Slashdot Mirror
Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage
HughPickens.com writes Randy Olson, a Computer Science grad student who works with data visualizations, writes about seven of the biggest factors that predict what makes for a long term stable marriage in America. Olson took the results of a study that polled thousands of recently married and divorced Americans and and asked them dozens of questions about their marriage (PDF): How long they were dating, how long they were engaged, etc. After running this data through a multivariate model, the authors were able to calculate the factors that best predicted whether a marriage would end in divorce. "What struck me about this study is that it basically laid out what makes for a stable marriage in the US," writes Olson. Here are some of the biggest factors:
How long you were dating: (Couples who dated 1-2 years before their engagement were 20% less likely to end up divorced than couples who dated less than a year before getting engaged. Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced.); How much money you make: (The more money you and your partner make, the less likely you are to ultimately file for divorce. Couples who earn $125K per year are 51% less likely to divorce than couples making 0 — 25k); How often you go to church: (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); Your attitude toward your partner: (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.); How many people attended the wedding: ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding: Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people."); How much you spent on the wedding: (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.); Whether you had a honeymoon: (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon)
Of course correlation is not causation. For example, expensive weddings may simply attract the kind of immature and narcissistic people who are less likely to sustain a successful marriage and such people might end up getting divorced even if they married cheaply. But "the particularly scary part here is that the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is well over $30,000," says Olson, "which doesn't bode well for the future of American marriages."
How long you were dating: (Couples who dated 1-2 years before their engagement were 20% less likely to end up divorced than couples who dated less than a year before getting engaged. Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced.); How much money you make: (The more money you and your partner make, the less likely you are to ultimately file for divorce. Couples who earn $125K per year are 51% less likely to divorce than couples making 0 — 25k); How often you go to church: (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); Your attitude toward your partner: (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.); How many people attended the wedding: ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding: Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people."); How much you spent on the wedding: (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.); Whether you had a honeymoon: (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon)
Of course correlation is not causation. For example, expensive weddings may simply attract the kind of immature and narcissistic people who are less likely to sustain a successful marriage and such people might end up getting divorced even if they married cheaply. But "the particularly scary part here is that the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is well over $30,000," says Olson, "which doesn't bode well for the future of American marriages."
Really...with 1000 dollars you can already have a luxury wedding in the Phillipines. Plus, you are already on your destination honeymoon.
If both party's motives are pure, they should have no problem with one.
What about men caring for their wife wealth and women caring for their husband looks ? What about homosexual couple ? Also a lot of the reason given seems to boild down to the following :
* if you know somebody for a long time before getting married your marriage is more stable (less bad surprise)
* if you or your spouse has a lot of wealth invested either in the ceremony or yourself, you are less likely to "split" away and lose wealth
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Marriages existed way before any currently practiced religion. It has nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever.
Couples where one partner says, "Well yeah, but correlation doesn't equal causation" at least three times a day are almost 100% guaranteed to end up with the death of one spouse at the hands of the other.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
The first thing I thought when I saw the summary was "multiple comparisons". Then I read it. Basically they shovelled a heap of shit into R and picked out the biggest numbers. Yawn. NEXT!
[FUCK BETA]
Your marriage will "succeed" or "fail" based on why you're getting married, period. Things come up during any relationship, but reasoning keeps things going. Look at business relationships. Look at the cultures where they have arranged marriages. The thing is, when one side tries to make it work for the sake of the relationship itself, then the other side feels this and also tries. When both sides are trying, then success. Eventually true love develops out of the pure sacredness of the effort from the other side toward your side. Each side sees personal sacrifice and feels in debt.
There is no mathematical formula for this, for the same reason that pi cannot be pinned down to a certain number.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Source?
That was 36 years ago.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
"Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people.");"
"Whether you had a honeymoon (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon).""
Those two seem to be at odds with this one:
"How much you spent on the wedding (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.);"
Unless they mean that you should invite 200 people to a park wedding with no food, and then honeymoon in the alley behind Dunkin' Donuts to take advantage of their dumpster?
The two statements about the more expensive the wedding the greater the chance of divorce and that the larger the ceremony you have the less likely you are to end up divorced seem mutually exclusive to me.
My lady and I have been together over ten years, we have an eight year old daughter and are completely happy.
I wonder how the "Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced" extends to us if we ever got married (not that we've ever thought about it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
Trolling is a art,
I am a social scientist. The methodology employed in this paper; and the summary offered by OP is completely off. OP alludes to causality, but that isn't really possible with summary statistics. Please don't lump all of us in with this terrible methodology.
The wedding data is very interesting in that eloping scored really bad, having a wedding with 200+ people really good, how much you spend on wedding bad... but since a 200+ person wedding is going to be expensive, perhaps it's good if the bride's parent's pay as opposed to the couple paying for it themselves? Anyway, these factors and the going to church factor could all be interpreted as peer pressure factors. A big wedding paid for by the parents would provide pressure both from the parents and the 200+ people who attended.
