Everybody knows that half of all marriages end in divorce, and couples often cite that statistic as an excuse for not tying the knot.
But it's not true.
"I don't know where the 50-percent myth came from," says Amanda Miller, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Central Oklahoma. "But the divorce rate isn't that high and it never has been."
It peaked around 40 percent in the 1980s and has declined since - meaning that, when couples get married, "the odds are on their side," she says.
... The Pew study has received a lot of national press in recent weeks, with most of the analysis concluding that the institution of marriage is in deep trouble.
Miller, however, takes a more nuanced view.
"Most people still believe in marriage and want to be married," she says. "They want to get it right the first time and avoid divorce, but they aren't sure they can do it."
36 Comments
The "50 percent divorce rate” myth comes from what Dan Hurley of the New York Times refers to as:
“…a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate… But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will.”
“The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.”
"Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think" (2005).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1325173461-9ilMYfeh+sOTYpTGlbPUMA
back home in Italy the divorce rate is 12 to 16. Would help explain why the push for same-sex 'marriages' is not as extreme. In countries with strong moral values including authentic marriages thre is no push for special rights for homosexuals.
So "strong moral values" is described as the guy having as many flings as he wants and the woman sitting home and taking it? Not my idea of an "authentic marriage".
@Jenifer - Anyone with strong moral values would never have a "fling" and betray the trust of his or her spouse. Just because a spouse works out in the world while another stays home does not mean that the working spouse will necessarily cheat on the stay-at-home spouse!
By that logic, no one should be allowed to work in the world, because it increases the likelihood that they will be unfaithful. The likelihood that one will cheat is not a matter of whether one works or stays home; rather, it is a matter of whether one has a strong moral foundation.
In addition, spouses who stay at home have bountiful opportunities to be unfaithful, whether it is with a neighbor, someone met at the store, or (more likely) via an online community. If the traditional "husband works, wife stays home with the children" structure has any flaws, it is not that the husband is more likely to cheat. That is entirely based on their character and upbringing.
If the divorce rate is dropping, doesn't that suggest that allowing SS couples to marry will not harm the institution?
I fully agree with Daniel J. !
Interesting... so the divorce rate is dropping? So how, exactly, has same sex marriage hurt?
Or is the divorce rate dropping because fewer people are getting married - just living together then splitting up when they get tired of one another. There is no need to get a divorce, so there is no statisic to count.
@Scrounger and ananygrl - Are you asserting that the falling divorce rate is causally linked to homosexual "marriage?" First, the number of homosexual marriages is statistically insignificant when factored into the total number of marriages. Second, homosexual "marriage" has only been around for a relatively short time, so I would hope that they could last longer than a few years in their "marriages!"
This article is making the claim that the divorce rate has been misrepresented and that it has been falling since the 1980s, long before homosexual "marriage" was even thought of by the American public.
Finally, these findings almost without question come from an evaluation of traditional marriage (as alluded to in the above paragraph).
Judging from the responses from marriage corruption supporters it is quite obvious that they are only concerned with satisfying their wants.
Daniel J, you guys seem to love Newt Gingrich, who professes loudly his strong morality. Yet he screwed around on his first wife, filed for divorce first, lied that she wanted the divorce, didn't pay his support to the point that she and his two daughters were almost living in a home without any utilities or food, got that divorce, got remarried within 6 months, divorced her and finally married his current wife. Think he's such a moral person now or that he believes in the sanctity of marriage?
"If the divorce rate is dropping, doesn't that suggest that allowing SS couples to marry will not harm the institution?"
The divorce rate is dropping in spite of the government enforced redefinition of marriage. The fact that SS"M" has never won a referendum reflects the American people's improving moral values regarding the family.
Scrounger->"If the divorce rate is dropping, doesn't that suggest that allowing SS couples to marry will not harm the institution?"
----
If a fence has hole, that is not a reason to make the hole bigger. It a reason to repair the fence.
Scrounger,
redefining marriage to include SS couples catastrophically damages the insitution by removing its essential nature,that of uniting males to females.
Teri Newt has been reborn he has found Catholicism.
