I Thought of Another Way to Help Stop Divorces

[Wildest Bill]

Ok, I know my last idea about waiting 6 months to get married was met with some opposition(ok with alot of opposition) but I think this idea has some merit. So here it goes.

So my plan is that before you can get a license you have to take a marriage couseling class. Now before y'all start slamming me hear me out. When you get a drivers license you have to take a class so hopefully you know enough to avoid a wreck. And we all know what a "wreck" a divorce can make out of you and your kids. So I think that analogy applies.

This is totally not all my idea but think about it. This is some of what I learned from this dude. And it makes sense. When you are dating the other person really doesn't get to know the "real" you because you are on your best behavior. Well, you and I know after you get married those things you held back on from doing while you were dating go out the window. You know like picking your teeth with a piece of paper, picking your nose, or farting real loud at your inlaws table at Thanksgiving dinner just for fun , you know silly things like that. (On a side note this might a fun thread on its own "What things does your spouse do after you got married that he/she didn't do before")

But what about the more important things. Things that can really cause a divorce like differences of opinion on spending habits, credit, when to start havings kids, who is going to be in charge of the money, where to live, and how about even where are going to spend the holidays with her folks or yours. These are the things that should be brought out before the marriage commences and discussed with a proffesional before you walk down the aisle to see if they are going to cause problems down the road.

Now your next argument is probably going to be about the cost of the class. You're right there would be a cost for that. But think about the cost of divorce I can guarantee that it will be massively higher than the cost of this class. Heck spend a little less on the wedding(we all know you can cut some waste there) or a little less on the ring because if the marriage does work out you can buy her a bigger rock later.

I know ya'll are going to hate this idea because ya'll hate all my ideas but seriously doesn't any of this make sense and would it help reduce divorce.

[Esprix]

Works for me. Every church I know of strongly encourages if not requires you to take some private sessions with the minister before he/she will perform the ceremony, but that doesn't cover courthouse quickie marriages.

It'd never pass the legislature, though.

Esprix

[Lucky]

Well Bill, I'll get the ball rolling and be the first one to say I hate your idea. I hate it because I am not an idiot. I knew all of the things you mentioned before I got married and I suspect most reasonable people do. It would be an insult to my intellegence and a total waste of my time to attend a class in the bleedin' obvious.

The absolute last thing I need/want is the government playing councelor in my life.

[zev_steinhardt]

It's an interesting idea Wildest Bill, but it won't work. Why, you ask?

Let's start with this: What are you going to teach in your class?

How to get along with your wife/husband? If they don't know how to get along with someone by the time they are of marriageable age, I don't see how a class is going to help.

How to budget money? Sure, sounds like a good idea. But why limit it to marriage. Everyone should know how to budget. Maybe add it to the high school curriculum, but a marriage course???

Courtesy and graces (such as not farting in front of your in-laws)?? See above under "how to get along..."

Having kids? These things should be discussed before you get married. But I'm willing to bet that just as many marital spats start up when one of the partners changes their mind later in the marriage. A class beforehand wouldn't solve this problem.

And, of course, unlike driving (which you compare marriage to, with respect to taking classes), you can't use a "one size fits all" approach. Most people can (and should) be taught to drive the same way. With marriage, however, you can't ask me to relate to my wife the same way that Sam Blowhard relates to his, or the same way that Jim Meekperson relates to his. Our wives (and we ourselves) are all different people and what would work for one would not necessarily work the others.

So, in conclusion, this is a bad idea.

Zev Steinhardt

[Wildest Bill]

Esprix,

(picking myself back off the floor) When I saw your name on the reply to post column I said to myself oh boy what is he going to say on this one. Then I read it and all I have to say is WOW! That's it. Just WOW!

But then I thought maybe you were being nice because you saw how generous I was going to be on your on fee as an expert witness on how crappy the school system did teaching me proper grammer case against them and still letting me graduate.

[Beadalin]

A lot of churches require that couples have some pre-marital counseling before the wedding. I was just married in September, and the church we went with (not either of our faiths) asked that we have at least two sessions with a minister. Some good friends of mine were required to go on a weekend retreat for the same purpose.