In addition, I know from a few marital situations that I have observed that having a lot of money doesn't just ease life together, it also acts as it's own pressure. At least one and likely both partners will drop in financial status in the event of divorce unless they find other partners prior to the divorce.
The question this brings up for me is whether this says good things or bad things. There is a benefit if pressure keeps a relationship together through a rough time if the relationship becomes better later. But it is a bad thing if pressure keeps a relationship together that is (often mutually) destructive.
What I'd really like to see is a study that takes the word "marriage" out of the equation, looks at romantic partnerships in general, looks at both the length and the healthiness of the relationship, and looks at the factors that got them there. From that, you could perhaps start to discover what conditions best support healthy, stable relationships which I do believe are a benefit to both those involved and society and thus worthy of pursuit.
"Source?"
This painting- http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/T...
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I remember hearing that couples who lived together before they got married were more likely to get divorced. That never made sense to me, but new research suggest that it's actually not true:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
FWIW, my wife and I have been married for ten years and we didn't live together before then.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
My wife and I were together for 7 years and lived together for 6 months before we got married. We had to deal with a lot of things happening before we could even move in together. We got married because we wanted to and being married did not really change anything from the way it was before we got married.
8.5 years later things really haven't changed since before we got married. We still argue at times, sometimes fairly heated. We don't always make up after the arguments but we understand we are two different people who often see things differently but are committed to each other.
I think having a wife that is just like me would be more relaxing but probably a lot less interesting.
My wife and I have been together for ~40 years. When people ask us our secret, we say we're both too lazy to pack-up and leave.
"How often you go to church (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); " But there was another study where atheist couples are less likely to divorce (if they get married) than Christian - does this mean that Christian couples that don't go to church are most likely doomed?
This is blinging
Source?
Marriage is a cultural universal practiced by almost all human societies. Even the most primitive tribes have some type of marriage ritual. The Mosuo society in Yunnan does not have a tradition of marriage, but AFAIK that is the only society that does not.
Thanks, that explains everything.
It won't. But people with big and expensive weddings often have more freedom to find another relationship, they don't need to stay together so much.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
are statistically less prone to separation forces inherent in the system.
(A related study claims that weeks beginning with a dose of python are 42% more likely to contain mirth.)
Just wondering how 1. The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced and 2. How many people attended the wedding ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding
Would seem to be correlated. Normally the more you spend the more people you have attending the wedding ie it costs more to have a wedding with 100 people than with 25.
So how can one lead to more stable marriages and one to less??
Simple. Get someone else (e.g., the bride's parents) to pay for the wedding. The results said, "The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced."
In France, it's an important piece of paper for inheritance. You wouldn't inherit of their share of your house if your partner died, you'd have to buy out the inheritor's share in a family home (your children, if any, or your partner's parents). You also put your taxes into one single pot, which can help using the full lower tax brackets if one of the spouses is earning less.
Obtain visiting rights at hospital and for couples with widely different incomes, filing jointly is better. And then there's, of course, the lessening of the "When the hell are you guys going to get married?/Make an honest woman of her?" questions from rude relatives.
Pretty sure weddings, even lavish ones, are not limited to Christianity.
The two statements about the more expensive the wedding the greater the chance of divorce and that the larger the ceremony you have the less likely you are to end up divorced seem mutually exclusive to me.
Not necessarily. The biggest wedding I ever attended was outdoors in a natural setting, with no added decorations or frills. The reception was a BBQ. After we ate, we played "capture the flag". There were several hundred people, and the total cost was likely just a couple thousand. That was more than twenty years ago, and the couple is still married.
My wife and I did that for $2,000.00.
Church basement, simple food and booze (many folks brought their own), the guys just wore suits and my wife's wedding dress was something she picked up somewhere for less than $100 and she made her own veil. Everyone had a blast.
This nonsense of $20,000+ weddings is just ridiculous - especailly since that's a down payent on a house or knocking off a bit off your student loan or just save it for a rainy day.
"Hey, why buy the cow when the milk is free?"
(Yea I heard that from her relatives fairly often)
[John]
Shit better not happen!
. . . can be found here: http://www.amazon.de/gp/produc...
This is really a topic for psychologists and not statisticians, because, well . . . people tend to lie on questionnaires. And there is a lot more going on in marital processes than simple numbers can reveal.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
There are lots of correlated variables here, so it's difficult to pick out useful information.
The comment thread on the article includes lots of discussion about the impossibility of a wedding that is both cheap and large, but lots of people pointing out that weddings with lots of church and/or community support can be both cheap and large. But church and/or community support are also correlated with other elements of a very stable social structure.
