Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marriage - Living together first - Divorce rate - Statistics

Comments Filter:
  • makes me want to scream 'correlation is not causality' over and over and over again.

    There are so many factors that this study doesn't adequately address, and it ignores the fact that a divorce may be far healthier than an unstable marriage.

    However, you really don't even need to consider that to gripe about the way it's done. They classify people into black in white categories: have you ever lived with a partner, did you marry, did you separate, did you divorce..etc.

    Nowehere in the study are the questions attacking the root of the problem, like was the move a step in the relationship or a trial run -- and did both partners have the same expectations.

    Furthermore, they use religion as a marriage success story, but again, I think it's misleading. It's like saying 'people who eat breakfast have fewer health risks.' This is a true statement, but it's not true BECAUSE of the breakfast. People who take the time to eat breakfast are more likely to be people who take time to take care of their body, thus fewer health risks. In the same way, people who are religious often have many opportunities to constantly evaluate the status of their family life and how to improve it -- one can do this without being religious and get the same effect. It just doesn't looks at the right factors...

    I think I just hate sensational statistics to begin with. After all, 100% of people who breathe will die.

    • I agree with your basic thesis: causality and coincidence are not the same thing. But I think this study can serve a purpose: let's study what is common amongst the various factors that leads to divorce.

      I think you could pull all of them into the general heading of having a strong community. People in early 20's have little or no commitments or ties. As you get into your late 20's, you are more likely to have steady job and/or career. People who identify with a religion more closely typically have ties to that group and the support that entails.

      Here's where it gets un-PC:

      The black communities (particularly in the US) have had trouble for some time now with lack of positive males. There is a lack of them. Many wind up in jail. This destabilizes the group.

      The converse is that Asians (the term used in the article, not necessarily mine) have stronger, more closely knit communities.

      As a country, we are small enough to be able to form these communities with various support. To be able to meet compatible people. To be supported through the difficult times in marriage. But we are large enough that it is easy to disappear.

      That's one way of analyzing these fairly raw statistics to get some meaningful conclusions. I'm sure there are others.

  • some idiot is saying we should "normalize" divorce. As if divorce SHOULD be a normal thing!

    Where is the sanctity of marriage...where has it gone?

    Chacham...I'm look'n to you for an answer on this one buddy...I just don't have it.

    To me it is keeping my word...
    and that's the strongest value I can place on most anything...If I give my word then it's done.
    People take it too lightly now days.

    • Personally, I think the state should not recognize marriage at all. Marriage is a religious thing.

      Hmm.. that'll make a good rant for a journal. Maybe tonight when I have more time. Right not I have to catch up on a couple things, than fix someone's computer. After that it's off to a farewell party.
      • Personally, I think the state should not recognize marriage at all. Marriage is a religious thing.

        Indeed. I wrote a journal [] to this effect a couple of weeks ago (actually it was more of a rant against the general institutionalization of marriage). I think there should be a distinction between "Civil Union" and "Marriage," where marriage is a religion-sanctioned bond and civil union is a state-recognized partnership. Neither would be requisite for the other. I think it would solve a lot of problems.
        • Brazil has just that...
          Went through it myself 6 months ago...
          Civil Union...binding by civil law...
          even 3 choices for the marriage...

          1.) what is mine when I get married stays mine after marriage and in spite of divorce

          2.) what is mine when I get married is OURS after marriage and split up during divorce

          3.) what is mine when I get married is mine after marriage and in spite of divorce, but anything that I get after marriage is OURS.

          then the regligious wedding which is entirely ceremonial..don't mean dookies except to those religiously inclined and looking from a blessing from the Lord on their marriage.


Nothing is faster than the speed of light ... To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before the light comes on.