Clarification on my beliefs.
28 Aug 2010, 10:22 pm
HopeGrows wrote:
People who are insincere about their vows are the ones who cheat, abuse, lie, etc. (and no, I don't think anyone is obligated to remain in a marriage with abusers, cheaters, alcoholics, etc.). But that's why a committed marriage requires two people who are sincere about their vows....if both people are willing to put the needs of the marriage ahead of their own, abuse and cheating don't occur.
So I don't believe - at all - that a ceremony will change a person's character. Instead, I'm suggesting that you have to consider a person's character and willingness to make a commitment long before you decide to marry. In short, pick a better partner.
So I don't believe - at all - that a ceremony will change a person's character. Instead, I'm suggesting that you have to consider a person's character and willingness to make a commitment long before you decide to marry. In short, pick a better partner.
the bolding was mine, but thats because that statement really smacks of blaming the spouse who was cheated etc on for the cheating behavior due to poor partner choice. a spouses failures are not the others fault or responsibility, regardless of whether its a marriage or cohabitation.
people change. life happens. sometimes people let us down. i doubt many people went into marriage with the idea they were going to cheat, and i doubt many of those cheated on thought their spouse was going to cheat when they married. now im not defending cheating or abuse or what have you, but its unrealistic to think that the person we know before marriage is going to be the exact same 5, 10, 20 years down the road. i can pretty much guarantee you that they wont be the same, but the hope is that they grow into a better person, not worse.
relationships are risk, whether you live together or marry. neither situation automatically gives you any greater degree of commitment, thats up to the people involved. as you put it, pick a better partner. it is the partner that determines the level of commitment you are going to get, not marriage.
in a twist to my own tale, my ex husband met a nice catholic girl, they dated a few years, married, and had two kids. he has similar views about marriage, we've talked about my own living together situation. he called me late last year to let me know (before our son found out) that they were separating because she had been cheating on him for years. while it makes me sad for the disruption in my sons life, thats karma.
at least my son has one example in his life of a long lasting relationship.
_________________
Neurotypically confused.
partner to: D - 40 yrs med dx classic autism
mother to 3 sons:
K - 6 yrs med/school dx classic autism
C - 8 yrs NT
N - 15 yrs school dx AS
HopeGrows
Veteran
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,565
Location: In exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
28 Aug 2010, 10:41 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
there is some good data here, but the link between marriage and health and psychological benefits is a correlation, not a cause and effect. notably, some researchers in that second article also state that the positive effects seen in married couples are declining over time.
we don't know whther one leads to the other (healthy well-balanced individuals may be more likely to marry, for instance), or whther they are both caused by a third factor such as higher socioeconomic status. that article notes the problems of sorting that out.
we don't know whther one leads to the other (healthy well-balanced individuals may be more likely to marry, for instance), or whther they are both caused by a third factor such as higher socioeconomic status. that article notes the problems of sorting that out.
The study you're referring to definitely is correlational, but either way it's measured, the studies link marriage to positive physical and psychological changes.
hyperlexian wrote:
funny note from that article:
[quote=]What people think of marriage also turns out to matter. Simon and Marcussen (1999) add to the literature by showing that beliefs about marriage are correlated with the mental-wellbeing benefits gained from being married. The authors demonstrate that individuals who value the permanence and importance of marriage have a larger reduction in depression, and suffer more from marriage dissolution.
[quote=]What people think of marriage also turns out to matter. Simon and Marcussen (1999) add to the literature by showing that beliefs about marriage are correlated with the mental-wellbeing benefits gained from being married. The authors demonstrate that individuals who value the permanence and importance of marriage have a larger reduction in depression, and suffer more from marriage dissolution.
This proves my point. When individuals who regard marriage as a permanent, lifelong commitment get married, they get more benefits from the marriage. I think it follows that losing something in which you were completely invested will cause a greater sense of loss.
hyperlexian wrote:
child poverty can definitely be reduced by marriage, absolutely. two households are moer expensive to maintain than one. but that is not a reason to get married or to stay married - sometimes the welfare of the parents and children are more important than the money. do you know what else would reduce child poverty? a system that would properly support families in poverty, or a system that eliminates 'deadbeat parents', or a system where the female single parent earns a fair salary instead of 75% of a male in the same field.
i don't see any reason from these papers that cohabitation is bad, in and of itself, or that marriage should be a goal for all couples. not everybody wants to be married, or see the point, and there is room for all the beliefs in our current systems.
i don't see any reason from these papers that cohabitation is bad, in and of itself, or that marriage should be a goal for all couples. not everybody wants to be married, or see the point, and there is room for all the beliefs in our current systems.