For example, my wedding was both large (> 600 people attended our reception) and cheap (< $3000). How is that possible? We're Mormon, so the actual marriage ceremony was at the LDS temple, which is free, and allows limited attendance. Then we had a wedding breakfast for the ~50 people who attended the ceremony, but the breakfast was at the church (free) and the food was cooked and served by members of our congregation (ingredients cost: low; labor: free). The reception was at the church (free); the bridesmaids paid for their own dresses, best man rented his tux, etc.; the flowers were a wedding gift from a cousin with a flower shop; the table centerpieces and other decorations were handmade by friends and relatives, so we only paid for the materials (cheap); the cake was made by my aunt, who had a wedding business on the side, and cost us $200 for a large, beautiful and tasty cake; my aunt also provided backdrops and other decorations; and some other relatives who are professional photographers did the photos. I don't recall who did the music, but it was all free, using the church's sound equipment. Our biggest expense was the hors d'oeuvres which were actually made by my wife's sisters, so we paid only for the ingredients.
The common thread throughout that list is heavy support from friends, family and community. But I suspect that deep family and church/community support are strongly correlated with long-lasting marriages for lots of reasons which have nothing to do with the wedding day, which to me suggests that those are far more relevant and that wedding cost and attendance are mere proxies for those variables. Also related is the fact that if a lot of people attend, you also get a lot of gifts. So big/cheap weddings are financially beneficial to the couple (mine sure was; spontaneous cash gifts alone -- from the "money tree" -- were more than 2X what we spent, plus all of the gifts of housewares, etc.), while small/expensive weddings are a net drain on their finances.
Similarly, long-term dating tends to be more uncommon among those who get married very young, because it takes time to date someone for 2-3 years, and it's well-known that marriages of the very young are riskier.
Elopement is another one: Those who elope are generally people who decide to get married on the spur of the moment. Such impulsiveness doesn't bode well for future decisions if your goal is long-term stability.
It would be interesting to see a study on this done well, with lots of effort put into teasing apart the correlated variables. This one doesn't actually tell us much.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Unless, of course, you write a will. Granted, there's no solution for the tax issue. That's going to require the government to quit favoring certain lifestyles.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
at least that's how it works in Islam.
This applies chiefly to heterosexual marriage, not homosexual. Oddities like judeo-christian religions capacity to exacerbate and distort gender role do not apply to say, two married women.
Good people go to bed earlier.
My suggestion was two kegs, two pigs, and have a block party. That'd get big and cheap. Let the relatives know in advance, and they can bring sides and dessert. :)
This can really be condensed to only three, since some are redundant if you know the underlying cause. It's not like a research study is needed if you know people with successful marriages. The factors they chose that have an impact really only reflect the relevance of the following factors:
1. Taking marriage seriously. Eloping or skipping a honeymoon says "I don't want to invest much in this." Even those with moderate income can have a modest wedding and inexpensive honeymoon instead of going all out. Any indicator of not taking the marriage seriously is a negative, no matter what form it takes.
2. Genuinely valuing the other person for who they are. Hence, this means to not be a gold-digger or care more about looks. Also, dating longer is just an indicator that "finding the right person" is the attitude the person is taking, which means they want the person as a person to be a good match. By contrast, looks and money can be identified immediately, so it doesn't require a long time to get engaged. Desperation is also not a good reason for marriage, and desperation doesn't need a long time to get engaged.
3. Having a deterrent for divorce. Rich people, church-goers, and people with lots of people at their wedding have a lot of people to pressure you to stay together because you lead *public lives*. You don't get a private divorce, you get public embarrassment. Rich people have an additional deterrent in that it's a lot of money to lose if your ex-spouse wants to take you to the cleaners.
Look up Shinto Buddhists
Look up Hindu
Look up Taoists
Look up Buddhists.
Many of these religions had little or no contact with Christianity.
Christianity didn't even handle marriage until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Before that, marriage was tied to the state.
Place something witty here
The secret of successful marriage is beating off.
There, FTFY. You seem to have made a typo.
Since cost of a wedding scales linearly with the number of attendees, it would seem the researches overlooked something.
Errr... how do you figure that? All other things being the same then it would, but obviously weddings aren't all the same. That's the entire point, it depends on what you choose to do. A big wedding that ends in a houseparty with food by potluck is going to be less expensive than a small wedding in a fancy venue with a provided meal.
Irresponsible, immature, self-absorbed assholes who have a poor opinion of their spouse get divorced 500x more often than normal, nice, decent, reasonable people. Who would have guessed? At least this dispels the absolutely ridiculous myth that Christians have the same divorce rate as everyone else.
Unless, of course, you write a will. Granted, there's no solution for the tax issue. That's going to require the government to quit favoring certain lifestyles.
Actually, putting one's assets in a trust pretty much settles the tax issue and probate court. (Whether one has enough assets to justify the cost, is a different issue)
Since cost of a wedding scales linearly with the number of attendees
Where do you get that stupid idea? Go price a wedding venue for 200 people, then see if you can have the same venue for 10% of the cost if you only invite 20 people. Food and drink may 'scale', the price of the venue, entertainment, etc does not.
Obtain visiting rights at hospital and for couples with widely different incomes, filing jointly is better.
