Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The Gen Z Marriage Paradox
The Gen Z Marriage Paradox
Jul 26, 2026 9:45 PM

Those in Gen Z appear to have grasped that the collapse of marriage and raising children in single-parent households have had terrible social and personal consequences. So why aren’t they acting like it?

Read More…

Marriage—an institution as old as time—is increasingly under threat. The marriage rate has fallen 60% since 1970, and the number of children living in working-class, married-parent families fell from 85% to 55% in the same time frame. Two-thirds of Americans believe that two unmarried, cohabitating individuals should receive the same rights as married couples, and 69% believe cohabitation is acceptable even if a couple doesn’t plan to get married. A 2019 Pew study shows a larger number of couples ages 18–44 have cohabitated than have been married—with the majority percentage continuing to rise. But the greatest pushback against the institution of marriage e in the form of not getting married at all. This is the tumultuous climate in which Generation Z—born between 1997 and 2012—has been raised and the environment in which their views on marriage have been established.

In the midst of this unraveling of traditional marriage, Gen Z appears to have grasped the perils of being raised under these conditions and the threats posed to future prosperity, something exhibited by both polling data and social signals such as trending lower divorce rates, delayed marriage, and increased education. However, under the veil of “acceptance” and “open-mindedness,” there is also a refusal to condemn others and society at large for these detrimental anti-marriage trends.

Gen Z especially has experienced the effects of this decline in marriage. One-third of Gen Z has been born to unmarried women, and nearly 25% of these children grew up in single-parent homes, a rate higher than in any other country in the world. Except for outlying factors such as the presence of abuse in the home, children growing up in two-parents homes have statistically more prosperous lives than those raised in single-parent homes—and the “Zoomers” seem to understand these trends, but with typical Gen Z confusion.

For example, the most glaring of these statistics is Gen Z’s negative view toward single parenting, in tandem with a lack of appreciation for the necessity of marriage. Almost 9 in 10 Gen Zers believe cohabitation outside of marriage makes no difference or is a good thing for society. This in juxtaposition with 35% who view single parenting as a negative for society, with just 15% saying it’s a good for society. These statistics are not wildly different from the views of both Gen X and Boomers, a rarity. Moreover, an overwhelming 79% believe financial responsibilities should be shared among both the father and the mother, a view also shared by Millennials. Putting aside the implications of abolishing traditional gender roles, the strong desire for a e family speaks volumes about the longings of Gen Z for two-parent, e households.

Gen Z’s embrace of a “radical inclusivity” shines brightly in these statistics. Zoomers understand the value of marital standards and the negative effects when such standards are disregarded, but, again, they’re unwilling to hold others to these standards for fear of not displaying a resounding, all-inclusive “acceptance” and thus being branded as bigoted. This paradoxical thinking es more apparent when examining the statistics on healthy marriages. According to research by Jay Zagorsky at Ohio State University, individuals in lasting marriages have roughly double the wealth of the unmarried, four times the wealth when factoring in household e. Such relationships also coincide with better physical health, greater mental health, and an increase in overall happiness, among other benefits shown through numerous studies and research. Gen Z is not naive when es to such data, but there is a lack of consistency when their es into play. Not only are those in Gen Z unwilling to hold others to advantageous marital standards, but they themselves do not abide by any moral marital code. In fact, more than 11% of 18-to-24-year-olds (the oldest among Gen Z) are living with an unmarried partner, the highest number ever recorded.

There is an obvious downward cycle that coincides with the abolishment of healthy marriage. An unwillingness to draw out the implications of an objective truth, even one backed up by social science, makes breaking negative patterns increasingly difficult for Gen Zers. There is a natural inclination in humans to learn from mistakes so as to pave the way for a better future, but this does not appear to be the case with Gen Z. Instead, despite lived experience and a clear understanding of the negative consequences of disregarding the benefits of marriage, the personal trajectory remains unchanged—the road to unmarried, single parents and unhappy, unhealthy children continues to be built. And the driving force for this paradox seems to be fear of social alienation, of being judged too judgmental!

While many point toward the financial barriers to marriage (and this certainly plays a role), the root of this paradoxical situation is seemingly upstream of marital policy among other factors. How is the idea of sexual activity and marriage portrayed in pop culture? Why does the average American lose his or her virginity at 17 while putting off marriage until age 30 or so? Why is divorce accepted so readily, as almost “normal” or expected? Why doesn’t this generation see a correlation between cohabitation outside of marriage and single motherhood, and single motherhood and a tougher financial road? These are the questions that must be asked of this generation—and answered—if significant change is to occur.