I seem to just be miscommunicating here. I never said that marriage should be a goal for all couples - just the opposite. Based on the current divorce rate, it seems like half the couples that enter into marriage currently probably shouldn't. If you or your partner don't buy into the concept of marriage as a permanent, lifelong commitment, why get married? If we actually wound up having half the marriages we do right now, but the vast majority of them lasted, I think everybody's life would be improved. Marriage would be viewed as what the vows state it is, and not a reason for a party, an action to appease a parent, or an empty goal to be achieved.
My primary reason for expressing this belief is not to say that all or even more couples should get married. Instead, my point is that marriage is a different arrangement than cohabitation, and couples should be mindful of that difference. Very often women find themselves living with a man, and behaving as though the arrangement is a marriage. They support their partner financially, emotionally, raise their children, sacrifice - they put as much effort into the relationship as they would a marriage. Unfortunately, too often these women learn the hard lesson that their partner simply doesn't share their level of commitment. Or they're with a guy who doesn't want to get married "yet" or "this year" or until their mom dies or whatever - and yet they're giving this partner everything they have, and expecting that eventually the guy will be persuaded or feel ready to marry. That's a huge gamble. Maybe that type of gamble will turn out to have been worth the risk - but each partner should be prepared (as in have a contingency plan, keep assets separate, acknowledge the arrangement isn't permanent, etc.) if it doesn't work out.
_________________
What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful...
28 Aug 2010, 10:56 pm
HopeGrows wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
there is some good data here, but the link between marriage and health and psychological benefits is a correlation, not a cause and effect. notably, some researchers in that second article also state that the positive effects seen in married couples are declining over time.
we don't know whther one leads to the other (healthy well-balanced individuals may be more likely to marry, for instance), or whther they are both caused by a third factor such as higher socioeconomic status. that article notes the problems of sorting that out.
we don't know whther one leads to the other (healthy well-balanced individuals may be more likely to marry, for instance), or whther they are both caused by a third factor such as higher socioeconomic status. that article notes the problems of sorting that out.
The study you're referring to definitely is correlational, but either way it's measured, the studies link marriage to positive physical and psychological changes.
hyperlexian wrote:
funny note from that article:
[quote=]What people think of marriage also turns out to matter. Simon and Marcussen (1999) add to the literature by showing that beliefs about marriage are correlated with the mental-wellbeing benefits gained from being married. The authors demonstrate that individuals who value the permanence and importance of marriage have a larger reduction in depression, and suffer more from marriage dissolution.
[quote=]What people think of marriage also turns out to matter. Simon and Marcussen (1999) add to the literature by showing that beliefs about marriage are correlated with the mental-wellbeing benefits gained from being married. The authors demonstrate that individuals who value the permanence and importance of marriage have a larger reduction in depression, and suffer more from marriage dissolution.
This proves my point. When individuals who regard marriage as a permanent, lifelong commitment get married, they get more benefits from the marriage. I think it follows that losing something in which you were completely invested will cause a greater sense of loss.
hyperlexian wrote:
child poverty can definitely be reduced by marriage, absolutely. two households are moer expensive to maintain than one. but that is not a reason to get married or to stay married - sometimes the welfare of the parents and children are more important than the money. do you know what else would reduce child poverty? a system that would properly support families in poverty, or a system that eliminates 'deadbeat parents', or a system where the female single parent earns a fair salary instead of 75% of a male in the same field.
i don't see any reason from these papers that cohabitation is bad, in and of itself, or that marriage should be a goal for all couples. not everybody wants to be married, or see the point, and there is room for all the beliefs in our current systems.
i don't see any reason from these papers that cohabitation is bad, in and of itself, or that marriage should be a goal for all couples. not everybody wants to be married, or see the point, and there is room for all the beliefs in our current systems.
I seem to just be miscommunicating here. I never said that marriage should be a goal for all couples - just the opposite. Based on the current divorce rate, it seems like half the couples that enter into marriage currently probably shouldn't. If you or your partner don't buy into the concept of marriage as a permanent, lifelong commitment, why get married? If we actually wound up having half the marriages we do right now, but the vast majority of them lasted, I think everybody's life would be improved. Marriage would be viewed as what the vows state it is, and not a reason for a party, an action to appease a parent, or an empty goal to be achieved.