And then there's, of course, the lessening of the "When the hell are you guys going to get married?/Make an honest woman of her?" questions from rude relatives.
Funny, if you tell the nurse you are a family member or spouse, they let you right in. It's not like they do a background check. Plus, assuming the patient isn't comatose, they can give instructions to allow whomever in. As for taxes, unless only one spouse works or the other has minimal income, there is no real tax savings from being married.
As for rude relatives, well, you can't choose your relatives, but you can choose whether or not to be around them.
All of these are currently practiced religions.
> filing jointly is better.
Filing "jointly" is a disaster. This has even hammered some of my working class relatives whom you would think would not make enough money for this sort of thing to matter.
There is a huge tax penalty for getting married.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There seems to be a contradiction. The more guests you have, the less likely you are to divorce and the more you spend on the wedding the more likely you are to divorce. Usually, the cost is directly proportional to the number of guests, is it not?
Well, it is mentioned in th Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the earliest written works, predating the bible by far, but it would be hard to document for ancient civilizations that predate writing. So there's some justification for the statement though maybe not to the full extent.
If you have a lot of people at a wedding where you are not spending a lot of money, those people are there because they care about you. That is a good thing.
If you spend a lot of money on a wedding that does not have a lot of guests, it indicates that appearances are very important to you. That is not a good thing.
Short men tend to get married later but stay married longer. Referenced
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is untrue. Married people always have the option to file taxes separately. You pick whatever way works out best. Here is a link that explains why there is a big tax benefit to being married, not a penalty.
Writing a will does not help.
You assume inheritance laws work the same way in every country. They do not.
Or maybe other people (relatives) paid for the big wedding? But I read the same thing about couples who have big weddings tending to stay together 30 years ago, so this is VERY old "news". My theory is that these couples just did not want to spend a similar amount for another wedding and figured that they could not count on many gifts from the same people who were invited the first time after that marriage flopped. But none of these studies tell you how HAPPY people are in their marriages, which is the most important thing. Next we may have a wave of same sex divorces which may change this analysis in ways I can't predict.
The government has a good reason to favor certain lifestyles. Up until the last century, it was a lifestyle that had one person at home, raising the kids, and the other one out making money for them. And those were the same people who caused the children to come into existence.
The government doesn't give a shit if you love your partner, they just want to make sure that those who can breed are encouraged to control their spawn and provide for them.
The divorce rate and the whole "who can get married" debate is everyone missing the point about why you get married and why the government even gets involved. It's about the government providing convenience and some breaks in return for control.
Not Really. We had around two hundred people at ours. My wife got her dress from a consignment shop and the reception was a luncheon at a large restaurant rather than an all night thing. The wedding party handed out the cake rather than paying the caterer $1.00 a slice to hand them out for us. It was a great way to mingle and the guests seemed to enjoy it.
At some of my friends's weddings, the bride paid more for her dress than we paid for the entire wedding.
The two statements about the more expensive the wedding the greater the chance of divorce and that the larger the ceremony you have the less likely you are to end up divorced seem mutually exclusive to me.
How expensive? Many churches offer an essentially free venue to members. $4/ head for a taco man, get over feeling like you need to get everyone drunk, and all you have left are fixed costs. Our 225-person wedding set us and some family members back in the neighborhood of $8-9k. And we splurged on some things, in our opinion. $4k is not unreasonable.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Try the bible. It predates xianity.
You're really funny. You need proof that marriage predates Xianity when Xianity itself is just a fork of something else much older.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This all sounds about as legit as making a list of your 'perfect mate' or using a numerical rating system for the opposite sex. It also smacks very much of someone's personal agenda for society.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
from an us point of view that could be the only benefit but, European here - thanks to marriage your partner can also get: - a fraction of your pension in case of death - a fraction of your inheritance despite your testament - she/he can stay near your bed in hospital in case of severe injuries - she/he can decide/firm for some cures/treatments instead of your parents i have been living with my girlfriend/spouse these last ten years or so, she knows what i think about death, euthanasia and so on. i trust, in case of incidents she will be able to put the right decision, the one i most believe in. i know my parents, i know we have opposite idea about euthanasia and frankly, in case something happened to me i really doubt that they would respect my idea and that they would go with their. so yeah, marriage is only a piece of paper but one that has a big importance.
Why would you want a venue for 20 people that could've held 200? Also, if the reception is small, you can have it in a private home, vs. needing a venue at all.
Talk about stupid.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
According to my wife, its no poles in the right half plane.
No matter how much I beg.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's a correlation first of all and it merely indicates that given those factors, some event is more likely, not guaranteed. Having a small reception or not going to church doesn't cause divorce, it's merely likely that those things are indicative of other factors that have more of a causal relationship with whether or not people are likely to divorce. For example, one could speculate that the reason church attendance is correlated to a lower divorce rate is that people who regularly attend church have access to a social group that will likely help them get through relationship problems and may also exert some peer pressure to avoid getting divorced in favor of trying to solve relationship problems.
