-of-wedlock births kept pace with the rise of civil unions. In 2007, there were 305,385 of said "unions" registered in France, compared to only 266,500 marriages.

In Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Bulgaria, out-of-wedlock births have also passed the 50% mark. In the United Kingdom, births to the unmarried were 44% in 2006, up a percentage point from 2005.

In Catholic countries like Italy and Spain, births to married couples are still the norm (illegitimacy is 27% in Spain and 17% in Italy). Even so, in those countries, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has doubled in the past decade.

Guy Desplanques, head of France's agency for compiling demographic data, notes, "Marriage is now seen more as a celebration held to bring together family and friends, and less a necessary institution, especially given the growth of civil unions."

Said Carlson: "Civil unions and same-sex marriages are society's signal that traditional marriage is optional – that it's an occasion for a party, instead of a solemn joining of two individuals intended to last a lifetime." :rofl:

Carlson warned that while still behind France, the U.S. (with an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 36.9%) is moving in the same direction, driven by the same forces.

"When society tells the young that marriage is optional, a growing number will choose the path of least resistance, which is living together," Carlson commented. "That's bad for children, because cohabitation and civil unions have less permanency, and it's bad for society."

In The Warsaw Declaration, World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, May 11-13, 2007) proclaimed: "The natural family, a creation of God, is the fundamental human community, based on the lifelong marriage between a man and a woman, in which new individuals are conceived, born and raised."

http://www.earnedmedia.org/hc0123.htm

[Reverend_Smitty]

1. wow it's the trifecta!

no wonder the rapture index is so high today!

[dbackjon]

2. Lifelong marriage?? :lmao: Even Catholics don't have those any more

And Evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than the population as a whole. Fucking idiots.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. To think *I'M* the reason breeders are breeding

Wow. That's just... :wow: Wow.

[Fleshdancer]

10. I just got knocked up by reading your post

Thanks a lot TechBear. :grr:

[Bluebear]

11. ........

:spray:

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. You're on your own, sweetheart

I'm not a child-support kind of guy. :hide:

[kdmorris]

13. Breeders?

How utterly offensive. I have always supported the right for humans to choose their own destinies, whether that be to have children or to not have children. I don't think less of you or make up fucked up little names for you because you choose not to have a child and I think it's insulting, alienating and juvenile for you to think less of me or make up fucked up little names for me because I chose to have children.

Nothing like dividing us all up, eh? Sure way to give the Republicans a victory.

[Rob H.]

18. Uh....

I've had a lot of gay and lesbian friends who've called me a breeder and I'm single with no kids. I think it's more a slang term for all straight people, not just those who've chosen to have children. (I also know they don't mean it in an insulting way when they call me that.)

Just sayin'.

[kdmorris]

21. Really?

I've only seen it used in the context of those people who use it as an insult to those who have children, generally people who have chosen not to have children for moral or political reasons.

If it is used in some other way that is NOT meant to be insulting, then consider this my apology. But I've never heard it used as anything but an insult.

[LeftyMom]

25. Put your big girl pants on and deal.

We live in a country where adoption by gay parents is unlikely (if not outright illegal) in many places, where in most places fertility doctors can refuse patients based on their sexuality alone, and where GLBT parents are allowed to be discriminated against in custody hearings for the kids they do have in most places.

So yeah, freedom to have and raise kids is something that not everybody takes for granted, and resentment of that fact is certainly understandable.

[kdmorris]

26. Yes, I can understand that resentment

But taking it out on people who are on your side seems pretty counterproductive.

Edited to add: I resent the way religion has taken over our government and I resent the fact that a Lesbian is more likely to be elected President than I am (an atheist female). By your logic, it's fine for me to call them names because they are luckier or more acceptable to society than I am.

[Bluebear]

27. "That guy is pretty hot"

"Don't bother, he's a breeder."

Truly, you could hear that conversation go on between two gay men. I never use the term, but it is not always meant as an insult. :hug:

[kdmorris]

28. Yeah, someone else mentioned that earlier

I had truthfully never heard it used in any way but as an insult. As I said to Rob H., if that term is used in a way that isn't meant as an insult, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. If they are having children, they are breeding. If they are breeding, they are breeders

I was stating a fact, not making a slur.

:pals: ?

[kdmorris]

32. Thanks, Techbear

A couple of people have already pointed out that it wasn't meant to be a slur.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Methinks I'm a wee bit quick on the trigger today.

:pals: indeed!

[LSK]

4. anyone find it ironic that the standard of living in these countries is outstanding?

Doesn't Norway and Sweden usually top standard of living studies year after year?