My friends and my fiance & I were a little skeptical and intimidated by this, thinking it would either be invasive or a chance for the churches to try to recruit us, so-to-speak. I know this is a pretty limited sample to speak from, but it was a good experience for everyone. Rather than being overtly religious, the sessions were a chance to make sure that you'd both talked about the issues that can lead to divorce if they're not handled well: money, children, spirituality (particularly if it's an inter-faith marriage), stuff like that. We ended up really enjoying them, and we only paid a nominal fee ($50 in our case, which was pocket change compared to the rest of the wedding costs).

Anyway I think as long as the cost was minimal, it would be cool for all churches or justices of the peace to offer similar sessions. I think they do help the tough issues easier to talk about, and get both people aware of patterns in their own behavior that they might not have seen before.

So can they help? Sure, I think so. I don't know that it will lower divorce rates. Marriages are tremendously complex things, and I can't imagine that discussions which merely scratch the surface of big issues between two people will make a difference in the long run if both people aren't willing to work on them. But it gives them a launching point, if nothing else.

[Freyr]

WB, while I applaud your efforts, is this really necessary? Back at the other thread, there were never any accurate figures given for divorce rates. Are they going up? Down? Steady?

And why are people getting divorced? Incompatiblity? Other spouse is an ax murder/serial killer or something worse? Or did the people simply fall out of love?

Before you start suggesting solutions to a problem, make sure there's a problem.

I do agree that classes, either at the end of high school or thru a local religious institution, would be a good thing for prospective newlyweds.

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by Freyr

[b]WB, while I applaud your efforts, is this really necessary?

Thanks. Back at the other thread, there were never any accurate figures given for divorce rates. Are they going up? Down? Steady?

And why are people getting divorced? Incompatiblity? Other spouse is an ax murder/serial killer or something worse? Or did the people simply fall out of love?

Before you start suggesting solutions to a problem, make sure there's a problem.

If there are any divorces, than yes I would say it is a problem. Especially when there are children involved.

I do agree that classes, either at the end of high school

This answer goes to you a Zev. Are ya'll talking about the same high school that were intrusted into teaching me proper English...HA!

or thru a local religious institution, would be a good thing for prospective newlyweds.

This idea is better.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
This answer goes to you a Zev. Are ya'll talking about the same high school that were intrusted into teaching me proper English...HA!

The fact that you did not learn proper English is not your school's fault, but your own.

Besides, if a person is incapable of learning basic English or math in high school, what makes you think that a mandatory class is going to teach them anything useful about marriage?

Zev Steinhardt

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
If there are any divorces, than yes I would say it is a problem. Especially when there are children involved.

You actually want the divorce rate to be zero?

Freyr:

or thru a local religious institution, would be a good thing for prospective newlyweds.

Um, you know, some people don't get married in a church at all, or get religion involved in their marriage in any way, so we can nix that idea immediately. It would be a clear church/state violation to require people to do this.

Frankly, I don't believe the government has any business granting "marriage licenses" anyway. Here's how our marriage license application went:

"Are you both 18 or older?"
"Yes."
"More closely related than first cousins?"
"No."
"Either currently married to anyone else?"
"No."
"Here you go."

Yeah, that's real productive. I honestly don't feel that free adult citizens should require the permission or approval of the local magistrate to commit their lives to one another.

[Kimstu]

I think Wildest Bill's plea for more premarital counseling is a good one. More and more religious organizations are recognizing the value of some kind of premarital counseling, and even requiring it before a clergyperson will agree to officiate at a wedding.

However, I'm not sure that I agree that premarital counseling should be legally required. The analogy with cars is not quite on-target, IMO: that is, the operation of a car requires a very specific set of skills and knowledge that can be easily taught. It's so obvious that trained drivers on the whole are safer than untrained drivers that it makes sense to require driver's ed before issuing a driver's license.

However, marriage is a very different kettle of fish, as other posters have pointed out. There's no simple universal set of skills for being married, and there's no simple universal way to counsel people about it. (What about second marriages, for instance? Do the widowed get an exemption on the grounds that they've already been through counseling? Do the divorced have to get extra counseling on the grounds that it didn't work the first time?) I think private organizations that conduct or sponsor or encourage marriages should emphasize the importance of pre-marital counseling, but I don't think the government will really do any good by saying that you can't get married without it.