In that case it's easy to see why going to church itself doesn't directly change the rates and it's arguable that other types of social groups with similar functions would be as good of a substitute. Similar logic can be applied to the other factors to try and suss out the underlying reasons that affect the divorce rate.
Indeed, tax on inheritance is quite high around here. Writing a will only changes the shares that will be inherited. The tax is still relevant. Unless you were married, then it's tax-free.
Direct line inheritance (direct descendants or ascendants) goes from 5% through to 45% brackets in 10% increments, any non-direct-line will be between 50 and 60% tax. (I'm not saying I support this, IMO when parents already paid tax on their income, whatever's left should go 100% to their kids, just showing how being married can be of use).
being married did not really change anything from the way it was before we got married.
Same thing here. If marriage changes things, something is wrong. At least that's my opinion.
Up until the last century, it was a lifestyle that had one person at home, raising the kids, and the other one out making money for them. And those were the same people who caused the children to come into existence.
That's actually bullshit. The "woman stays home" model may have been an ideal for a long time (though certainly not the entirety of human existence), but that doesn't mean most people could afford it. Aristocrats might do so, but then aristocrats don't really need either partner to work and the wife was more likely to have servants care for house and children to make room for a busy social calendar. Which leaves us with the middle class, which until the 1950s wasn't very large in America. If you marry a doctor or a lawyer, you could stay home (and your egotistical husband probably would rather you didn't threaten to be successful like the big important doctor). Otherwise...well, you found other ways to make a living.
The poor unwashed masses don't have the luxury of consistent income able to support an entire family from just one job. They have always had every possible member of the family working, especially in the past when children older than toddlers were given a lot more freedom with much less supervision. Husband working a construction job, wife working in a textile mill, and if you're really lucky the two could do both at the same time for years. If you aren't, well then somebody will be home raising chickens or something and probably engaging in a local barter market.
Not every "tradition" actually goes back any farther than your grandparents. Know your history. Not just the "great events" version of history either; know how people lived and the kind of economic opportunities they had. There's a lot more interesting about the 1800s than all the wars. Don't let some 1950s sexist reaction after WW2 overwrite the reality of your ancestors.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
The solution for taxes is PACS which is a form of civil union which have no fidelity requirement and that can be ended at any time without lengthy procedures. Same sex PACS have always been allowed since its creation, in 1999.
Way to completely miss the point. Some people choose the venue NOT because of the size, but because they simply MUST 'have the best'. Or maybe they choose the venue to fulfill a fantasy. For instance, you can get married in Disney World. You can choose all kinds of options, such as having the wedding party arrive in horse-drawn carriages, etc. You can spend many 10's of thousands of dollars before even ONE guest is invited. And when you do invite your first guest, the price does not double.
Apart from the venue there are also things like the wedding dress - do you have any idea on the price range for wedding dresses? Same for things like flowers, photographers, etc.
THAT is what they are talking about, not stupid crap like '20 people cost more that 10 people'.
Anybody who thinks that wedding costs only scale with the number of people is a fool.
Too bad basic literacy isn't part of your religion. The original poster specifically called marriage a "Christian tradition."
It certainly is a Christian tradition, but it is clearly not a exclusively Christian tradition. Just like "Honour your father and mother" is clearly a Christian value, it clearly is not a value that is exclusive to Christianity.
Jan
There are lots of things that can't simply be controlled for. Dating for a while before getting engaged and married is a good idea because you really get to know your would-be spouse (gotta make it through the holidays at least once with your potential future in-laws!) but guys who are focused on their partner's appearance and women who focus on their partner's money are more likely to get divorced? Is that a convoluted way of saying "Don't obsess over things about your partner you can't control?"
The quotes in the summary say that couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to get divorced than couples who get married in ceremonies with 200+ people, but they also say that the more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you are to get divorced. How much do they think a 200+ person wedding costs??
Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it also reminds me of a quite from Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath: "Experts are pretty bad at predictions. But they are great at assessing base rates."
Filing jointly effectively averages our incomes. Lowering my tax bracket nets us more returned money than leaving her's alone.
The odds of winning the lottery may be sixty million to one against, but some people still do win on occasion.
As it's a painting of an Egyptian wedding, yes it does.
Even a number of non-human animals practice marriage, though for obvious reasons that doesn't include a big "wedding". Bald eagles, gibbons, swans, wolves, and most famously turtle doves all form long-lasting, often life-long monogamous relationships. Something about the concept is embedded in our animal instincts to varying degrees.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Agreed. One way to reconcile it would be that a bride that invites lots of guests is more into it the marriage for the approval of her friends. She would see a divorce as a social embarrassment.
1. Know the person you're going to marry and have them know you.
2. Have a reasonably stable life.
3. ?
4. Profit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First off that 30k average for a wedding is based off a survey in a high end bridal magazine. So the people who answered that are exactly the sort who would be in the market to spend 30k on wedding. http://resultzdigital.com/wall...
Second, this church going statistic needs a bit more elaboration. Because atheists and agnostics have the lowest rate of divorce in the U.S. while fundamentalist Christians have the highest. http://www.religioustolerance..... So do they mean to imply that Christians divorce less or is it that lazy Christians divorce more?
Other than that interesting statistics.
This is interesting, as it seems like something that might interest me more than a marriage. What exactly are PACS?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Committed monogamy is not the same as marriage, though.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I've seen it suggested elsewhere that people who delay marriage and live together for a while first get separated as frequently or perhaps more than people who get married quickly. Which is right? Or is it just that the years spent living together are basically a lower stakes version of the first couple of years of marriage, which are when most divorces happen otherwise?
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Duration of dating before marriage would be a good predictor, as would female desire for wealthy spouse (negative) and male desire for pretty spouse (negative), in that duration will allow a couple to get past the "in love" phase to the "love" phase, and looks and wealth fade.
Sunk costs of giant weddings and social pressures account for most of the rest.
The question is, are you happy? What do you define as happy?
My grandparents all got married with an expectation that their spouse was their partner. Marriage used to be more about family and stability than about other stuff.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... and think that generating all these factors will give them a more long-term marriage. People routinely do not understand the difference between correlation and causation, and, more importantly, that causation has a _direction_ that is all-important.
Basically, all the study says is that the more serious you take marriage, the longer it is likely to last. It does not say anything about happiness or achievement of personal goals (unless the number of years is a goal for you).
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The benefit of marriage is that when you want to separate you have to go stand in front of a judge. Because standing in front of a judge and filling out a bunch of paperwork are maybe paying lawyers is a huge pain in the ass, it provides a large incentive to remain partners.
This is a benefit when the continuation of the partnership has positive effects which extend beyond the two people involved. Specifically, then, marriage protects things outside of the partnership. It is a protection for significant assets that are affected when the relationship would otherwise end. The benefit is enjoyed by the married couple insofar as they value the external things protected.
What I'm saying is, marriage is good for the children of married people, because in order for the parents to separate they have to go through an unpleasant experience. Marriage can also be good for the protection of other large assets, perhaps a business or political careers or even something as small as a house. The same disincentive to separation can benefit the two people themselves who might otherwise lose long-term gains in favor of short-term gains.
That's the point of the piece of paper. On the other hand, if what you want is a relationship which is easy to exit, then you shouldn't get married.
He could do that. Or he could try not to get divorced.
Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage
Of course correlation is not causation
*cough*
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I don't understand the proposed connection between marriage and Christianity. Marriage predates Christianity. It would be more correct -- though also wrong -- so say that Christianity is a marriage tradition.
I'd say that an atheist has a belief system that has nothing to do with going to church, but that there may be some sort of comparable action or ritual that might cause a similar effect.
If they maintain that action, they may have a higher chance of staying together. If you separate the religious element from the action of going to church, you still have a regularly scheduled social activity where a number of people are assembled to do some sort of coordinated action. Atheists can certainly have things like that, although it is probably not something as common as going to church.
It also might be that the two studies in question don't correlate well together. There are studies all the time that seem to contradict one another in various details. So... YMMV.
Actually, I thought about it, and you're actually right, and I am somewhat ashamed about that particular statement. Contrary to your belief, I know quite a bit of economic history, but I can totally see why you might think I didn't. That's what happens when my brain gets detached from my fingers.
However, the point is still that you have marriage for a state objective of maintaining order. That is why the state even cares. Those who do not breed do not produce children. Maintaining a stable family unit, whether that be an extended family or a nuclear one, or something different, is useful to a state because it creates order for relatively low cost. Today, we attempt to replace that with programs, but they are not as well developed as order generated by clan or family relationships.
State sponsored marriage is not about love, for the state it is about the exploitation of love to maintain order. And well that it is, because I don't want the state telling me what "love" is. Now that we're expecting the state to legitimize "love", we're walking down a path we might not realize we are going down.
There were several hundred people, and the total cost was likely just a couple thousand.
Well, until the wedding planning team mentioned to the BBQ shop that it was for a wedding, and pork / beef suddenly became scarce resources.
Sadly that doesn't sound too out of place in my family, but replace block party with party at the farm or local VFW.
Why yes my family is a bunch of rednecks but hey we have a good time.
Time to offend someone
Expensive weddings can also mean large bank accounts. Large bank accounts can mean expensive alimony. Expensive alimony can mean no desire to get a divorce. No divorce means long marriage (albeit most likely an unhappy one).
Bark less. Wag more.
Committed monogamy is not the same as marriage, though.
That depends on the jurisdiction. Nine US States, and many countries, recognize common-law marriage without any wedding or ceremony. In America, only Rhode Island recognizes common-law gay marriage.
Statistics tell you everything about everyone and yet nothing about anyone.