:shrug:

[Reverend_Smitty]

7. France is up there too on the standard of living...

it's funny how when people stop butting into other people's personal lives, everyone is happier and your country is a better place to live.

Who'd have thunk it?

[malaise]

22. Isn't that the truth

Who appointed these morons as guardians of the planet's views on morality. Why don't they rapture up, STFU and disappear.

[Duncan Grant]

5. I say it's because they're so lousy at prayer.

They're spending far too much time bothering the rest of us. It's obviously interfering with their prayer time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. is this conflating "civil unions" with gay "civil unions"?

I find it hard to believe that there were 305,000 gay unions and only 266,000 straight marriages.

A civil union doesn't have to be only gay - it's any government approved union which is not a marriage ceremony - what's called here a "civil ceremony" conducted by a judge, not a clergyman. By that definition, any children from straight civil unions would be considered to be out of wedlock.

Am I misunderstanding that?

[FreeState]

12. Thats how I read it too

It appears the anti-gay crowed is now counting child birth of those that are in a civil union as "illegitimate" to get their figures.

[kdmorris]

19. Nope, not misunderstanding

They are using all legally government sanctioned numbers to pad out their figures on "out of wedlock" child births. They are trying to make it seem that it's the gay unions doing it, but they did slip in this little gem:

"When society tells the young that marriage is optional, a growing number will choose the path of least resistance, which is living together," Carlson commented. "That's bad for children, because cohabitation and civil unions have less permanency, and it's bad for society."

What a load of horseshit! My husband and I would have what is considered to be a civil union in France (we were not "married" in a church), but it's permanent and isn't "just living together". This site has just tried to make it bad so that they can show how "gays are ruining marriage".

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. It's the total number of civil unions still existing, and the *new* marriages in 2007

Very misleading, but whether that's on purpose, or because they're unbearably dumb, I can't tell.

Here's the figures for French civil unions (since they came into existence in 1999):

Civil unions (PACS)

Year	Declarations	Dissolutions
1999	6 139	7
2000	22 108	620
2001	19 410	1 859
2002	24 979	3 143
2003	31 161	5 229
2004	39 576	6 935
2005	59 837	8 584
2006	76 680	9 470
2007*	72 170	9 293

http://www.ined.fr/en/pop_figures/france/marriages_divorces_pacs/pacs/

And for marriages in the last 10 years: http://www.ined.fr/en/pop_figures/france/marriages_divorces_pacs/marriage_nuptiality/

260,000 (provisional figure) for 2007.

[TomClash]

8. So the people who want to get together

are responsible for the people who don't??? :wtf:

Pretzel logic.

[rAVES]

23. even with the Pretzel, the word logic should not be used here...

These people are fear mongering animals.. and should be spayed.

[IndianaJones]

9. marriage is like a coffin...

each kid is another nail.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. I think marriage is a fine institution

But who wants to live in an institution? :toast:

[LibertyLover]

14. Technically

I think that should have been 571,885 civil unions with only 266,500 having a marriage ceremony afterwards. IIRC, in France, as in other European countries, in order for a marriage to be legally recognized, you have to have a civil ceremony, i.e. a civil union. You can then go and have a religious ceremony if you want, but it's the civil ceremony that makes the marriage legal.

I wish we had that system here in the US. That way a civil union would be the legal ceremony and provide any couple, whether of same or opposite sexes, with a legal union. And it would remove legal marriage from the purview of religious institutions. If a couple wanted a religious ceremony, they would be free to have one. A church would be free to grant or withhold its blessing according to its theologic views, but churches would no longer be the dispensers of legally recognized unions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. No; there is a "pacte civil de solidarité", introduced in 1999

open to same-sex or different sex couples, which isn't a full marriage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarit%C3%A9 . That's what they're describing here, but they've given the cumulative figures for all these civil unions up to 2007, and compared that to the new marriages in 2007 - see reply #36.

[unpossibles]

15. "Marriage Substitutes" lol

I prefer "I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage!" but "MaritalWhip" is pretty good too.

[Bluebear]

16. "I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage!"

:spray:

[kdmorris]

17. ROFL

OK, that's freaking funny!!!

:toast:

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. "Maritalwhip" was my last marriage

and it isn't really very good.

[unpossibles]

34. I was going to suggest "your doin' it wrong"

but don't want to cross that line again. :)

Sorry to hear it.

[rAVES]

20. These people are fucking Idiots...

[malaise]

24. You are way too kind n/t

[VotesForWomen]

33. don't they still have a higher standard of living than americans? nt