About adultery: Our species has a powerful instinct of reproduction, or sexual release. You find radicals rebel against almost anything, but not their sexual instinct. Marriage (spiritual or civil) is only one way to control the eros. We humans, and actually all mammals, at least, can do things to stimulate or abate the eros. In packs, there's always a sexual order, and there's always one in the pack who rebels against that order, suffering possible consequences. It's the bread-and-butter of 'soap' operas. We are all 'interested'. Whether we excite it or downplay it is part of our civilized manners. Social inner circles are formed to associate only with certain people who have 'manners', specially sexual manners. These manners can be excessive, or can be well-controlled. We pick who we want to associate with. Cinema and theater poke at the limits of social custom and propriety - that's how they send out 'attention grabbers' which is their business' bread-and-butter. Attention grabbers is the fundamental tool of sales. It's all around us. Our instincts are seen as what can be manipulated if only marketing can get our attention. A woman announces her sexuality and her time in her period by the way she dresses to go out. Being able to control one's sexual energy is fundamental to get other things done. Sexual control was instituted in the USA in particular following a Calvinistic ideal that the human energy is to be put to work industrially, and not wasted with exaggerated sexual stimulation. Our sensitivity also decreases with ongoing stimulation, such that we need more stimulation to get the same excited state. It's non-linear mathematics, not easily understood by the uninitiated.
What we watch, what we are willing to hear, who we hang out with and where - all this has to do with the stimulation we allow to approach us as instinctive, pack driven (tribal?) mammals. Our biology pulls us in certain directions (opportunity), and our brain warns us of potential consequences. These two pulls are constantly in balance, or out of balance. If we let our sexual energy skyrocket, humans around us (and even over Internet) will sense that energy and copy it. Nature makes almost sure reproduction happens, whether in a controlled manner, or in an out of control manner, or at least as a sport for someone's gain. It is only when you reach the 4th age that those instincts begin to disappear. Then you look back and say: why did i do that? (the answer is that you stimulated yourself into a high sexual energy state, or allowed someone in that state to get to you.) Like all vices, our instincts can be manipulated to drive us, as members of a pack, if we allow it. Humans have free will. Each can decide to be independent or join another pack, because our brain can override instinct, and that's the foundation of civilization.
But, if one is ugly, stinky, poor, OR idiotic the temptation is several orders of magnitude lower in strength (if it could be measured). Then, you look like a saint, or might decide a monastery was designed just for you. Gingrich doesn't pretend to be a saint. But he is balanced now, and can beat NObama. Promote a saint, and he'll be learning on the go, like NObama did. Don't promote Gingrich, and you'll have NObama for another term. Which political pack will you run with?
Any evidence that this is true in Italy?
Italy is as strongly Catholic as Syria is strongly Muslim.
Right, but SSM isn't the whole in the fence. The article went on to mention that delayed marriage was the biggest factor in the decline of marriage rates. The article also stated that people who have a college degree and a steady job are much less likely to divorce. It sounds like economic factors are what really drives marriage trends. Yes, marriage does seem to be in some kind of a crisis, but banning SSM does nothing to help.
Although this has nothing to do with marriage equality, it's no surprise that the anti-gay crowd here is trying to connect the dots anyway. But am I the only one who finds a bit odd that a group that describes itself as pro-marriage would actually try to downplay the biggest threat to marriage: divorce?
Bobby,divorce weeds out failed marriages.It can strengthen marriage as an institution by leaving only good ones.SSM on the other hand destroys marriage by lowering it to the level of relationships that shouldn't even exist in the first place.
Bobby, explain what gay politics has to do with sex-segregation in marriage eligibility.
Poor Davide, thinking that Catholics somehow never get divorced just because of that magic religion. Go read up on catholic divorce statistics and then come back and talk about how great being a catholic makes you.
Formal sociological studies cannot be interpreted by people without a good mathematical, specially Statistical, background. They are free to express their opinion, but it really doesn't matter since they cannot understand how statistical sociological studies are formally done. The article speaks for itself. "Divorce" is a formal term based on statistics of divorce decrees; but a certain kind of unofficial 'divorce' also happens to co-inhabiting couples, and they expect it (which is why the don't go into civil marriage). "Divorce" is not something that happens only in opposite-sex relationships, but it is something easily 'measured' since it is written down and publicly available. Lots of people like to speculate or extrapolate from the data. Formal sociology does not. The data speaks for itself, to the extend it applies, statistically, and no more. Get real.