It's not "Some Internet dweeb."
Not many people have much regard for the "social sciences" outside of the people who try to specialize in that.
The Poly Sci department got more consistent eye-rolls at my university than any other.
As for rude relatives, well, you can't choose your relatives, but you can choose whether or not to be around them.
I wish real life relationships were actually that simple. My parents have asked rude questions about marriage time tables, whether we would have kids, etc. Stuff that is none of their business and I find the questions quite rude. Sure I could break them off and say I'm never going to see them again but that seems a little extreme for a well intended but impolite inquiry. There are relatives I generally avoid but I'd need a better reason for my parents, in-laws, grand parents or sibling.
What I don't get is why everyone that has kids automatically assumes every other person wants to have them too. They simply cannot imagine that you wouldn't want the burden of raising another human being. I'm sure it's a lovely experience and all but people get really pushy and intrusive about it.
Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Note that even if PACS basically grants you the same rights as marriage regarding taxes, it doesn't do much regarding inheritance. And in France, even if you write a will, children have priority over at least half of your assets (i.e. you can't disinherit them).
You obviously don't know some of the people I know. One of my friends from high school got married when it became legal here and is very much the bull dyke (she is also a great lifting partner and is built like an eastern block power lifter), she ended up marrying the lipstick lesbian. Trust me the gender roles exist in that relationship even if the male role is filled by a female. I realize that this is probably outside of the norm for non hetero relationships but what ever works for you.
On a side note was when I was "informed" that my friend was a lesbian. I gave her a call and wanted to know if she was up for going out for some beers (probably once a month we do this) and was asked "if it would be ok to bring her (long pause) partner along?". So we go out and I meet her future wife to be and am informed that she is gay. I responded that it was pretty obvious even going back 15 year when if first met her in middle school on the shot put team and this wasn't a surprise. The next question I had was have you tried a Pyramid Hefe-Wissen.
Time to offend someone
http://xkcd.com/539/
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Blowjobs. Lots and lots of blowjobs.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
That's a demonstration of how big data analysis may be worthless and misleading. Nowadays we don't talk about neural networks anymore but they mainly produced these kind of idiot results
Second the motion. My wife and I were in the wedding party of a dual wedding - two brothers marrying two sisters - held at a college chapel with the reception being a backyard open house (the mothers were both great cooks), with well over 200 friends, relatives, classmates, and random neighbors. Both couples still married 35+ years later. It's about the sort of people who have a large social circle.
Okay, so it seems to be pretty much only in France, which would explain why I didn't hear about it. It's a shame, as it seems like a convenient way of handling cohabitating couples that are increasingly common here.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Well, until the wedding planning team mentioned to the BBQ shop that it was for a wedding, and pork / beef suddenly became scarce resources.
There was no "wedding planning team", nor was there a "BBQ shop". They just asked some guests to bring grills, and we took turns cooking. I don't remember the menu, but I do remember that they had veggie burgers for those of us that don't eat meat. They also had plenty of watermelons.
it costs more to have a wedding with 100 people than with 25.
Not necessarily; you can throw a party for 100 people without spending $30k. We did it in high school and college many times.
What the study tells me is that people who live within their means are more likely to have a stable marriage. She doesn't need a bigger diamond than her friend, you don't need a more expensive car than your neighbor. If you go deep into debt to have a fancy wedding, nice furniture, and expensive car you are asking for problems.
If you have a lot of people at a wedding where you are not spending a lot of money, those people are there because they care about you. That is a good thing.
If you spend a lot of money on a wedding that does not have a lot of guests, it indicates that appearances are very important to you. That is not a good thing.
Mod parent up!
For what it's worth, my wife and I have been married a bit over 15 years, dated a little over 3 years. We got married right out of college, and were therefore broke as heck. My parents paid for the rehearsal dinner, but the rest came out of our pockets. We spent somewhere around $2400, (not counting rings) with the photos making about a third of that. We had somewhere around 300 people at our wedding, which included a general invitation to everyone at the church we attended at the time. To fill in the rest of the data points, we attend church regularly, didn't live together prior to the wedding, and while I think my wife is hot, she certainly didn't marry me for my money. Oh, and we're still pretty broke.
Redundancy is good And also good.
Unless it is the other half that has unpure motives
New Economic Perspectives
There are also shit load of tax credits and deductions that are not available as married filing separately.
New Economic Perspectives
Does it involve light gray text on a white background?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Filing jointly worked out well for me. I make nearly five times what my wife makes. Without her I would pay significantly more in taxes.
We wrote a contract together in order to place our marriage on an equal footing and replace all the hideous misogyny in common law. It wasn't about contemplating divorce, but about making the marriage itself a fairer one. (Neither of us owned any property we wanted to shield.)
I piss off bigots.
Eloped, no spending on wedding, no wedding guests, no church and several other 'problems' but 25+ years and going strong.
He does have some things right and it is always interesting to read things like this but important to understand the difference between correlations and causation as well as how variable reality is.
