# Divorce and demography



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Does anyone have any opinions of the correlation between the increase in divorce and various demographic trends such as increasing life expectancy, increasing affluence (as a society not individually - that would be a separate discussion by itself), and smaller families
In regards to life expectancy it would seem that in earlier times the possibility of divorce (besides being frowned upon) would have been reduced by the simple fact that most matters of incompatibility would have been solved by the early death of one of the other spouses.
The relative lack of affluence in society would have prevented the lower classes from divorcing by the sheer force of economics. Both spouses NEEDED the output of the other to survive in a world of hand to mouth subsistence
Finally I think smaller family sizes might just be a corollary to the first two items - having fewer children (along with increases in medicine) may it less likely for a woman to die in child birth. The fewer the mouths to feed the less need each spouse had of the output of the other.
In the end we victims of divorce are in many ways no different than people with afflicted with the diseases of old age. 
Another issue is that the rise in the number of divorces have surely been effected by the accuracy of record keeping as well. When the Factory worker of 1900 deserted his family there was no divorce to record, but the result was the same as if one occurred.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Does anyone have any opinions of the correlation between the increase in divorce and various demographic trends such as increasing life expectancy, increasing affluence (as a society not individually - that would be a separate discussion by itself), and smaller families
> In regards to life expectancy it would seem that in earlier times the possibility of divorce (besides being frowned upon) would have been reduced by the simple fact that most matters of incompatibility would have been solved by the early death of one of the other spouses.
> The relative lack of affluence in society would have prevented the lower classes from divorcing by the sheer force of economics. Both spouses NEEDED the output of the other to survive in a world of hand to mouth subsistence
> Finally I think smaller family sizes might just be a corollary to the first two items - having fewer children (along with increases in medicine) may it less likely for a woman to die in child birth. The fewer the mouths to feed the less need each spouse had of the output of the other.
> ...


* Very well thought out commentary, Ynot! I was particularly moved about your statement regarding Seniors. 

There now seems to be more of an instilled sense of entitlement on the part of WS's for the "abandonment" of their BS, and far less thoughts on what their marital obligations and vows mean to them! Unfortunately, in this day and age, separation and divorce is solely about the individual seeking release from both their ecclesiastical and contractual bonds of marriage, greatly offering to contribute in making the family law business the mega-industry that it has so become, more especially within the last century!*


----------



## that.girl (Aug 27, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> Unfortunately, in this day and age, separation and divorce is solely about the individual seeking release from both their ecclesiastical and contractual bonds of marriage...


I'm not sure i understand this statement. Was there a time when divorce was not about seeking release from the bond of marriage? What was it about at that time?


----------



## that.girl (Aug 27, 2014)

I think demographics play a large role in divorce rates. How often do we hear an unhappy spouse say they can't leave, because they have no money, no place to go, no job, no support? 

A society where it is easier for a person to survive without a spouse will have a higher rate of singles, whether by divorce or never marrying in the first place. Unfortunately, this makes it easier for a person to "abandon" their family. But fortunately, it also makes it easier for a person who is mistreated by a spouse to leave. 

Divorce rates were lower in the past, in part because the option of just leaving a cheater/abuser/generally horrible person did not always exist. That Meatloaf song comes to mind - "Praying for the end of time, so i can end my time with you!"


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I think the increase in divorce as well as out of wedlock births has more to do with the advent of social welfare programs that provide an alternative source of income for women and relieve men of the responsibility to support their mate and children. 

In older times, divorce was a luxury for wealthy males, not primarily to escape a bad marriage but to get rid of one spouse in favor of someone younger, hotter, or presumed to be more fertile.

Another factor would be our increased mobility. In older times, people generally lived their entire lives close to where they were born and in close proximity to family members. People cared very much about their personal and family reputation. Now, folks are mostly unknown in their own community.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Demographics and positive social changes certainly make divorce more feasible. IMO, divorce is often a good thing, often for good reasons.


----------



## Houstondad (Jul 6, 2011)

I would agree that with the advent of the woman in the workplace, that divorce is now more feasible. And for this, I am glad to see that many women (and men) do not have to stay in an abusive marriage due to finances.

However, I wouldn't ignore the growing trend of divorces based on "mid-life crises" and the "quick fix" mentality where so many are no longer willing to put in any time and effort to keep a marriage healthy.


