Marriage Myths

[Aloysius]

it sounded like he inserted a caveat in there in his statement, he said something along the lines of "if you take away the stats from second marriage/third marriage divorces, the divorce rate is low"... basically that a large majority of first marriages last.

I could believe that (but you're right, there needs to be better source data)... basically you have a high number of divorces because the people who get divorced do so more than once. I would like to see a statistic based upon how often first-time married people get divorced. because really, it doesn't count when someone who's been married and divorced 2 or 3 times gets divorced again, that's not a divorce that's a breakup of an adulterous affair against your first spouse (from a Catholic POV, at least) but you'd have those people inflating the number of divorces.

anyway, it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to analyze some statistics on this kind of stuff... but alas, I wouldn't know where to find it

[sixpence]

hahaha... silly people... trying to make your own conclusions based on the actual data....its too much work... just sit back and let others draw conclusions for you.. it will make your life much simpler...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315666619' post='2302911']
Forgot to mention that the above data can't be used to determine what percent of marriages end in divorce. It only gives # of new marriages & # of divorces in a year. It does not include # of marriages that were already in existence. The marriage rate was twice the divorce rate in that snapshot; over time, the number of established marriages would eclipse the number of new divorces.
[/quote]
That's right. I'm not asserting anything specific nor am I trying to debate a specific point of view regarding divorce demography. As I've said, I'm not putting forth a view on that question, or the various other unsubstantiated claims made in the Fox article and the random web page you provided. My gripe is with journalists and others who presume to pontificate about various things without any consideration for the audience. It's a huge pet peeve of mine. In my experience the popular press tends to exclude or obscure sources even when reporting specific scientific research. It's maddening.
Anyway, I posted those two sources mainly to show that five seconds of Google-Fu can turn up real data on such questions. I certainly do not claim to have addressed the divorce to marriage ratio question. So it is perfectly clear, I'm not even interested in that topic. I suppose I'm just complaining about our culture and the fact that journalistic standards are so low. Seriously, read that Fox article from a logical point of view; it's insulting.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315668770' post='2302919']
it sounded like he inserted a caveat in there in his statement, he said something along the lines of "if you take away the stats from second marriage/third marriage divorces, the divorce rate is low"... basically that a large majority of first marriages last.[/quote]
If the video version were backed by a print version with references I doubt I'd have posted here at all. "If you take away the stats..." That's nice, but I really can't take his word for it. No offense to him. None of the claims in that article are worthy of assent. Sure, some sound plausible, and for all I know they're all correct, but on their own the article and video are worthless. This is how the majority of journalism strikes me these days. A college freshman is held to higher standards. Is it really that hard to source claims? Why isn't this demanded? Journalism that make factual claims about reality ought to be accountable and it is bad form to put readers in the position of accepting the veracity of such claims simply on the authority of the rando author or the brand. I speculate that raising this bar would be a very good thing for society; especially a society so based on information and public opinion.

[Laudate_Dominum]

P.S. Sorry for mucking up this thread. Maybe I should just create a LiveJournal and go whine there.

[Aloysius]

lol. you are very right. I would actually be interested in the actual data, though, cause it'd be interesting to see what the state of marriage actually is. and the guy on fox news has suggested that "all studies" show that married people have better sex. come on, that's obviously an absolutely true statistical observation, right?

\\// live long and prosper

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315671141' post='2302939']
lol. you are very right. I would actually be interested in the actual data, though, cause it'd be interesting to see what the state of marriage actually is. and the guy on fox news has suggested that "all studies" show that married people have better sex. come on, that's obviously an absolutely true statistical observation, right?

\\// live long and prosper
[/quote]
Agreed. Peace and long life. \\//,

[add]

[size=4]Holy Matrimony can be an earthly beatitude, for those who dare to believe, in the Trinity.[/size]

[Ice_nine]

it said he was a comedian so for me that meant "take this with an extra grain of salt along with the bucket of salt you use when you normally watch the news."

Are there people really out there who would buy that snippet hook, line, and sinker? Maybe, but I don't know any of them and it's not like I'm surrounded by a bunch of jeenyuses. From my observation, people tend to trust their observations more than Fox News

The statistics are inconsequential imo. Society is confused about what marriage is. That seems obvious.How it is portrayed in popular culture must inform us, at least a little bit, about how marriage is actually perceived by people. In some ways it shaped out perception as well.

The vid was entertaining tho. Was the guy in the beginning calling the woman out for having multiple marriages? Cause that was kind of funny/sad/ironic unless I misenterpreted that..

late

[Maggyie]

The group with the lowest divorce rate? Self-described Atheists.

The group with the highest divorce rate? Self-described born-again Christians (note mostly Protestant). Many divorces occurring AFTER the conversion experience.

Given what Jesus explicitly says about divorce in the Bible, what do the above two facts say about the state of Christianity in the United States.