What is most important is we share values and goals. We have a shared dream and both work hard to walk that path, together.
My last five years of taxes and my account would strongly disagree with you. If you both work and make good money, you will pay more in taxes after you get married. Without changing our deductions, my wife and I owed $7k the first year we were married, after both getting regular refunds (filing singly) for years beforehand.
Necron69
uh oh. I got married on the beach for $500 with 4 guests and didn't tell any relatives, so that my girlfriend could get on my visa. And we're atheists.
OTOH 2 of the guests were our children, we'd been together for 10 years and we earn more than 125k. And we did go on honeymoon, but we took the kids, so does that count? 39% + 51% + 41% x 12.5 x 2 = ?? Will we get divorced?
Perhaps surprisingly, the "one parent at home" is fairly a recent invention, since the one parent left home to go work in a factory. For many centuries prior to that, most people worked close to home or at home, and typically the whole family was involved, whether it was agriculture or a trade. That meant that for example men spent more time with the rest of the family in "traditional" setups than many of them do now :)
An objective of maintaining order is not bad. It's also not necessary to be some evil subjugation of our right to define "love" however we please. Government just chooses to recognize and encourage an institution which existed otherwise. You'll notice that the United States state and federal governments have been slowly legalizing one type of marriage over the loud objections of some of the population, primarily because the the government does not define marriage in terms of what kinds of love are legitimate or not. Government makes the exact same argument that you do, that it's not their responsibility to tell you what "love" is. It's only the proto-fascist religious zealots who think it is.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
In name (and ritual) only.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Christianity didn't even handle marriage until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Before that, marriage was tied to the state.
But, but, but... the sanctity! Your rhetoric is dangerous because... um... gays!
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Honestly, where do they find these numbers? I don't now a single couple who spent more than $10,000 on their wedding, and I'm a musician who performs at weddings. Most people in this country earn less than $60k/year. I can't imagine "The average" being more than half what the average household income is. If that's really true, then we deserve economic collapse. My own wedding: about $5,000 split evenly between the bride's & groom's families - and that was at a big church, out of state, with a big cake, big gown, 6 rented kilts for groom's men, 200+ guests, and Disney honeymoon. People are ridiculous.
You have to get married before you get divorced. There are couples who live together without getting married. (Or have a stable partnership without living together, etc.) It would be interesting to see how the rate of such couples splitting up compares, with respect to all these factors, given how many of these factors would be correlated with the choice re marriage or just non-married relationships.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I'd say it's patience, patience and patience because men and women have different/distinct priorities in life.
Casteism
An idea I've been rattling around in my head recently is that marriage may have actually been about clan building. Think about it: the oldest traditions of marriage involve the wife going off to be with the husband, at a time when families otherwise tended to stick pretty close together. There were many arranged marriages often made for strategic reasons, even among the common people in smaller tribes. The husband even had to pay the wife's family a dowry - presumably because they were essentially buying a young, healthy worker away from her family. On top of that, polygamy was also very common. What's the overall result? Birthing HUGE numbers of children all definitely belonging to the same tribe (at least the boys), despite high mortality rates for childbirth. Since the wives go off to be with the husband's family, they aren't striking out on their own or finding any kind of balance; they just are part of this large, loyal hierarchy that ultimately can accomplish more together. And according to the book of Genesis in the bible, this was God's plan to raise up the nation of Israel. Even if you don't believe the story, the people of the resulting ancient nation must have thought it plausible and believed it; otherwise it would not still be held up as part of the foundational story of three major religions.
Of course there's no use for clan building now. We have enough people and enough newer and fairer ways of organizing people. But this kind of marriage tradition could bootstrap a nation in a time when there was no such thing as national loyalty.
P.S.: According to tradition, the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, Israel's brother that Abraham conceived with a slave woman because he doubted God's word that he would conceive with his wife. Ishmael and his mother were then cast out into the wilderness because Israel's mother was jealous. Just a little wrinkle in Arab-Israeli relations of which most of them are probably aware but most Americans, even alleged Christians, probably aren't.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
I know a couple where the husband wanted to write a software system but could not get the go-ahead from his employer to do it. He then used his honeymoon leave to write the system (sending his wife on honeymoon), wrote the system, resigned and sold the system to his ex employer. They are happily married (20 odd years later).I know a couple where the husband wanted to write a software system but could not get the go-ahead from his employer to do it. He then used his honeymoon leave to write the system (sending his wife on honeymoon), wrote the system, resigned and sold the system to his ex employer. They are happily married (20 odd years later).
I disagree. I think a 54 year marriage is a success even if it ends in divorce. People change over time. After 54 years, both people have changed considerably and it's entirely possible to mutually agree that you're no longer married to the person you want to be.
However, people don't normally change all that much after only two years. So if you get divorced that quickly, then you probably lose.
I don't have to kill the cow to get the milk.
[John]
Shit better not happen!