----------



## that.girl (Aug 27, 2014)

Houstondad said:


> However, I wouldn't ignore the growing trend of divorces based on "mid-life crises" and the "quick fix" mentality where so many are no longer willing to put in any time and effort to keep a marriage healthy.


I believe our increased wealth and opportunity has caused a shift in the way we view marriage, but the institution of marriage hasn't quite caught up to it yet. 

For example, almost all of us still say the words "til death do us part." But many of us do not really believe that anymore, we just accept it as part of the process. Then later, if the marriage is dissolved, we have broken a vow that we didn't really believe in the first place. We made that vow, not because we were promising forever, but because it was part of the ceremony. 

Many young people today are simply opting not to marry. The institution of marriage doesn't make sense in their lives, so they cohabitate. That will certainly lower the divorce rate in a few years, although the amount of dissolved relationships will still be similar.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I can't remember the source (if I can find I will post it in an edit). One of the most tragic of all demographics: marriage and the special needs child. In nearly 80% of all marriages where it involves a child with special needs child (mental handicap moreover than physical handicap) they, the marriages, end in divorce before the child has his or her second birthday beyond diagnosis. It is hard to maintain a marriage relationship under these circumstance and it take a great deal of energy and work. And this is across all income groups.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

So many assumptions are made about divorce. For example, at what age do the most people get divorced? It's not middle age! Of folks 35 to 39 there's a less than 7% divorce rate. It's actually the 20 to 24 year olds, who have a divorce rate of about 37%. This certainly doesn't point to mid-life crises as the reason for divorce, since the average age of a person divorcing is 30.

Who gets divorced more, the religious or the non-religious? Well, Southern Baptists have a 29% divorce rate, while agnostics/atheists have a 21% divorce rate, the lowest of any group based on religious views.

Where you live matters, too. Divorce is more common in red states than blue.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Ikaika said:


> I can't remember the source (if I can find I will post it in an edit). One of the most tragic of all demographics: marriage and the special needs child. In nearly 80% of all marriages where it involves a child with special needs child (mental handicap moreover than physical handicap) they, the marriages, end in divorce before the child has his or her second birthday beyond diagnosis. It is hard to maintain a marriage relationship under these circumstance and it take a great deal of energy and work. And this is across all income groups.


I know this well! I've had to fight my H to get our kids help, as he resisted both the diagnosis (he didn't like our kids being labeled) and all early discussions around how to help our kids. His unwillingness to be my partner in helping our children had a deep impact on how I felt about him.

Not only are the daily stressors of raising special kids hard, but letting go of the simple dreams you have for your kids. You aren't the parent coaching little league; you're the one hoping that the other kids and parents aren't frustrated by your kid being on the team (after all, your kid may be the reason the team isn't doing so well).

I think it's harder than dealing with cancer, since there's hope of a cure and it's not a lifelong condition. Mental issues with a child are life-long, and you must be "on" every day to deal with them.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I know this well! I've had to fight my H to get our kids help, as he resisted both the diagnosis (he didn't like our kids being labeled) and all early discussions around how to help our kids. His unwillingness to be my partner in helping our children had a deep impact on how I felt about him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Additionally, they will very likely live with you till you are beyond retirement years and then you worry about what happens after the two of you are gone. Yes, we live that last nightmare often. I sometimes wake up in the middle of the night and can't sleep thinking about that horror.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> There now seems to be more of an instilled sense of entitlement on the part of WS's for the "abandonment" of their BS, and far less thoughts on what their marital obligations and vows mean to them! Unfortunately, in this day and age, separation and divorce is solely about the individual seeking release from both their ecclesiastical and contractual bonds of marriage, greatly offering to contribute in making the family law business the mega-industry that it has so become, more especially within the last century![/COLOR][/B]


A thing to remember about most civilizations is that social norms and/or laws arose from religious backgrounds. Civilizations often developed in relative isolation from each other (think Roman vs Chinese or Incan vs Christianity). Today we as a society are exposed to a variety of outside influences, virtually unknown to members of our civilization even just a few generations ago. The ecclesiastic aspect is often undermined by outside influences (one of the reasons many religious states impose censorship), and government lags behind that. By virtue of the fact that the world truly is getting smaller it would make sense that members of a society would chose to reject restrictions placed on them by past regimes


