Having Kids Before Marriage Does Not Increase Divorce Rates
#1
from http://www.mothering.com/articles/recent...rce-rates/

Meet. Fall in love. Get married. Have kids.

Whether due to tradition or preference, this has been the order of things for many couples.

For a long time, evidence backed the idea of getting married before having children. Data on families from 1985 to 1995, for example, demonstrated couples that wed before conceiving were more likely to stay together than those who had children first.

Even when researchers accounted for other factors that can contribute to divorce, such as financial situation, education and family background, couples that had children prior to getting married faced a 60% higher risk of divorce.

That’s a big difference!

As such, there remains a stigma around stepping away from tradition. (Just try being the couple with a child at a party who says, “Oh, we’re not married,” and have a look at people’s faces.) The reality is, those of us who do things differently still have our commitment to family questioned.

But today there is good news for those of us who didn’t do things the traditional way: data from the last few years shows no increased risk of divorce for those who had babies prior to nuptials.

That’s right: In terms of relationship longevity, it seems getting married first is now simply a preference, not a benefit.

While a surprise pregnancy out of wedlock used to be quickly “righted” by a walk down the aisle, many couples are now choosing to wait until they become parents to take their vows—if they take them at all.

In fact, a 2013 study done by the University of Virginia shows 48% of children in the U.S. are now born to unwed mothers. And before making any assumptions, it should be noted many of these women have a college education. Gone are the days when having a child out of wedlock drastically increased the risk of a life of hardship and poverty.

Why are more people having babies first? Couples are feeling less pressure to live life in one specific way. Instead, they’re choosing what works for them. Many people are moving in together, buying property and making other large investments before saying, “I do.” Commitment is now forged in no particular order.

The cost of a “dream wedding” could also be a factor. With the average U.S. wedding costing $26,000, that special day might get put on hold until it becomes more affordable.

But do all families fare well in these more contemporary arrangements? Not necessarily. Couples who have a child and never to get married are the most likely to split up. In fact, 30% of them are no longer together after five years. Why? Researchers can’t rule out other factors that can contribute to separation, so it’s hard to say. But it seems getting married does increase a relationship’s chance for success.

My own family is a happy contemporary success story. We were married quite young with a nine-month-old attached to my hip. Baby made three on our wedding day, and we are still together many years and two more children later.

It seems happily ever after takes many forms.
Reply
#2
Quote:While a surprise pregnancy out of wedlock used to be quickly “righted” by a walk down the aisle, many couples are now choosing to wait until they become parents to take their vows—if they take them at all.

I think this might be the key to what is being reported in the story.  If the people who used to get married and then divorced don't bother to get married at all anymore, how can they get divorced?  And I think this accounts for the change in statistics, though the story hides that pretty well.

Quote:The cost of a “dream wedding” could also be a factor. With the average U.S. wedding costing $26,000, that special day might get put on hold until it becomes more affordable.

I see figures like this all over the place!  This is a silly reason not to get married.  My wife and I couldn't afford a big wedding, so we had a small one.  I think big figures like these are pushed to try to pressure people into having expensive weddings (anything to get the population into debt!).  But if you can't afford it, then it is a bad idea.  Starting marriage with a boatload of debt (especially for one day!) is not a good thing.  $26,000 would go a long way to getting a new household up and running, or saving for the expenses that come with having that first baby Smile

-Martin
Reply
#3
[quote='mlwalker1972' pid='1297461' dateline='1448799399']
[quote]

I see figures like this all over the place!  This is a silly reason not to get married.  My wife and I couldn't afford a big wedding, so we had a small one.  I think big figures like these are pushed to try to pressure people into having expensive weddings (anything to get the population into debt!).  But if you can't afford it, then it is a bad idea.  Starting marriage with a boatload of debt (especially for one day!) is not a good thing.  $26,000 would go a long way to getting a new household up and running, or saving for the expenses that come with having that first baby Smile

-Martin
[/quote]

But it is not about the marriage, it is about the event.  I found the amount of money my sister spent on her wedding, especially compared to mine, horrifying when one considers that probably half the people that were invited were not evening remotely connected to the couple.  You see the same thing with baptisms as well.  The idea is that we have to have a big Church wedding or big baptism because that is what we are supposed to do, completely divorced from the correct reason for doing these things. 
Reply
#4
(11-28-2015, 09:53 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: Why are more people having babies first? Couples are feeling less pressure to live life in one specific way. Instead, they’re choosing what works for them. Many people are moving in together, buying property and making other large investments before saying, “I do.” Commitment is now forged in no particular order.
. . . .

It seems happily ever after takes many forms.

In other words: Have it your way.

Relativism.

In my reality, single motherhood is hard. I do not know what world this study lives in. Northeast, given that it was done by the University of Virgina? 

This article is advocating for cohabitation. These are the same steps - the same tone - given by those who advocate single motherood, same-sex households and children before marriage IF you have a college education. How convenient.

What a sickening piece.

Ah, but wait. Here is the author's quick bio -

Quote:Award-winning writer, passionate human rights advocate, and drinker of too much coffee. Mom to two great boys and one brave transgender girl.

Go figure.
Reply
#5
(12-01-2015, 07:59 PM)GRA Wrote: In my reality, single motherhood is hard. I do not know what world this study lives in. Northeast, given that it was done by the University of Virgina? 

Except we're not talking about "single motherhood", we're talking about 2-parent families where the parents aren't married. In Canada, they would have legal recognition and obligations as a family in some domains, and certainly socially because it is so prelevent. They're common-law couples, and frankly I know as many common-law families and I do married families.

So what we're talking about really isn't a new paradigm for heterosexual couples, in the sense that it's 2 parents and children. What's different is whether or not they're bothering to get married, and the sequence of events where marriage falls.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)