The problem is not entirely founded upon dollars and cents, but it rooted in a culture that undervalues family and marriage in lieu of personal professional achievement and autonomy, values that are consistently reinforced in, for example, popular entertainment. We need more movies and TV shows that portray healthy, thriving nuclear families where parents are respected and marriage is viewed as important, even vital. Our music needs to stop promoting destructive ideas about premarital sex. Churches must teach the biblical significance of marriage and give Christians defenses against an ethic of “absolute tolerance” of anything and everything in the sexual realm. And parents need to teach their children virtue. This is a long-game prescription for change.

If Gen Z truly wants healing from a broken family, their best bet is not wholesale acceptance of anything, but acceptance of the truth—acceptance demonstrated by better life choices.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Scan this book! Break the law!
As a brief follow-up to my post last week about the state of scholarly publishing, I want to highlight this recent article in The New York Times, “Scan This Book!” by Kevin Kelly, who is on the staff at Wired magazine. He conjures up the same image as Janet H. Murray, of “the great library at Alexandria,” and laments that “for 2,000 years, the universal library, together with other perennial longings like invisibility cloaks, antigravity shoes and paperless offices, has...
Immigration reform, French-style
“As we look at how the immigration debate is unfolding, there are reasons to be concerned about the rule of law,” Jennifer Roback Morse writes. “The mass demonstrations of the past weeks reveal a much more sinister development: the arrival of French-style street politics in America.” Read mentary here. ...
Acton on the radio
Yesterday afternoon, Andrew Yuengert joined host Al Kresta on Kresta in the Afternoon on the Ave Maria Radio Network to discuss immigration reform and President Bush’s most recent proposal to secure the USA’s southern border. Yuengert is an Associate Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University and the author of Inhabiting the Land, an economic analysis of migration and part of Acton’s Christian Social Thought Series of monographs. To listen to the interview, click here (6.5 mb mp3 file). Inhabiting the...
The mandate of the state
In his fragmentary and plete Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer examines the reality of the will of God, which he e to us from Scripture in the form of four mandates: work, marriage, government, and church. Here’s a great summary of Bonhoeffer’s view of the mandate of the government or state, from his essay, “Christ, Reality, and Good,” pages 72-73: The divine mandate of government already presupposes the mandates of work and marriage. In the world that it rules, government finds already...
Tax those greedy Christians
Over at the Alabama Policy Institute, Gary Palmer takes on University of Alabama law professor Susan Pace Hamill and her assertion that Christians have an obligation to pay higher taxes. In “No Biblical Mandate for Higher Taxes,” Palmer examines her “theocratic tax inquisition.” In one article directed at Christians in Alabama, Professor Hamill contends that to be truly pro-life you must also support paying higher taxes to give the government more money to provide more government programs for the poor....
Sportsmen think global warming is a threat?
In the in-box, this interesting survey from Nate at Field & Stream: A new survey conducted by the National Wildlife Federation (the results of which are being hosted exclusively on ) shows that: 76 percent of sportsmen believe global warming is occurring71 percent believe it’s a serious threat to fish and wildlife78 percent believe the U.S. should reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 even though: 73 percent consider themselves conservative to moderate on political issues50 percent consider themselves...
Geldof trades up
The May 16 Independent is guest-edited by the ubiquitous Bono and sports the RED brand–another Bono project where a share of the profits from the mag will be donated to fighting AIDS and poverty in Africa. panies with RED brands include Converse, American Express, Armani, and GAP.) See the issue for yourself (where you will find a critique of subsidies, as well as Nelson Mandela giving props to RED as well as an interview edian Eddie Izzard–two men who much...
The myth of aid
John Stossel has made an excellent and noteworthy journalistic career by going where the evidence takes him. He possesses an intellectual honesty and curiosity that is refreshing, especially pared to the banal talking head syndrome which dominates most main stream media. As co-anchor of ABC’s 20/20, Stossel has negotiated a deal which allows him to do special reports on whatever interesting and controversial topics he chooses. His latest was a special aimed at debunking popularly accepted myths, tied to the...
Jaroslav Pelikan 1923-2006
Jaroslav Pelikan, the great historian of the Christian Tradition, died May 13 at his home in Hamden, Conn. He was 82 years old and had been battling lung cancer. Pelikan wrote more than 30 books and over a dozen reference works covering the entire history of Christianity. Perhaps his best known work is the five-volume “The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.” In 2003, he published “Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith...
Hello, pot? This is the kettle…
David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, writes at NRO this week about the use of biblical texts in support of immigration liberalization by liberals, “Borders & the Bible: It’s not the gospel according to Hillary.” I find this essay problematic on a number of levels. Klinghoffer first reprimands Hillary Clinton, among others, for quoting the Bible: “While the Left typically resists applying Biblical insights to modern political problems, liberals have seemed to make an exception for the...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved