 |
|
Excluding the United States, the study found between 15 percent and 30 percent of couples in the countries surveyed indicated they were living together. That figure was about 10 percent in the United States.
“We’re still the most marrying of all these countries, but the data are clearly headed in the one common direction. It’s headed in the direction of cohabitation as an alternative,” says David Popenoe, chief author and co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
The analysis found the marriage rate is down in all countries except Norway and Sweden, which traditionally have had low marriage rates. In the United States, the marriage rate fell nearly 20 percent from 1995 to 2005.
Another religious “rule” falling by the wayside.
This is all good news as far as I’m concerned. Even if I were ever to fall in love, I wouldn’t want to go through the trouble of getting married. Besides, if you ever fall out of love, it would take a year of your life to get divorced.
I take a different view than #1, Noel. I’ve been married for a good 15 years now and while it’s been mostly good (95+% of the time) there have been a couple of occasions where it’s been “difficult”.
I’m glad we both were married and made that commitment to each other. It’s not just a piece of paper, but a promise we both live by and take very seriously.
As Lee Marvin proved, just because you live with someone doesn’t mean you can break it off any cleaner than if you were married.
Nor does cohabitation increase the chances of a successful relationship. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite.
This first link is a very good interview on just this topic.
http://tinyurl.com/5j4rnz
http://tinyurl.com/6admt4
So, I don’t see any real advantage to cohabitation.
I’m sure we’ll all be better off when all children are passed around between temporary cohabitative relationships like used furniture, instead of families based on the too-inconvenient obligations of marriage, the barbaric religious institution.
Lets do a mind experiment and pick a measurement of which arrangement is better:
1. For the two individuals involved.
2. For the offspring of the two individuals.
3. For society in general.
I’ll wait for the considered responses==I have none of my own to offer.
#2–Ah Yea–nice links but who is to say those that are more likely to get divorced are also more likely to shack up? Therefore, shacking up actually makes the married divorce rate look higher than it would be without shacking up.
This is one of those (many) issues with so many undefined variables it is impossible to discuss.
It would be “nice” if people could just be honest about what they want and everybody would be able to make choices thereafter? Then what happens when you grow apart or even more simply change your mind?
Different strokes for different folks.
Those studies cited in the links by #2 are total BS. Mainly because they are counting people who moved in together but didn’t get married as part of the failure rate. The one major reason people move in together before getting married is simple: what if they really shouldn’t get married. They are trying to find out if they will live well together. So, they move in together. Then, they find out they shouldn’t be together.
Excuse, but that is success here. It proves the system works. They didn’t get married, paying for an expensive wedding, and then pay later for the expensive divorce.
Really, totally, 100% BS studies that made up their conclusions before they did their studies and then declare failures from the successes. Idiotic!
#5–Dude==the first link confirms what every study I have ever seen shows==couples that live together first, and then get married, have a divorce rate 50% higher than those who did not live together.
How is that not a valid measure of failure?
Ooops. Better re-read my own post.
OK–if you live together and then get married your chances of divorce are 50% higher than if you get married first? Lets accept that as true.
So what?
Still can’t establish any causality there or actually any real advice as everything is couple specific?
I think the more probable pattern here is that one or both people “have doubts” about the relationship, so they live together, still have doubts, feel guilty, so they get married, then they divorce.
Should they not have lived together?==what were all the other circumstances??? I think this “indicates/proves” they should not get married unless they are both committed and they already showed they were not. So–I don’t think its the living together that is relevant, its WHY they chose to live together.
As to kids==sure, I think a couple should be married, and stay married whether they like it or not “for the kiddies.” Course lots of people doing just that shouldn’t have kiddies in any state of relations.
Cohabitation should be free==having kiddies should be license.
Cohabitation before marriage seems to me the only sensible approach. I am still happily married after 33 years to the fourth girl I lived with. It was clear that the relationships with each of previous three would never have worked.
I feel sorry for those people who save themselves for marriage only to find that are unable to live with each other.
Yes..what bobbo said. A large number of those living together first are getting married because of pressure from families because they are “living in sin”..so actually may be more likely to get married than couples not living together. They may also think that any pressures they are feeling together are because of these family pressures, and things will be fine once they get them off of their backs. Yes, probably a little lack of honesty there..but you can see where that would be masking other problems.
Once you have kids..you are pretty much stuck, or should be. Even if you are not married, you figure out how to raise the kids together. It’s always possible that one of you will not be able to deal with a relationship based purely upon child rearing..so it won’t always work..but it should be job 1 anyway.
Even the marriage business is in the crapper.
Isn’t marrying one one of the church’s largest source of tax free revenue? Oops, I forgot, ALL church revenue is tax free.
Anyway, this has got to hurt. It takes money for all that dry cleaning and statue dusting.
>>Isn’t marrying one one of the church’s
>>largest source of tax free revenue?
Yeah! Dvorak’s law strikes again! Only 10 posts until the faith-bashing starts!
I doubt that much of church’s revenues come from weddings with the rates they charge.
http://tinyurl.com/6r7cvy
nb the “Discounts” section. I doubt many people pay more than a few bucks for the “church” part of a wedding.
Slowly, the religious kooks lose control. I know plenty who co-habitat. And honestly they have the best relationships I have ever seen. Besides how else can you see if you can actually live together unless you try?
#10 – Not to mention the candles, organs and that big ass plate they pass. They should give like the Jews, throw all the money up in the air and what God can catch is his and what hits the ground they keep for themselves. All they have to buy are those little Yamahas or whatever it is they nail to their head.
(I expect the wrath of Mustard anytime now).
Marriage only makes sense as a religious sacrament or for legal status, which is based on religious sacraments. I’ve been married for 25 years, but the success wasn’t based on a license.
#13 – Señor Ketchup … Have you been to a church wedding? Did they pass a collection plate in church at the wedding? I wonder what denomination THAT was.
>>(I expect the wrath of Mustard anytime now)
Oh, pish tosh. I will never wreak my vengeance upon thee, O Carrier of Salmonella. Even though you’re like the prodigal son, we’re still brothers in the condiment rack.
All good thoughts. 🙂 Perhaps Eideard should check. Marriage is a legal act, not religious.
This is a great deal for guys.
bobbo said: “OK–if you live together and then get married your chances of divorce are 50% higher than if you get married first? Lets accept that as true.”
OK, you lost me here. The US has lower cohabitation rates than other western countries but has the 3rd highest divorce rate in the world (behind the Malidives and Belarus). It doesn’t add up.
Maybe quoting a Christian author from a National Review article is not the best source of data.
http://tinyurl.com/5j6s7j
#18–QB==seems to me the statistics are uncontrolled and disconnected. I don’t see any logical link between low premarital cohabitation and high marriage divorce rates?
What connection do you see that is being violated by such statistics?
Divorce *really* sucks for dads. How many young men grew up without dad around because mommy wouldn’t honor the visitation times?
I suspect that would shape the opinion of these young men. After seeing pop getting shafted, I bet the 20 somethings are doing the math and have concluded marriage is a raw deal.
“Another religious “rule” falling by the wayside.”
The Jerk that came up with that line is an immature man-boy still throwing himself on the floor to have a tantrum over anybody or anything he delusionaly IMAGINES is “controlling” his life. GROW UP!
Cohabitation is all fine and dandy if you can live with the notion that at the very first sign of ANY difficulty or, disagreement, one of the cohabitants can easily & legally bail out and walk away from you…and any resulting kids are disposable trash of un-wed fornication.
Baptists for example. Very low cohabitation rate. Very high divorce rate. Or read the CDC study listed.
All I’m saying is that it is not some clear cut bullet number like (50%) from a study funded by a Christian institution. You’re just not convincing me since I think your evidence is weak. You could be right, I just don’t buy the crappy data.
Cohabitation: A Great Deal…until a Better One Comes Along.
Are these anti religious posts just to get Mister Mustard all rilled up? He must sit on Dvorak.org all day long looking for these posts.
As an agnostic, the headline “Living in Sin” does not apply.
Marriage… a great deal until you get divorced, and have to pay and pay and pay… Not just to the ex-wife, but to the court and the lawyers too. Then you get to let a judge decide whats best for you. Sounds like a wonderful institution.
#24 – Anti-religious? Nah, we’re just raising Mustard’s blood pressure.
I believe: http://tinyurl.com/5sqns6
At our church…
We don’t charge for weddings.
We don’t pass the plate.
We insist of getting pre-marriage counselling.
One question though… why do the atheist/agnostics get married anyway? It makes no sense to me.
Oh, and the divorce rate should include all those who “co-habitate” and then break up.
I think people look at marriage all wrong. It’s supposed to be the thing that holds you together (in the relationship) when it goes south and you don’t want to be there. It’s not about, “Oh we’re so happy! It’s a party everyday!”
If you have the “it’s a party” relationship and can sustain that party until the day you die then you really have no need for marriage. The reality is that you can’t and marriage is supposed to be about the commitment which binds you in the tough times.
So, what’s different now? No-fault divorce and the gender-bias of the courts. “I don’t feel like being married today. Pack your stuff, get out, leave the kids, and send a check.” – That’s what has killed marriage and the willingness of the courts to go along with it.
If you’re lucky they won’t come after you years down the road for even more or, worse, sue your estate after your death 20+ years down the road because they ‘deserve it’ because they were married to you.
Marriage is a great idea. It’s great for the family unit, for the kids, and for society. It’s a legally and financially stupid idea for half of the population.
#28 said – “One question though… why do the atheist/agnostics get married anyway? It makes no sense to me.”
We don’t! Why ruin a perfectly good friendship? She doesn’t tell me me what to do and I don’t tell her what to wear.
http://tinyurl.com/37q4h4