My primary reason for expressing this belief is not to say that all or even more couples should get married. Instead, my point is that marriage is a different arrangement than cohabitation, and couples should be mindful of that difference. Very often women find themselves living with a man, and behaving as though the arrangement is a marriage. They support their partner financially, emotionally, raise their children, sacrifice - they put as much effort into the relationship as they would a marriage. Unfortunately, too often these women learn the hard lesson that their partner simply doesn't share their level of commitment. Or they're with a guy who doesn't want to get married "yet" or "this year" or until their mom dies or whatever - and yet they're giving this partner everything they have, and expecting that eventually the guy will be persuaded or feel ready to marry. That's a huge gamble. Maybe that type of gamble will turn out to have been worth the risk - but each partner should be prepared (as in have a contingency plan, keep assets separate, acknowledge the arrangement isn't permanent, etc.) if it doesn't work out.
i am probably not understanding. so are you saying that they are different choices (marriage vs. cohabitation), or that one is a better choice? i see them as sometimes distinct and sometimes the same, depending on the couple's own dynamics. i think a person can fully commit in a cohabitational relationship (or can have little commitment in a marriage). but i don't see either one as better for the couples themselves - they'd need to pick for themselves what will work in their own relationship.
interestingly, in canada living common law is a risk factor for later divorce. couples are less successful if they get married than if they just stick to cohabitation.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
HopeGrows
Veteran
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,565
Location: In exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
28 Aug 2010, 11:30 pm
HopeGrows wrote:
People who are insincere about their vows are the ones who cheat, abuse, lie, etc. (and no, I don't think anyone is obligated to remain in a marriage with abusers, cheaters, alcoholics, etc.). But that's why a committed marriage requires two people who are sincere about their vows....if both people are willing to put the needs of the marriage ahead of their own, abuse and cheating don't occur.
So I don't believe - at all - that a ceremony will change a person's character. Instead, I'm suggesting that you have to consider a person's character and willingness to make a commitment long before you decide to marry. In short, pick a better partner.
So I don't believe - at all - that a ceremony will change a person's character. Instead, I'm suggesting that you have to consider a person's character and willingness to make a commitment long before you decide to marry. In short, pick a better partner.
azurecrayon wrote:
the bolding was mine, but thats because that statement really smacks of blaming the spouse who was cheated etc on for the cheating behavior due to poor partner choice. a spouses failures are not the others fault or responsibility, regardless of whether its a marriage or cohabitation.
I'm sorry, I'm kinda confused. The statement above seems to contradict the statement you make later: "it is the partner that determines the level of commitment you are going to get, not marriage." My "pick a better partner" advice is totally intended to convey that same idea: the character of the people involved; the time spent getting to know each other prior to marriage; a realistic assessment of the future spouse's behavior; pre-marital counseling...all those things impact the quality of any person's choice of partner.
There are situations in which a woman marries a man knowing that the man has cheated on former partners. And somehow she expects that he's going to change and be faithful to her. (Alternately, often times when a marriage dissolves and a spouse is blindsided by their partner's behavior, there are plenty of people close to them who aren't even a little bit surprised. Denial is a powerful thing.) On the other hand, there are marriages in which infidelity is an issue, and there were no legitimate indicators of that behavior prior to the marriage, and/or clues to that behavior were deliberately hidden.
I don't believe one partner is (typically) responsible for the other spouse's cheating, or addiction, or abuse. (I mean, suppose a spouse becomes an alcoholic because the other spouse is abusive? There might be some shared responsibility there.) I'm not advocating that divorce shouldn't be an option, precisely because there are situations in which one partner has not honored his/her commitment to the marriage.
azurecrayon wrote:
people change. life happens. sometimes people let us down. i doubt many people went into marriage with the idea they were going to cheat, and i doubt many of those cheated on thought their spouse was going to cheat when they married. now im not defending cheating or abuse or what have you, but its unrealistic to think that the person we know before marriage is going to be the exact same 5, 10, 20 years down the road. i can pretty much guarantee you that they wont be the same, but the hope is that they grow into a better person, not worse.
relationships are risk, whether you live together or marry. neither situation automatically gives you any greater degree of commitment, thats up to the people involved. as you put it, pick a better partner. it is the partner that determines the level of commitment you are going to get, not marriage.
in a twist to my own tale, my ex husband met a nice catholic girl, they dated a few years, married, and had two kids. he has similar views about marriage, we've talked about my own living together situation. he called me late last year to let me know (before our son found out) that they were separating because she had been cheating on him for years. while it makes me sad for the disruption in my sons life, thats karma.
at least my son has one example in his life of a long lasting relationship.
relationships are risk, whether you live together or marry. neither situation automatically gives you any greater degree of commitment, thats up to the people involved. as you put it, pick a better partner. it is the partner that determines the level of commitment you are going to get, not marriage.
in a twist to my own tale, my ex husband met a nice catholic girl, they dated a few years, married, and had two kids. he has similar views about marriage, we've talked about my own living together situation. he called me late last year to let me know (before our son found out) that they were separating because she had been cheating on him for years. while it makes me sad for the disruption in my sons life, thats karma.
at least my son has one example in his life of a long lasting relationship.
"Growing into a better person" is not something that just happens - it requires work, and honesty, and sacrifice and maturity and placing the needs of the partnership ahead of your own at times. I think most importantly, it requires the stated goal that both partners are committed to growing together, because it's just hard work that sometimes is unpleasant and often difficult.
I agree, it is the partner that determines the level of commitment. Marriage exists because it is intended to indicate a permanent, lifelong commitment. However, marriage doesn't offer any kind of magical transformation. If both partners don't share that level of commitment, it's very likely that it won't work, and marriage really shouldn't be an option. Finally, I agree that relationships are inherently risky, whether the couple is married or not. However, there's certainly more risk and/or less protection for both partners and any children in the absence of marriage.
_________________
What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful...
HopeGrows
Veteran
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,565
Location: In exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
28 Aug 2010, 11:44 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
i am probably not understanding. so are you saying that they are different choices (marriage vs. cohabitation), or that one is a better choice? i see them as sometimes distinct and sometimes the same, depending on the couple's own dynamics. i think a person can fully commit in a cohabitational relationship (or can have little commitment in a marriage). but i don't see either one as better for the couples themselves - they'd need to pick for themselves what will work in their own relationship.
interestingly, in canada living common law is a risk factor for later divorce. couples are less successful if they get married than if they just stick to cohabitation.
interestingly, in canada living common law is a risk factor for later divorce. couples are less successful if they get married than if they just stick to cohabitation.
I'm saying there are different choices: marriage and cohabitation are not equal. Again, if a person has "little commitment in a marriage" they clearly shouldn't be married. If a couple is going to be married, they should enter into the vows soberly, solemnly, and seriously.
As for whether marriage is better for the couple than cohabitation, I did provide links to several studies that support the theory that marriage is better for couples, for children and for society. Personally, if both partners are completely committed to each other, marriage makes sense to me because the legal system (here in the States) offers many benefits to married couples and their children, in a very efficient and effective manner. That said, there are other legal means people can pursue to provide very similar protections in the absence of marriage - it's just slower and more costly. But for people who just don't believe in marriage, it's a viable option.
Here in the States, living together prior to marriage also results in higher divorce rates than for those couples who do not live together prior to marriage. It kinda flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that living together actually helps to ensure a successful marriage.
_________________
What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful...
28 Aug 2010, 11:57 pm
HopeGrows wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i am probably not understanding. so are you saying that they are different choices (marriage vs. cohabitation), or that one is a better choice? i see them as sometimes distinct and sometimes the same, depending on the couple's own dynamics. i think a person can fully commit in a cohabitational relationship (or can have little commitment in a marriage). but i don't see either one as better for the couples themselves - they'd need to pick for themselves what will work in their own relationship.
interestingly, in canada living common law is a risk factor for later divorce. couples are less successful if they get married than if they just stick to cohabitation.
interestingly, in canada living common law is a risk factor for later divorce. couples are less successful if they get married than if they just stick to cohabitation.
I'm saying there are different choices: marriage and cohabitation are not equal. Again, if a person has "little commitment in a marriage" they clearly shouldn't be married. If a couple is going to be married, they should enter into the vows soberly, solemnly, and seriously.
As for whether marriage is better for the couple than cohabitation, I did provide links to several studies that support the theory that marriage is better for couples, for children and for society. Personally, if both partners are completely committed to each other, marriage makes sense to me because the legal system (here in the States) offers many benefits to married couples and their children, in a very efficient and effective manner. That said, there are other legal means people can pursue to provide very similar protections in the absence of marriage - it's just slower and more costly. But for people who just don't believe in marriage, it's a viable option.