ETA: Obviously, I think the reason atheist marriages tend to last longer is that as a group, atheists tend to be wealthier, older when they marry, and college-educated. Born-again Christians are concentrated in areas of the country where the average age at marriage is too low and there is less access to educational opportunity. The difference in the two groups' divorce rate is a good demonstration of the consequences of economic inequity. It's just ironic that the Christians have challenges in this area, but not surprising given the obstacles to success.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Maggie

[Aloysius]

I would be interested in the source of your statistics... I hear contradictory statistics flung around on this topic all the time. many people say that the lowest divorce rate is found among couples who share the same religion, I suppose this doesn't necessarily contradict your statistic as it sounds from your suggestion that one of the members of the couple converts to Christianity so that would tend to cause conflict.

an issue to consider with your statistic is that the scenario you describe may, in many of the cases, be covered by the Pauline privilege. if both parties were unbaptized at the time of the marriage and one of them converts to Christianity then the marriage can be dissolved in favor of the faith of the Christian spouse.

[4588686]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1315599803' post='2302655']

I really wish journalists would take the time to provide legitimate references when spouting off like this. I have no reason to believe any of it and personally found some of it to be quite eyebrow raising.
[/quote]

He's not a journalist. He's a pretend comedian and a hack.

[MithLuin]

For anyone who is interested in this topic, there is readable and reliable research available. From the CDC (2002):

"[size="2"]Data ... show that approximately two-thirds of first marriages lasted 10 years or more, whereas the remaining one-third ended in divorce or separation before reaching the 10th anniversary."[/size]

[size="2"][size="1"]Over 40% of men and women aged 15–44 were currently married at the date of interview, compared with about 9% who were currently cohabiting. Men and women were, however, likely to cohabit prior to becoming married. Marriages were longer lasting than cohabiting unions; about 78% of marriages lasted 5 years or more, compared with less than 30% of cohabitations. Cohabitations were shorter-lived than marriages in part because about half of cohabitations transitioned to marriage within 3 years. [/size][/size]
[size="2"][url=[size="2"]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf[/size]](source)[/url][/size]

[size="2"]The study in question focused on Americans between the ages of 15-44, and was careful to report the data by race (black, white, Hispanic) and education level (didn't finish hs, finished hs, some college, bachelors+), and the marital status of parents, so that demographic differences could be observed. [/size]

[size="2"]For instance, a white couple that cohabits for the first time is more likely to marry within three years than a black couple that cohabits. [/size] 63% of white women in this age bracket (15-44) had ever married, while only 39% of black women had. Only 44% of those white women were married at the time of the interview, while 32% of black women were, suggesting that while cohabitation might be more prevalent in the black community, divorce seems to be more prevalent in the white community. [This comment of mine does not take into account serial marriages, of course.]
So, what are the factors that allow you to beat these odds (demographically speaking, I mean)? Well, your marriage has a better shot of making it to the 10 year anniversary if:

you are white,
you were 20+ when you married (even better if you were 26+),
you had your first kid while married (childless couples have lower odds than those who had kids prior to the marriage),
did not cohabit (more significant for men, and effect mitigated if engaged at time of cohabiting)

[MithLuin]

Dunno why the link to the source broke in that post...sorry. Here it is:

[url="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf"]CDC report on Marriage and CoHabitation[/url]

[MithLuin]

This not-being-able-to-edit-posts-thing is very annoying!

One source of the Divorce Statistics based on religious beliefs is the 2008 Barna study:

[url="http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released"]link here[/url]

As a note, the data does [i]not[/i] suggest that Atheists have a lower divorce rate than Catholics. It suggests they have a similar divorce rate (perhaps), but that Catholics have a much higher marriage rate in the first place. So comparisons are likely unhelpful.

Also...it would be extremely foolish not to consider financial/educational factors, and this report has often been cited by people who ignored that part. [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm"]example[/url] The reality is, the poorer/less educated/younger you are, the more difficult it is to make the marriage last (as the Barna study points out). Comparing different religious groups while ignoring their other demographic factors is practically dishonest.

And interfaith marriages have the following nuances. [Note: I don't know how many years the marriage had to last to count here, so comparing to national 10-year % is not possible.]

" A Creighton University study found that married
couples from different Christian denominations divorce at a higher rate
and are more likely to drift away from the church than those who wed
within denominations.

However, the survey also indicated that shared religious activities are
more important to the success of marriages than shared beliefs. And the
divorce rate for the "inter-church" couples was only half that of the
U.S. population at large.

"Denominational differences don't cause breakups," said Michael Lawlor of
Creighton's Center for Marriage and Family. "It depends on what the
couple does together religiously and how they deal with differences. If
they can fashion a shared religious life, their marriages will be as
stable as any same-church marriage."

[b]Couples who were members of different denominations when engaged but
later affiliated with the same church had a divorce rate of only 6
percent, compared with 14 percent for couples of the same denomination
and 20 percent for those who maintained membership in different
denominations.[/b]

The research was presented by Barbara Markey, PhD, at the Smart Marriages
conference in Washington, DC July 1-4, 2006. Tape #509 "Dealing With Risk"