That actually agrees with the fence analogy.
The hole in the fence represents the existing problems marriage faces, while making the hole bigger represents adding SSM to the list of existing problems.
The correct approach is to repair the existing problems. Adding SSM, however, could damage the fence beyond repair.
Whatever may be said about the economy, things like no fault divorce, teen pregnancies, unwed childbirths, single parent homes, increasing welfare roles, abortion on demand, high co-habitation rates, can all be traced to a morality problem.
SSM is clearly not a solution to the morality problem. Rather, its the next stage in the evolution of moral decline!
SSM would also fortify the moral decline that feeds these other problems, thereby making the hole bigger and much more difficult, if not impossible, to repair.
Theresa: Davide knows about Italy, and he knows a lot about R. Catholics. He was raised in that kind of family. I wouldn't be so naive as to try to educate him about Italians or R. Catholics.
DOE: The convuluted wording of your question reveals your desperation. Gay politics focuses primarily on achieving full equality in terms of the civil rights of gay people. Where gay couples are denied marriage licenses, that goal has not yet been achieved. It's pretty straight forward, not sure why it needs to be explained to you again.
Also, DOE: I know you think you're being clever by trying to characterize same-sex marriage as gender segregation but you seem oblivious to the major flaw in your argument. If you honestly believe that marriage between two people of the same gender should be outlawed because it equates to gender segregation, then you MUST believe that marriage between two people of the same race (the majority of marriages) must be outlawed because it equates to racial segregation. If not, please try to justify the inconsistency.
L - Straight divorce strengthens the institution of marriage but gay marriage weakens it? Now I've heard everything. That level of desperation is a sure sign that the anti-gay lobby is about to wave the white flag.
Bobby,getting away with having a same-sex sexual relationship to the point of having it treated as if no worse than an opposite-sex one is nobody's "civil right".Marriage is a means of furthering the public interest in there being opposite-sex relationships,there IS NO public interest in there being ANY same-sex sexual relationships.
And since its opposite-sex nature is the purpose of marriage,it's an obvious fact,not a sign of desperation,that allowing same-sex relationships to qualify damages marriage catastrophically (it certainly means I won't bother doing it in my home state as long as SSM is legal here),while making unhealthy marriages endable helps make the average marriage a healthier one.
"marriage between two people of the same gender should be outlawed"
Not outlawed. They just do not qualify for a marriage license. Same as some blood-related couples. Civil marriages are friendships. But not all friendships qualify as civil marriages.
Two people of the same gender can get married by a church, without a civil marriage license. Therefore, it is not 'outlawed'.
Give me a break Little Man. If the law prohibits two people of the same-sex from entering into a civil marriage, then same-sex marriage is outlawed. It's truly amazing (and quite telling) how much energy the anti-equality crowd puts into coming up with convoluted wording and avoiding straightforward, honest language.
Boobby: And how much energy do you put into your comments, here? You can't even recognize 'straightforward, honest language'. The law does not prohibit marriage, only CIVIL marriage for some kinds of partnerships (like blood-related), in some States. In some States same-sex civil marriage is licensed. You brought it up using vague language. We are not desperate (you are). 31 States have legislated Constitutional Amendments, and growing. And it is a central issue that will help get NObama out of the White House. I mean, 'prohibit' Obama from serving another term.
Bobby,the crowd who try and paint necessary preference for right over wrong behavior as a matter of the "equality" of those who wish to do each are not ones to talk about "straightforward,honest language".
OK, Bobby, you ask for it, straight talk, if the almighty wanted same sex partners to create a society he would have, BUT HE DID'T... SSMs will not engender the next generation, but serves to degender. THIS is WHY SSM is a BAD IDEA, so there must be laws to eliminate or to protect from affecting society at large. Supporting opposite sex marriages is a step in the right direction to reaching this goal...
Leo: You couldn't make it through your supposed "straight talk" comment without another twisted piece of illogical nonsense. Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not further the goal of supporting opposite sex marriage. Nobody is advocating for outlawing man-woman marriage. Stop talking as if they are.
Marriages between partners of the same race probably has a racial segregation effect on society , while mixed race marriages probably have a racial integration effect on society.