Here in the States, living together prior to marriage also results in higher divorce rates than for those couples who do not live together prior to marriage. It kinda flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that living together actually helps to ensure a successful marriage.
i see what you are saying. and i see the statistics. but just because an overall trend shows greater happiness, health, money, etc. it does not mean it would always be the best choice for everyone in their relationship. so why hold it up as an ideal that people should strive towards? it simply is not the ideal choice for many people, regardless of the benefits that could happen whilst married.
for the people that want to do the marriage thing and who think it might work - great. for people that don't - great. i don't see how promoting marriage helps anybody, considering the high divorce rates. too many people make the wrong choice for themselves (getting married), when in the end marriage has something like a 50-50 rate of success. why aim for something with such a low chance of success?
i think it's better to support people in their choice regarding marriage vs. cohabitation and to legally recognize their choice as being valid.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
HopeGrows
Veteran
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,565
Location: In exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
29 Aug 2010, 1:05 am
hyperlexian wrote:
i see what you are saying. and i see the statistics. but just because an overall trend shows greater happiness, health, money, etc. it does not mean it would always be the best choice for everyone in their relationship. so why hold it up as an ideal that people should strive towards? it simply is not the ideal choice for many people, regardless of the benefits that could happen whilst married.
for the people that want to do the marriage thing and who think it might work - great. for people that don't - great. i don't see how promoting marriage helps anybody, considering the high divorce rates. too many people make the wrong choice for themselves (getting married), when in the end marriage has something like a 50-50 rate of success. why aim for something with such a low chance of success?
i think it's better to support people in their choice regarding marriage vs. cohabitation and to legally recognize their choice as being valid.
for the people that want to do the marriage thing and who think it might work - great. for people that don't - great. i don't see how promoting marriage helps anybody, considering the high divorce rates. too many people make the wrong choice for themselves (getting married), when in the end marriage has something like a 50-50 rate of success. why aim for something with such a low chance of success?
i think it's better to support people in their choice regarding marriage vs. cohabitation and to legally recognize their choice as being valid.
But I'm not promoting marriage. If anything, I'm "demoting" it: since a solid 50% of marriages fail, I think fewer people should be entering into marriage. I don't think it's the "best choice" for half the people who are choosing to get married these days (cause half of 'em fail).
I don't understand your conclusion that because 50% of marriages fail, people should not be encouraged to consider marriage as a relationship goal. That seems like "all or nothing" thinking that ignores that there is still a significant part of the population that makes marriage work.
I never said a person's choice to cohabitat is invalid - it's just not marriage. To put this discussion in a different context, renting an apartment isn't the same thing as owning a home - although both offer options to obtain a place to live. Economists, financial advisors, retirement planners all say owning a home is a better financial choice, based on the concept of building equity in your investment. However, owning just doesn't make sense for everyone. Some people move around a lot for their careers, some don't have the down payment or credit rating; some people can rent a nicer apartment than any home they could afford, etc. Choosing to rent is a valid option. But renting isn't the same thing as owning. If you think it is, you'll likely end up disappointed.
It's late here so I'm off to dreamland. Hope you have a pleasant night in Canada.
_________________
What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful...
29 Aug 2010, 1:39 am
I would think that marriage, if applied earnestly by both parties involved, can be a great stabilizing factor (on the other hand, it can be very destabilizing if done under the wrong circumstances). Over the past 4 years, I've gone from 6 or so good friends (3 of them being "best" friends) living in the area down to 1, and she's so busy I can't ever spend any time with her. And I didn't have any falling out with any of these friends, either. Their lives just led off in different directions, in both a metaphorical and physical sense, and this sense of loss is just bearing down on me so heavily that I desire a connection that can't be broken by mere drifting, which is why marriage seems so appealing to me. I've heard the whole "you're starting a new life together" speech at several wedding receptions before, and that ability to know that someone will be there for you when you're feeling down is something I desire greatly.
29 Aug 2010, 1:54 am
HopeGrows wrote:
As for whether marriage is better for the couple than cohabitation, I did provide links to several studies that support the theory that marriage is better for couples, for children and for society.
i know a lot of studies show better outcomes for children in marriage, but i think its important to note that its not a clear cut case of, for instance, longer marriage = kids do better in school. there are a lot of notable circumstances that go along with longer lasting marriages, such as higher income level, higher level of education, older age at marriage date. so the children doing better in school could very easily be a function of higher economic status, older parents, or more highly educated parents, or a combination of those factors, not just because the marriage lasted longer.
its interesting that having children results in lower divorce rates, and that includes children born or conceived prior to the marriage. so having a shotgun wedding gives your marriage a better survival rate than if you enter it non-pregnant and remain childless.
race plays a role when it comes to cohabitation vs marriage; the percentage of cohabiting couples who are interracial is significantly higher than those who marry. i think thats a big factor of society being bad for marriage rather than marriage being good for society. race also creates huge disparities in duration of marriage, especially for men. divorce rates for hispanic males is only 25% at 10 years, versus 50% for non-hispanic black males and 36% for non-hispanic white males.
