Don't let facts and figures get in the way of self-validation...

Thanks to EvilElf, who I know sent this to me because of my bitching that I'm getting married "old"....

Which is it, New York Times? Is it that "To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered" (the title of today's article) or is it that "Among Americans aged 35 to 64, married couples still make up a majority of all households" (caption 5 on your slideshow?). In fact, the poll comes up with married NYT online readers being 61%.

Yes, folks are marrying later. Yes, more people are divorcing. This is not a suprise. But comments like "married couples have finally slipped into the minority" make the writer sound a wee bit biased. Why is it that the happily cohabitating couples make the papers, while the relationships that end because one partner insists on marriage and the other doesn't, or the relationships that result in marriage strictly because one partner realizes that it's the only way s/he's going to be able to keep the other don't get mentioned? I know of maybe two cohabitating couples where both partners are happy with their status (most cohabitating couples I know have a situation where one person feels "in limbo" or cheated by the "just living together" status), and many married couples.

Yes, Sex and the City is a cool show. But obviously, the NYT is trying to validate the choices and situations of much of NYC's demographic of young swingin' singles. Nothing wrong with being a swingin' single if that's the life for you. But for goodness' sake, at least let people make informed choices using accurate information. You mofos are as liberal-raggy as the Washington Post and the Boston Globe!

Or they could let gay people get married. Civil rights are a terrible thing to waste.