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

unbelievable said:


> I think the increase in divorce as well as out of wedlock births has more to do with the advent of social welfare programs that provide an alternative source of income for women and relieve men of the responsibility to support their mate and children.
> 
> In older times, divorce was a luxury for wealthy males, not primarily to escape a bad marriage but to get rid of one spouse in favor of someone younger, hotter, or presumed to be more fertile.
> 
> Another factor would be our increased mobility. In older times, people generally lived their entire lives close to where they were born and in close proximity to family members. People cared very much about their personal and family reputation. Now, folks are mostly unknown in their own community.


I agree, these would be aspects of the affluence of society that wrote about in my OP. The increased mobility was not something I had actually thought about. But it does it does make sense. Many times we forget that the person we married just happened to live within the scope of our lives - we worked with them, had mutual friends, went to the same church or school or whatever. We tend to forget that there is a whole world out there. Even if you are truly compatible with just a small percentage of them- say 1/10 of 1% that would still 3-5 million possible matches. When placed in purely mathematical terms the idea of finding the "one" is ludicrous. And that is even before considering the fact that many choose mates, not on the idea of real compatibility but to comply with the societal norms or familial pressure.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> So many assumptions are made about divorce. For example, at what age do the most people get divorced? It's not middle age! Of folks 35 to 39 there's a less than 7% divorce rate. It's actually the 20 to 24 year olds, who have a divorce rate of about 37%. This certainly doesn't point to mid-life crises as the reason for divorce, since the average age of a person divorcing is 30.
> 
> Who gets divorced more, the religious or the non-religious? Well, Southern Baptists have a 29% divorce rate, while agnostics/atheists have a 21% divorce rate, the lowest of any group based on religious views.
> 
> Where you live matters, too. Divorce is more common in red states than blue.


These are very significant facts. What drives them? A few centuries ago, these 25 to 30 year olds were considered past their primes. Women were married as soon as menses started since they were now considered fertile. Men married in their late teens. Consider the age requirements placed in the US Constitution to hold office - at the times the members of society who had met these requirements were considered aged and experienced, today these minimum requirements if adjusted for extended life expectancy would be any where from your middle 50's to over 70 years old. So in the past many of the youth of today would not have made to that point in the first place. Is the higher divorce rate among the young driven by the extended life expectancy?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I know this well! I've had to fight my H to get our kids help, as he resisted both the diagnosis (he didn't like our kids being labeled) and all early discussions around how to help our kids. His unwillingness to be my partner in helping our children had a deep impact on how I felt about him.
> 
> Not only are the daily stressors of raising special kids hard, but letting go of the simple dreams you have for your kids. You aren't the parent coaching little league; you're the one hoping that the other kids and parents aren't frustrated by your kid being on the team (after all, your kid may be the reason the team isn't doing so well).
> 
> I think it's harder than dealing with cancer, since there's hope of a cure and it's not a lifelong condition. Mental issues with a child are life-long, and you must be "on" every day to deal with them.


Another good point that relates to the rising affluence of society. Not to sound crass, but a century ago, the infirm were either abandoned, left to die or even purposefully killed. Our affluent society now has the ability to care for these children with the result being there are more of them alive today.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Sorry for the multiple posts - so many fertile avenues of discussion!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Ynot said:


> Does anyone have any opinions of the correlation between the increase in divorce and various demographic trends such as increasing life expectancy, increasing affluence (as a society not individually - that would be a separate discussion by itself), and smaller families
> In regards to life expectancy it would seem that in earlier times the possibility of divorce (besides being frowned upon) would have been reduced by the simple fact that most matters of incompatibility would have been solved by the early death of one of the other spouses.
> 
> *The relative lack of affluence in society would have prevented the lower classes from divorcing by the sheer force of economics. Both spouses NEEDED the output of the other to survive in a world of hand to mouth subsistence*
> ...


The most likely people to divorce are those with lower incomes.

People with higher education and higher income are the least likely to divorce.




Ynot said:


> In the end we victims of divorce are in many ways no different than people with afflicted with the diseases of old age.


I completely disagree with this. I've been through divorce. I'm also suffering from what you call the 'diseases of old age'.

I was able to recover just find from divorces. Old age is something that I will never recover from. It will just keep progressing.




Ynot said:


> Another issue is that the rise in the number of divorces have surely been effected by the accuracy of record keeping as well. When the Factory worker of 1900 deserted his family there was no divorce to record, but the result was the same as if one occurred.


This is true. In the past, a lot of married people were in very bad marriages and even just did not live together. They just did not technically file for divorce.

One thing that I read is that in the past few marriages lasted more than 10 years. People died a lot younger. It was very common for men to have had 2 or more wives in their life time. The death rate from child birth alone was 25%. Then add to that the death rates of both men and women from things that today few people die from.

An example is that with the big flu epidemic in the early 1900's. My great grandmother lost 8 of her 13 children to the flu in one week. My grandmother was one of the 5 who survived.

I think that there are a few societal things that have led to higher divorce rates.

1) The social pressure to stay to married no longer exists. In the past it was very strong. A person who divorced was just scandalous. A woman who was divorce was basically considered a low life, a bad woman.

2) No fault divorce has made it easier to divorce. For example before the 1960's it was very hard to get a divorce. A person had to prove infidelity or sever abuse. A woman who was in an abusive relationship had to prove not just that she was beaten, but that it was often and very server. Just getting slapped around a lot was not grounds for divorce. A man whose wife is cheating no longer has to spend thousands of dollars to get evidence on her cheating and then to prove it in court.

3) Women can now support themselves. We have choices that our mothers, grandmothers did not have. Women used to stay married in bad marriages simply because they had no choice. 

4) We all, men and women, live a lot longer. I'm not sure that the vast majority of people have the capability of sustaining a loving marriage for decades. I a person marries young and lives into their late 80's, that 60 or more years with someone they picked when they were too young to really know who they are.

5) We live in a society now where anything goes. No one, except the BS, gives a rats behind if someone is cheating. It's not their business. They look the other way. After all we live in a society that has no real social morality anymore. With no real stigma on divorce and bad behaviors, there is no social pressure to stay together. Instead the social pressure is to divorce at the first sign of a problem.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Ikaika said:


> I can't remember the source (if I can find I will post it in an edit). One of the most tragic of all demographics: marriage and the special needs child. In nearly 80% of all marriages where it involves a child with special needs child (mental handicap moreover than physical handicap) they, the marriages, end in divorce before the child has his or her second birthday beyond diagnosis. It is hard to maintain a marriage relationship under these circumstance and it take a great deal of energy and work. And this is across all income groups.


The divorce rate for marriages in which a child is either still born or died at any time before maturity is very high.. about 80% as well.

Any kind of high stressor like that can destroy a marriage if the couple does not have a lot of outside help.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

I agree with much of the above except the last point. If I find out someone is cheating, I want nothing to do with them. I no longer respect them and do not want to be around them. Maybe others are more accepting, but I am not.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> The most likely people to divorce are those with lower incomes.
> 
> People with higher education and higher income are the least likely to divorce.
> 
> ...


Many of the items you have listed go hand in hand with my OP. My point is not to defend divorce but to understand that it is yet another aspect of a larger change that we are dealing with as a individuals in a society that is changing and has been changing despite what we have been conditioned to accept


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Ynot said:


> These are very significant facts. What drives them? A few centuries ago, these 25 to 30 year olds were considered past their primes. Women were married as soon as menses started since they were now considered fertile. Men married in their late teens. Consider the age requirements placed in the US Constitution to hold office - at the times the members of society who had met these requirements were considered aged and experienced, today these minimum requirements if adjusted for extended life expectancy would be any where from your middle 50's to over 70 years old. So in the past many of the youth of today would not have made to that point in the first place. Is the higher divorce rate among the young driven by the extended life expectancy?


I think that there are several reasons why those who marry younger are more likely to divorce today.

In the past there was HUGE social pressure to keep the marriage together. It was just not acceptable to divorce. So once married that young had no choice but to stay married. This even if one of them decided to abandon the other. Even if abandoned there was no choice of divorce.

Young people in the past had to grow up a lot faster. For example at about the age of 5, a young boy went to work in the field or whatever work his father did. So by the time a young man married at 19 or so, he'd been working for 10-15 years. The same with young girls... they had been doing the women's chores with their mother for a long time.

Today, childhood does not prepare a person for adult responsibilities. So when they are suddenly adults at 19 or so, if they get married they are not ready and mature enough to stick together. And there is no social pressure to stay together.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Ynot said:


> These are very significant facts. What drives them? A few centuries ago, these 25 to 30 year olds were considered past their primes. Women were married as soon as menses started since they were now considered fertile. Men married in their late teens. Consider the age requirements placed in the US Constitution to hold office - at the times the members of society who had met these requirements were considered aged and experienced, today these minimum requirements if adjusted for extended life expectancy would be any where from your middle 50's to over 70 years old. So in the past many of the youth of today would not have made to that point in the first place. Is the higher divorce rate among the young driven by the extended life expectancy?


I think it has more to do with what age it is considered acceptable to be married. I grew up in a middle-class family that values education. And not simply getting an education, but doing something with it. That means moving into a career after receiving a college degree. Marriage was out of the question. I married when I was 32 and well established in my career and life.

My brother in law and my husband's nephew both married when they were young and without a college education. Both are now divorced. Considering that lower income, less education, and younger age at marriage all increase the likelihood of divorce, it is not surprising.

So, why are people age 20 to 24 divorcing? Probably because most of them didn't get a chance to live yet! They didn't go to college, didn't go after a career in their 20s, heck, didn't even date around and enjoy their youth. My 2 cents there.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I agree with much of the above except the last point. If I find out someone is cheating, I want nothing to do with them. I no longer respect them and do not want to be around them. Maybe others are more accepting, but I am not.


Yes, there are some people who still will not accept a friend who cheats. My point was that in a society as a whole, people do not care. Look at Clinton.. the vast majority of people just do not care that he cheated.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I think that there are several reasons why those who marry younger are more likely to divorce today.
> 
> In the past there was HUGE social pressure to keep the marriage together. It was just not acceptable to divorce. So once married that young had no choice but to stay married. This even if one of them decided to abandon the other. Even if abandoned there was no choice of divorce.
> 
> ...


True, true and true.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Ynot said:


> That is true today, which is a good reason why rates are higher. In the past it was more likely an option only the truly rich could afford,




Keep in mind that today, education is not only for the rich. Today we are a high tech service society in which an education is extremely necessary for both men and women.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> I think it has more to do with what age it is considered acceptable to be married. I grew up in a middle-class family that values education. And not simply getting an education, but doing something with it. That means moving into a career after receiving a college degree. Marriage was out of the question. I married when I was 32 and well established in my career and life.
> 
> My brother in law and my husband's nephew both married when they were young and without a college education. Both are now divorced. Considering that lower income, less education, and younger age at marriage all increase the likelihood of divorce, it is not surprising.
> 
> So, why are people age 20 to 24 divorcing? Probably because most of them didn't get a chance to live yet! They didn't go to college, didn't go after a career in their 20s, heck, didn't even date around and enjoy their youth. My 2 cents there.


I would agree with your two cents and add a few of my own. The 25 year old of 1800 lived a hard life and didn't have the luxury of time to look around for the upgrade replacement model of their current spouse and probably understood they were living on borrowed time anyways.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Keep in mind that today, education is not only for the rich. Today we are a high tech service society in which an education is extremely necessary for both men and women.


Another aspect of demographics. When we educate ourselves we become more aware (usually, I know some real idiots who are educated beyond belief but don't have a clue about life). As we become more aware our options expand. As our options expand some may become more amenable than what we may have chosen in the past from the more limited offering we were aware of. Which may be more reason why the more educated, who tend to marry after they have more of the facts, have lower rates of divorce than the less educated, who may have chosen to marry with few if any of the facts.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

that.girl said:


> I'm not sure i understand this statement. Was there a time when divorce was not about seeking release from the bond of marriage? What was it about at that time?


* I would greatly theorize that divorce, from an historical perspective, was soundly frowned upon up until the 1960's; as it was much harder to get a divorce back then, and there was no such grounds for divorce referred to "irreconcilable differences" to hang your hat on; divorces were very expensive, because in order to get one, a person had to prepare for and go to trial, with the only acceptable grounds at that time being either adultery or spousal abuse.

