Meanwhile, singles endure celebrations for traditionally married people: Engagement parties, bridal showers, bachelor parties, wedding gifts, anniversaries — and more if those couples have children.
"Singles tend to be on the giving end in life's milestones," said Thomas Coleman, spokesman for Unmarried America, an equal-rights advocacy group.
For many singles, the lack of recognition reflects the ambiguity surrounding singles.
But that could change.
For the first time, single-headed households are now the majority in the United States, challenging the notion that married couples with 2.3 children and a house with a white picket fence are the norm.
According to the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey released last month, unmarried people lead 50.3 percent of households in the United States, while married couples head up 49.7 percent.
"Times have changed," Coleman said, but singles' variety continues to be overlooked.
Likely because most singles aren't easily categorized. Single used to mean unmarried and available.
Not anymore.
The legal definition — "not married" — doesn't stack up to the more complex social definition, which could mean co-habitating singles (same-sex or opposite sex), widowed singles, divorced singles, single parents by chance or single parents by choice.
"For one thing, the overwhelming majority of singles do not live alone," Coleman said. Many are partnered and co-habitating. "The word 'single' is ambiguous, and it causes a lot of confusion."
Take Sherrie Wilson, 58, of Kettering. Though divorced from her husband when her children were very young, 25 years later "divorced just doesn't sound like the right word to describe me, and single sounds too young."
Wilson was previously married for 15 years, "so
I don't really feel like I'm unmarried. Am I single? Am I still just divorced?"
Because her ex-husband died, the Social Security office considered Wilson a widow. "So now am I
a divorced widow? Where does that leave me? What box do you check? It's a real dilemma."
This kind of diversity, besides being confusing, leads to a notion of inequality, Coleman said.
Despite their growing numbers, unmarrieds haven't achieved the same economic status as the married.
Unmarried employees are more likely to get fewer promotions and have less desirable shifts foisted upon them. They take less advantage of leave benefits, causing some to wonder about fairness in the workplace.
Singles also earn less.
The median weekly earnings in 2004 for salaried full-time married workers were $719, compared with $510 for never-married workers and $606 for those previously married, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"(Employers have) yet to recognize these new families and households, the fastest-growing of which are co-habitating couples," particularly in making domestic-partner benefits equal to spousal benefits, Coleman said.
Despite that, single households are beginning to drive changes in the marketplace and in the stereotype.
Most homebuyers are now singles who are roommates, same-sex couples, married couples without children or career-driven singles.
In 2004, 18 percent of homebuyers were single women, according to the National Association of Realtors.
"They're moving through home ownership or child-bearing without marriage, on their own, " Coleman said. "Women are leading the way in this because their reproductive choices are more open now."
And there are smaller, less-noticeable changes occurring, such as the availability of "personal" watermelons in the produce aisle.
But singles still have challenges and feel misunderstood, and it's felt in the Dayton area, where 72.5 percent of households are unmarried.
Coleman, who is single, begs the question: "Given that we're a majority now, should marital status even be a consideration?"
The changing face of being single
SINGLE (mother — by choice): Denice Moberg, Oakwood
Moberg is a Single Mom by Choice, or SMC, a woman who chooses to become a mother outside of marriage. Moberg chose to have children through donor insemination.
"I got married when I was very young, 19, and divorced at 25. Afterward, I decided to be single and established a solid single life.
Then I wanted to have a child, and my choices were to go to a sperm bank, or sleep around and get pregnant.
I had a hard time finding a doctor who works with single women."
Moberg gave birth to Hallie and Mirandy, who are now 17.
"I feel no stigma about being single. It was definitely the right choice for me. Single mothers are not the common stereotype, that a woman with children got 'into trouble' or her partner left her. I've felt another stereotype, that single-parent households lack structure. This is a stable environment. I own my own home. We're a very normal family with the same kinds of goals and aspirations and dreams as traditional families."
When her twins were born, "a lot of people thought I was doing the wrong thing. When I was married, I was totally dependent on my husband — but now I'm in control and have the luxury of putting my girls ahead of everything."
Moberg's biggest challenges come when filling out government paperwork. While getting passports for Hallie and Mirandy, Moberg was required to have documentation from the nonpresent parent (both are supposed to be present).
"I had a hard time explaining to them that it didn't apply to me. They just wouldn't get it that there was no father, so there was no record of their father. And here we go again, now that they're applying for colleges; on the financial-aid forms I have the option under the parent category of choosing "married, divorced or widowed," but not "single." Yes, I was divorced, but divorced does not apply to me as a parent.
"By the time I get through explaining 'I went to a sperm bank' to agencies, they finally understand, and we work it out — but I shouldn't have to go through all that. They really need to get with the times."
SINGLE (but co-habitating): Bill 'Teddy' Tredick and Ken McLaughlin, Kettering
In Ohio, where they file taxes and get Social Security benefits and military pensions, they're single. In Massachusetts, where they married in Provincetown last year, they can legally go by their married name, McLaughlin-Tredick.
Tredick and McLaughlin have been together 27 years and have co-habitated since 1983. They stopped identifying with being single when Tredick moved in.
"We've done as much legally as we can in this state," McLaughlin said. They have pieced together living wills, powers of attorney and beneficiaries to resemble a marriage. They are dependent on each other and intertwined financially like opposite-sex, legal marriages. They celebrate an anniversary. Socially, they're a unit.
But the government (Census Bureau and IRS) considers them, and counts them, as single.
No forms ask if they're a partnership.
"We're interested in equal rights, not special rights. We want the same rights as married couples. We would like to be able to file our federal income taxes together," McLaughlin said.
"If we were in a legal marriage, Ken would be eligible for my military health benefits," Tredick said.
But because they're recognized as singles, McLaughlin must pay for health insurance out of his pocket.
Just like other singles, the word single does not apply to them.
"As a society, we try to put things in neat little boxes and put a title on it," McLaughlin said, "but we just can't do that. Life is not that way."