It's like your wait-six-months-before-marrying idea in that respect: a good general principle, but likely to be counter-productive and even discriminatory if legally mandated for everybody.

[DavisMcDavis]

For a Republican, you certainly would like to expand the powers of the government.

Although, as always, your heart seems to be in the right place, I think ideally the couple should take the class of their own free will, don't you? Maybe, as a wedding present, it could become traditional to "give" the class to the bride and groom as a gift. But I absolutely do not think this is at all something the government should become involved in, whatesoever. There are plently of "Making Love Work" books out there - if the newlyweds want one, go buy it.

For another idea of how to fix marriages, read my sig.

[Engineer Don]

My wife and I were required to go through a weekend class before we could get married at a certain church. The class was a big eye-opener in a lot of ways. The main thing I learned is that the world is full of very foolish people, and classes don't help foolish people who don't see a value in what is being taught.

Basically, two councilor couples got up and talked about an issue such as do you want children, how will you handle finances, how will you share work around the home. Then we got with our spouse to be and talked about it. Then we came back into the group and if anyone had issues they would use the councilors and the group to hash it out. I could not believe that at least half the couples had never discussed a whole lot of this stuff. I could also not believe the councilors ideas of resolutions, and that the couples believe problems were solved just because they stopped talking about it. Yes, they know they have a problem now, but the problem is fundamental in that it is what they want in life, and that usually means you need to pick a different partner. If two people are going in opposite dirrections they don't carpool, and knowing that they are going in two different directions doesn't make it any better.

I do think the classes are good for some, but fools are fools, and fools who attends classes are still fools. Before you try to get support for this idea, find the best possible class in your opinion, and see if it's grads divorce rate is any different than that of the general population. Based on my experience, I would have to say it makes no difference, but if the statistics show anything different, I would be willing to entertain the idea.

[Badtz Maru]

I recently got married by a judge (in the same criminal justice center I have been incarcerated in twice) and we got a long speech on the sanctity to marriage, and a fairly long set of vows we had to be walked through. I was kinda surprised that it was a fairly religious feeling ceremony, with Jesus mentioned more than once. That last part was kinda funny, the judge probably didn't notice that I had a Jewish last name (I'm not religious, though, and my family is sorta-kinda Methodist).

[wring]

Bill
well, gee whiz. What you seem to be suggesting is that it would be a really good idea for people to think things all the way through before they get married. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

You also seem to want the goal to be "have fewer divorces", and to achieve that, try and figure out before hand who shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. That's where you'll get into trouble. NOBODY, who's embarking on getting married really wants to believe that their marriage will end in divorce.

My ex and I went through an extensive pre marriage counseling thing. we were divorced 5 years later. He then married wife #3 (I was #2). went through an even more extensive pre marital counseling. THEY were divorced in 3 years. He then married wife #4. THEY went through even more premarital counseling. He's still married to her (breaking land/speed records), now 6 years later.

Now, I know my little anectdotal story won't proove any dynamics in general, except to point out that hindsight is grand, and works pretty much every time.

[andros]

For another idea of how to fix marriages, read my sig.

So do we have to go searching for it, Davis?

[Billdo]

I recently was the best man in a wedding in Utah, and the groom asked me to look up the law on what was required for a marriage license. I found an interesting set of provisions that sometimes require what Wildest Bill is suggesting.

In Utah, state policy is that all persons getting married who are either under 19 years of age or have pbeen previously divorced should get marital counselling. Counties set up Premarital Counselling Boards which are responsible for creating a Master Plan for Counselling in the county. The county can charge no more than $10 for counselling in addition to the usual marriage license fees.

The law provides:

30-1-33. Conformity to master plan for counseling as prerequisite to marriage license -- Exceptions. Whenever the board of commissioners of a county has adopted a master plan for premarital counseling no resident of the county may obtain a marriage license without conforming to the plan, except that:
(1) Any person who applies for a marriage license shall have the right to secure the license and to marry notwithstanding their failure to conform to the required premarital counseling or their failure to obtain a certificate of authorization from the premarital counseling board if they wait six months from the date of application for issuance of the license.
(2) This act shall not apply to any application for a marriage license where both parties are at least 19 years of age and neither has been previously divorced.
(3) This act shall not apply to any application for a marriage license unless both applicants have physically resided in the state of Utah for 60 days immediately preceding their application.
(4) Premarital counseling required by this act shall be deemed fulfilled if the applicants present a certificate verified by a clergyman that the applicants have completed a course of premarital counseling approved by his church and given by or under the supervision of the clergyman.

In essence, if you live in Utah, if you have been divorced (or are 18 or under) and want to marry, you must either apply for the license more than six months before it is issued, or get marriage counselling either from the county board or a clergy member.

I think that this scheme has some serious Constitutional problems, and I do not know whether it has ever been tested in the courts, but it is out there. (By the way, it was the first marriage for my friend and his wife -- and they were both over 18 -- so the requirement did not apply to them.)

[Wildest Bill]

Seems like those mormons like both of my ideas. (On second thought I don't know if theirs is such a great endorsment oh well I'll take whatever I can get.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill

So my plan is that before you can get a license you have to take a marriage couseling class. Now before y'all start slamming me hear me out. When you get a drivers license you have to take a class so hopefully you know enough to avoid a wreck. And we all know what a "wreck" a divorce can make out of you and your kids. So I think that analogy applies.

Great idea. And you shouldn't be allowed to have a boyfriend or girlfriend without getting a learners permit. I don't think I need the government giving me lessons on how to have a successful marriage.

When you are dating the other person really doesn't get to know the "real" you because you are on your best behavior. Well, you and I know after you get married those things you held back on from doing while you were dating go out the window.

If you didn't get to know the real person then you haven't been dating long enough. And I don't know about you but after a while I'm no longer on my "best" behavior. Especially if you end up seeing one another in the morning.

These are the things that should be brought out before the marriage commences and discussed with a proffesional before you walk down the aisle to see if they are going to cause problems down the road.

I don't need or want to discuss this with "professionals" before marriage. My life is my own and the government doesn't need to help me.

Marc

[DavisMcDavis]

Originally posted by andros

So do we have to go searching for it, Davis?

This is designated the embarassment smilie, but I assure you my cheeks are far redder.

(when I first saw it I thought it was a yawn)

[andros]

Seems like those mormons like both of my ideas. (On second thought I don't know if theirs is such a great endorsment oh well I'll take whatever I can get.

I'm sure that insults are unnecessary, Bill.

[Guinastasia]

YOu know what?
Forget pre-marriage classes-how about pre-PARENTAL classes.
I mean, you need a license to fish, but any moron can have kids!
Now THAT's a scary thought.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
YOu know what?
Forget pre-marriage classes-how about pre-PARENTAL classes.
I mean, you need a license to fish, but any moron can have kids!
Now THAT's a scary thought.

Gee, any moron can respirate, eliminate waste, and take in nourishment, too. Any other natural biological functions you would like the state's permission for?

[Wildest Bill]

Andros, I was just kidding around. I take it back. OK?

And you haven't gave me a response yet. What do you think?

[Dangerosa]

Two points:

My first marriage was in a Catholic church and we had to go through 40 hours of premarital counseling....that didn't stop my first husband from deciding to start dating again after 15 months of marriage. My second marriage has been going strong for 5 years. No classes, wedding was six minutes long in front of a JP (who never mentioned Jesus or God). Classes do not help when the wedding train is coming through - almost nothing stops the wedding train.

Second - as someone who experience three years of infertility....not any idiot can have children. I understand what you mean, but 10% of us have trouble doing it, and it doesn't seem to be linked to IQ at all.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by pldennison

Gee, any moron can respirate, eliminate waste, and take in nourishment, too. Any other natural biological functions you would like the state's permission for?

Obviously, you missed my point.

Having a child is NOT the same as deciding to get married. Having and raising a child is a RESPONSIBILITY. No, I didn't say I wanted to get the state's permission. However, I've seen so many shitty parents to make me rethink that position.
Think about it: what if Charles Manson had decided he wanted to have a child? Do you think he should be responsible for taking care of another human being?


(BTW, the original post was tongue in cheek...)


Oh, and I didn't mean to say it like that. What I MEANT was, there is absolutely no way to decide if someone is fit to raise a child. Any idiot can have kids means that any idiot can just raise a child without anyone else worrying about the consequences.
Sheesh!

[Spider Woman]

If the divorce rate is truly on the rise, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, and I don't know if the classes would actually stop that anyway. Those types of classes have been in place for at least twenty years in churches around this area, and I don't think it had much effect on the divorce rate one way or another. Most of the people I talked to just considered those classes to be another hoop to jump through, and I never heard of anyone deciding NOT to marry after taking the classes.

I like the idea of less stigma being attached to leaving an abusive or cold marriage, and the marriages in the last century that stayed together for the sake of the children may have passed on questionable moral values to those children (cheating on your spouse is okay if it is done discreetly, sceaming and yelling, or distant silence, is a valid way to communicate; just some possible examples).

What I would like to see made available through various channels (churches, continuing education classes, seminars ?) is divorce counseling for the entire family: the divorcing parents and the children, to explain things to the kids in a neutral setting with a counselor type person mediating, and dos and don'ts to make life less miserable for everyone. But that may not happen either, because if people were able to rationally discuss things, maybe they wouldn't have gotten divorced in the first place.

[Wildest Bill]

Hey spider woman,

I have done that before too. I have answered my own question to. Weird huh.

Exp. Self: Hey what is my favorite color?
Self: Blue

Self: What is the favorite food?
Self: Lasangna no lobster no steak
Self: You are pathetic sucker you can't even answer your question that you should know.

Man, why did I just type all that I must being tired TGIF!

[barker]

Wildest Bill
As to your last post, I don't get your point.

As to the OP, I believe pre-marital counseling is a great idea. If the couple involved feels they need it. My wife and I have been involved in a number of Pre-Cana sessions and I think it really helps alot of the young couples sort some things out. You could certainly tell which couples wanted to be there and which ones were there because it was required to be married in the church (those would be interesting followup statistics).

Through my experience I have found that those couples that have remained active in the community (be it church, town, social organizations) are the ones that have thrived.

You want to reduce the divorce rate? I think some of the following ideas may help:
Increase coverage of therapy and mental health counseling in insurance plans. I have witnessed so many of the people I work with fall into despair just because they feel they have no place to turn and no one to talk to. We instituted an Employee Assistance Program over two years ago that has helped. However the maximum sessions are set at four and often that isn't enough. A step in th right direction but we need to go further.

Quality and affordable day care. Face it, money and children are where much of the communication in mariage breaks down. Many families need two incomes, but the stress that the lack of quality day care options cause is huge.

I was fortunate to celebrate my 15th anniversery with my wife last month. She is the most forgiving and understanding person I know. I don't know the pain that many of you have felt. I do believe that reducing some of the stress couples feel, providing outlets to discuss frustrations and having supportive people around you helps keep things together. (And no, I don't believe that every marriage should stay together.)

I don't know how you pay for this or how you implement it. The best focus for us is to stay involved with many of our younger friends and co-workers and be available as a point of support if needed.

[tracer]

pldennison wrote:

I honestly don't feel that free adult citizens should require the permission or approval of the local magistrate to commit their lives to one another.

They don't.

You don't need to get married to commit to each other.

[Freyr]

WB wrote:

If there are any divorces, than yes I would say it is a problem. Especially when there are children involved.

*boggle* Okay. I want to hear the logic behind this. Why are you so adamant about people getting a divorce? We've been shown that the 50% divorce rate is a bogus figure. You've still not shown that divorce is a problem in this country. You've asserted a hypothesis, can you back it up with some facts or statistics that show it or at least point in that direction? Is there really a problem with too many divorces or is this simply a personal axe you have to grind. Is this really any of your business?

pldennison wrote:

Um, you know, some people don't get married in a church at all, or get religion involved in their marriage in any way, so we can nix that idea immediately. It would be a clear church/state violation to require people to do this.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I'd not like to see this codified into law, but simply be a practice that encouraged. For an example, martital counselling before the ceremony in religious institution, but there'd be nothing to stop a couple from appearing before a magistrate or J/P and getting a civil union.

If it were done at the high school level, it'd be part of a set of courses on basic living techniques, suggestions for living with someone along with stuff like check-book balancing, basic car repair and how to cook a meal. That sort of thing.

[Madison]

Call me crazy, but most people that I know have been married in the Catholic church. from what I understand, they engaged couple needs to take classes offered by the church before they can get married.

Yes I know there are those out there of another faith, and it would be interesting to hear if their faith had the same requirements.

[Satan]

I will use an admittedly unrealistic analogy to make a point here.

Say our society was possibly facing a dilemma because people were not wiping their asses after they shat. Imagine something that isn't too laughable here - Maybe a health hazard or something.

I italicized possible above because there is even a debate that this really is that huge of a problem.

In this case, were it to come to fore, I would reject any and all attempts of the government to wipe my ass for me.

Encourage people to wipe their own asses? Sure! Offer help to those who want assistance with ass-wiping? Why not?

But barge into my bathroom and forcibly wipe my ass when I feel that I am doing a fine job myself? Fuck no.
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, four weeks, 2 hours, 20 minutes and 21 seconds.
7243 cigarettes not smoked, saving $905.49.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes.

[Geek Mecha]

Pre-wedding counseling to ensure compatibility, huh? Sure, I'm all for it. But a one-time counseling session before the wedding is way too little, in my book. Marriages are supposed to last a lifetime, right? I think it'd be far better if you also were required to check back in with your counselor every five years or so after the wedding. (Make it your anniversary plans, even; counseling, dinner, and a play sounds like a nice way to celebrate.) After all, there are probably a ton of issues that pop up only after two people are married. If you restrict the counseling to the time before a couple marries, then those issues will likely never get addressed.

If you think about it, the post-wedding counseling is an even better idea than the pre-wedding counseling. People will change over the course of their lives. There's no way the nature of such changes can be predicted before people wed. Getting counseling every few years, and addressing these changes as they unfold, is the best way to tackle them and get through them with the marriage intact.


*click* Sarcasm's off now.

I admire your efforts in thinking up ways to decrease divorce, Wildest Bill. However, my personal feeling is this: If you have marriages, then you will have divorces. No amount of preparation will guarantee success.

However, there are a billion reasons why people divorce, and I think you'd get the results you want if you addressed these reasons individually. Did this couple divorce because she was cheating on him? Or was it because he was embezzling money from his employer? Whatever the reason is, then take on that reason. Debate whether infidelity or theft is a divorce-worthy infraction, and then either accept or condemn that reason as a valid reason for divorce. Don't just attack divorce. Divorce is the consequence of something, not the crime itself.

[bare]

When you get a drivers license you have to take a class so hopefully you know enough to avoid a wreck.

I'm all in favor.. but most of us had to start with a learner's permit graduating to a daylight only permit and then on to a full bore license. Here where I live we still have to go back every four years and re-qualify/retest.

I made it through three re-qualifications before I finally got wise to it and purposely wrecked.

[lgllady]

The main reason why people get divorced is because they are just tired of being married and bored with the whole thing. Counselling won't help. If the divorce rate is going down it's because fewer people get married anymore. They have never contrasted divorce filings with paternity filings. In my opinion paternity filings are as much on the rise as divorces are on the fall. People stay together for a shorter and shorter period of time. 6 months is now considered a long-term relationship and by then there is usually a kid on the way. Couples break up in about 18 months so there isn't time to decide to marry and plan a marriage.

[evilbeth]

I'm just going to clarify some things first.

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
When you get a drivers license you have to take a class so hopefully you know enough to avoid a wreck.

This is not so. You don't have to take a class before getting your license. In fact, you could skim the book on your own free time, hop in the car and take the test and pass. Many have done it and have never been in wrecks. If there are people who can do that, why should they have to pay to have some one teach them things they already know? This is why legislated premarital classes won't work--not everybody needs them.

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Think about it: what if Charles Manson had decided he wanted to have a child?