The vast glamourization of divorce came shortly thereafter by the advent of Hollywood and TV, and once the public bought into it as an acceptable idea, the family law business took off to unheralded proportions; and whereas family lawyers had previously been earning peanuts, giving only part-time or occasional practice to it, now they had more cases than they could handle and were making it their sole legal practice!

And if there were proposed legislation to revert in making divorce much more difficult to obtain, the more-than-flourishing family law lobby would literally scream "bloody murder," as the "sucker" would literally be jerked from out of the child's mouth!*


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Marriage is overly glamorized, and divorce overly stigmatized. I think we'd have healthier relationships if these perceptions were reversed!


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> * I would greatly theorize that divorce, from an historical perspective, was soundly frowned upon up until the 1960's; as it was much harder to get a divorce back then, and there was no such grounds for divorce referred to "irreconcilable differences" to hang your hat on; divorces were very expensive, because in order to get one, a person had to prepare for and go to trial, with the only acceptable grounds at that time being either adultery or spousal abuse.
> 
> The vast glamourization of divorce came shortly thereafter by the advent of Hollywood and TV, and once the public bought into it as an acceptable idea, the family law business took off to unheralded proportions; and whereas family lawyers had previously been earning peanuts, giving only part-time or occasional practice to it, now they had more cases than they could handle and were making it their sole legal practice!
> 
> And if there were proposed legislation to revert in making divorce much more difficult to obtain, the more-than-flourishing family law lobby would literally scream "bloody murder," as the "sucker" would literally be jerked from out of the child's mouth!*


OTOH most laws become law because it is an idea whose time has come. Were no-fault divorce laws simply a result of the growing perception that the existing laws were not working for most people given the longer live expectancies, growing affluence of society and general desire of the population for a change? Not to mention the fact that marriage is supposed to be an arrangement we each entered into on our free will and thus should be allowed to terminate on that basis alone. There are few among us that would accept a law that obligates us for life to some particular thing. That would amount to slavery. The fact is aside the majority of the population has little problem with no fault divorce. Either because they feel they will never need it or because they have used it to "liberate" themselves from an otherwise unsatisfying experience.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

The rate of divorces per 1000 married women in the U.S. was about 10 in 1950, 9 per 1000 in 1958, about 10 per 1000 in 1965, and 14 in 1000 by 1970, and 23 out of 1000 in 1980. Now, what happened around 1965 that made that rate skyrocket? LBJ's Great Society programs.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Ikaika said:


> I can't remember the source (if I can find I will post it in an edit). One of the most tragic of all demographics: marriage and the special needs child. In nearly 80% of all marriages where it involves a child with special needs child (mental handicap moreover than physical handicap) they, the marriages, end in divorce before the child has his or her second birthday beyond diagnosis. It is hard to maintain a marriage relationship under these circumstance and it take a great deal of energy and work. And this is across all income groups.


My daughter's swim coach also coaches for a team of down's syndrome kids. He's cited the exact same statistic. Let's not leave out the gender though: it's dads leaving the family behind; or at least leaving mom and the special needs kid.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

unbelievable said:


> The rate of divorces per 1000 married women in the U.S. was about 10 in 1950, 9 per 1000 in 1958, about 10 per 1000 in 1965, and 14 in 1000 by 1970, and 23 out of 1000 in 1980. Now, what happened around 1965 that made that rate skyrocket? LBJ's Great Society programs.


What did LBJ's Great Society program have to do with all of the other western nations that have similar divorce rates as ours?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> The divorce rate for marriages in which a child is either still born or died at any time before maturity is very high.. about 80% as well.
> 
> Any kind of high stressor like that can destroy a marriage if the couple does not have a lot of outside help.


That statistic is for couples who lose their first earlier in the marriage. If you look at older couples and especially those that have several kids, the divorce rate is far lower.

Kids go through a incredible grief in the loss of a sibling too. To add a divorce on top is a hell of a selfish thing to do.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

larry.gray said:


> That statistic is for couples who lose their first earlier in the marriage. If you look at older couples and especially those that have several kids, the divorce rate is far lower.
> 
> Kids go through a incredible grief in the loss of a sibling too. To add a divorce on top is a hell of a selfish thing to do.