HopeGrows wrote:
Here in the States, living together prior to marriage also results in higher divorce rates than for those couples who do not live together prior to marriage. It kinda flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that living together actually helps to ensure a successful marriage.
the difference is not incredibly huge. for women, 10 yr marriage surival rate is about 61% for those who cohabit and 66% for those who didnt, for men its 63% and 69%. however, i did find where the percentages of cohabitations that turn into marriage is about 50% by 3 years and 65% by 5 years, and surviving cohabits at 5 yrs is 16%, making an approximately 19% separation rate at 5 years for cohabitations. compare that with a 22% separation rate for marriages at 5 years.
so strictly speaking, cohabiting has better survival rates at 5 years than marriage, altho there may be some overlapping depending on length of cohabiting before marriage.
_________________
Neurotypically confused.
partner to: D - 40 yrs med dx classic autism
mother to 3 sons:
K - 6 yrs med/school dx classic autism
C - 8 yrs NT
N - 15 yrs school dx AS
29 Aug 2010, 11:17 am
azurecrayon wrote:
HopeGrows wrote:
Here in the States, living together prior to marriage also results in higher divorce rates than for those couples who do not live together prior to marriage. It kinda flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that living together actually helps to ensure a successful marriage.
the difference is not incredibly huge. for women, 10 yr marriage surival rate is about 61% for those who cohabit and 66% for those who didnt, for men its 63% and 69%. however, i did find where the percentages of cohabitations that turn into marriage is about 50% by 3 years and 65% by 5 years, and surviving cohabits at 5 yrs is 16%, making an approximately 19% separation rate at 5 years for cohabitations. compare that with a 22% separation rate for marriages at 5 years.
so strictly speaking, cohabiting has better survival rates at 5 years than marriage, altho there may be some overlapping depending on length of cohabiting before marriage.
i failed at finding this statistic. i figured something like this would be the case. thank you.
interestingly, the higher divorce rates for couple who cohabitate first are in united states and canada. in scandinavian countries, this is not the case. cohabitation is not seen as a bad option in those countries, and why would it be? in those same countries, both parents are more likely to be involved in their kids' lives regardless of marital status. a quote from the article where i found this information:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm wrote:
Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married, Popenoe says.
The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.
"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," Popenoe says.
The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.
"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," Popenoe says.
in some scandinavian countries cohabitation is seen as a valid option - and the resulting families are just as stable/rich/psychologically well-adjusted. maybe fixing our social problems first will help to establish cohabitation as a more viable and advantageous option in north america.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
HopeGrows
Veteran
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,565
Location: In exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
29 Aug 2010, 2:13 pm
Alright, I think this has got to be my last post on this topic, cause I feel like I'm going in circles.
I was asked to provide some statistical basis for the idea that marriage benefits society, and I did that. These aren't just my opinions or ideas, although those statistics support my opinions and ideas. (The British study is a pretty comprehensive undertaking - I purposely stayed away from studies done by religious organizations, because my beliefs have nothing to do with religion, and I didn't want to bring religion into the discussion.)
I think both @hyperlexian and @azurecrayon (and everyone else) will make the choices that are best for them - and that's just the way it should be. I never suggested that marriage is right for everyone, or should be everyone's goal. However, I really did try to make a the following points throughout this discussion:
Marriage and cohabitation are not equal;
IMO, people should only enter into marriage if they means the vows;
Individuals who behave as though they are married when they're not married may be taking a significant risk for themselves and for their children. Sometimes that risk is purely legal (if one partner dies unexpectedly), but those risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with the use of contracts, living wills, etc. Sometimes the risk is all encompassing: financial, emotional, legal, etc. - particularly if one partner wants to marry and the other partner doesn't. In those situations, the hard truth may be that the resistant partner will never want to marry, because he/she doesn't want a permanent relationship.
_________________
What you feel is what you are and what you are is beautiful...