A simple fact is that divorce rates are higher or lower depending on which slice of the pie you are looking at. For instance the divorce rate is higher amongst the very young, BUT the very young are not getting married at the same rates as before. (the average age at time of first marriage has increased from 23F/25M in 1975 to 27F/29M in 2005) so the divorce rate amongst the population could be stable, it is just being compared to a smaller number resulting in a higher rate.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

unbelievable said:


> The rate of divorces per 1000 married women in the U.S. was about 10 in 1950, 9 per 1000 in 1958, about 10 per 1000 in 1965, and 14 in 1000 by 1970, and 23 out of 1000 in 1980. Now, what happened around 1965 that made that rate skyrocket? LBJ's Great Society programs.


* Un-Man: I love your historical divorce statistics as they help to bolster my point! Guess that I was just a tad too lazy to look them up on my own, but I heartily salute you for having done so!

But not to be argumentative in any way, just how on God's Green Earth was LBJ's Great Society, even remotely involved, in perpetuating the overall U. S. divorce rate? Am I missing something here?*


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

LBJ? Even if there is correlation (doubtful), it's highly unlikely that there is causation.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> * Un-Man: I love your historical divorce statistics as they help to bolster my point! Guess that I was just a tad too lazy to look them up on my own, but I heartily salute you for having done so!
> 
> But not to be argumentative in any way, just how on God's Green Earth was LBJ's Great Society, even remotely involved, in perpetuating the overall U. S. divorce rate? Am I missing something here?*


Something else that happened around the same time was the introduction of The Pill!


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Ynot said:


> OTOH most laws become law because it is an idea whose time has come. Were no-fault divorce laws simply a result of the growing perception that the existing laws were not working for most people given the longer live expectancies, growing affluence of society and general desire of the population for a change?*Not to mention the fact that marriage is supposed to be an arrangement we each entered into on our free will and thus should be allowed to terminate on that basis alone. There are few among us that would accept a law that obligates us for life to some particular thing. That would amount to slavery.* The fact is aside the majority of the population has little problem with no fault divorce. Either because they feel they will never need it or because they have used it to "liberate" themselves from an otherwise unsatisfying experience.


*Once again, just playing "devil's advocate" here:
Would you consider the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage as "slavery?" Knowing that the only true noted Biblical grounds for divorce is either adultery, abandonment, or spousal or family abuse?
Would you agree that imprisonment in a penal institution constitutes a form of legitimized "slavery?" Knowing that when the original jurisdiction that summarily sends a convict up, that only they or some other higher-echelon jurisdiction has the legal appellate authority that can effectively spring the prisoner free?
How would contrast between imprisonment at the marital level and imprisonment at the state level?
*


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Ynot said:


> Something else that happened around the same time was the introduction of The Pill!


*Excellent point!*


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> *Once again, just playing "devil's advocate" here:
> Would you consider the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage as "slavery?" Knowing that nthe only true noted Biblical grounds for divorce is either adultery, abandonment, or spousal or family abuse?
> Would you agree that imprisonment in a penal institution constitutes a form of legitimized "slavery?" Knowing that when the jurisdiction that sends a convict up, that only they or some other higher-echelon jurisdiction has the legal authority that can effectively spring the prisoner free?
> *


1) yes in fact, while I was raised as a Catholic and tried practicing Christianity for quite some time, I came to feel that organized religion was just a means to control people. The institution of marriage being one of them. My biggest problem was that I could not square the idea of free will with all the rules that came with belief.
2)again, yes. However in the case of incarceration there are procedures put in place to prevent abuse of this governmental power. By earlier comment dealt with the concept of contract law, of which marriage is just a variant.
If one party of a contract is not satisfied with the terms of that contract our laws allow them to void the contract thru recognized procedures - divorce being one, bankruptcy another that come quickly to mind. As a strong adherent to the natural law theory no living creature should be compelled to act against their own best interests. The same holds true of marriage, regardless of religious beliefs our society should not prevent a legal marriage from being dissolved.

OTOH I completely support the rights of a religious organization to ban or prevent an individual from participation in religious activities on the basis of that individual's actions. Legal marriage under the law however is not the same as religious marriage. Although the law may recognize, and in fact does in most cases, religious marriages. It does not follow that religions recognize all legal marriages. For instance some catholics may not accept a civil ceremony in lieu of a church ceremony before a priest.


----------