Actually, he does have a child. Just fighting ignorance.


Also, Wildest Bill, in order to clear some things up, could you give us a detailed description of the topics you think should be put into this law? I just want to get a better feeling for what kind of things you would like these classes to teach us.

[Guinastasia]

Charles Manson does have a child?
Eek, that's friggin scary!

[Peta Tzunami]

Originally posted by lgllady
1. The main reason why people get divorced is because they are just tired of being married and bored with the whole thing. Counselling won't help.

2. If the divorce rate is going down it's because fewer people get married anymore.

3. They have never contrasted divorce filings with paternity filings.

4. In my opinion paternity filings are as much on the rise as divorces are on the fall.

5. People stay together for a shorter and shorter period of time.

6. 6 months is now considered a long-term relationship and by then there is usually a kid on the way.

7. Couples break up in about 18 months so there isn't time to decide to marry and plan a marriage.

Numbers and breaks added by me

I'd like to see a cite for each of these assertions, please. Thank you.


Wildest Bill: In your last utterly misguided divorce thread, I pointed out to you (and I can get the necessary cites when needed) that the divorce rate is highest and grwoing the fastest among Bible-belt Christians, who are probably the most likely to have attended pre-marital counseling. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench into your premise?

[pldennison]

Mea culpa!!! That last post was from me, not from my wife. Stupid preferences!!

[lee]

When my husband and I were thinking of getting married we met with ministers who wanted to counsel us before they would agree to marry us. It was clear that most dissapproved but if we were willing to reshape our relationship along roles that they were more comfortable with. Those were very stressful times with us. whenever we took their advice, we were unhappy.

Finally wwe decided that we knew best. We ignored the misguided "Christian" marriage guidelines and just went on as we had,before and were happy. We eventually got married by the Justice of the peace. 13 years later, we are still happy and still living on our own terms, not those of any counselor.

[Sweet Sue]

Originally posted by DavisMcDavis
This is designated the embarassment smilie, but I assure you my cheeks are far redder.

(when I first saw it I thought it was a yawn)

_(Odear!)
O
º
₍₎
+
A
"

[Feynn]

Another guaranteed way to stop divorces would be to outlaw marriage altogether...

Lola and I have each been divorced once, I went to pre-marital counselling with my first wife and the marriage lasted four and a half years. Lola was first married for six. Neither marriage was very healthy.

So here we are coming up on five years together without any formal agreement between us.

She says that I am the person she used to talk to in her mind and I recall dreaming of her before I met her.

Some things are meant to be while others are not.

Perhaps someone will come up with an implantable chip for newlyweds that will force them stay true to their vows but until then we will have to go on using the old fashioned trial and error approach. Some will get divorced while others will continue to amaze and inspire us by their lifelong devotion to one another.

Read "Loving Each Other" by Leo Buscaglia, one section is composed of letters from readers explaining how they have continued to have successful marriages. They are touching and often amusing stories of real lives.

[andros]

I'd like to see a cite for each of these assertions, please. Thank you.

Well, Phil, at least number 4 was established as an opinion. I read numbers 1 and 2 to be opinion as well.

Even at my most gracious, though, that leaves three points to cover. It would be four, but number 3:

They have never contrasted divorce filings with paternity filings

is patently false.

[Wildest Bill]

Peta,

That is definetely a monkey wrench I wonder why that is? Christians in the Bible Belt getting more divorces. Anybody know why that is happening?

And freyr,

Yes, you did prove it(divorec)was not in fact 50% with your data. But how accurate is your data is another matter. I don't know how they pool all that information. But in my life experience and people I have known the divorce rate seems to be higher than 50%. As a matter of fact out of all my friends from high school that I still keep in contact with have all been divorced except for me and my wife and one other couple. So there is sample data that conflicts with yours.

My daughter that is 14 has lets say 12 to 13 friends that their parents are divorced and 1 or 2 friends where their parents are still married. That conflicts with your data.

Now I even challenge people on this board for our sample. Do you know more people that have had divorces or more people that have stayed married? This should be interesting?

[Scylla]

Why do you want to stop divorce so badly?

Why do you automatically judge it a bad thing?

What makes you think it is any of the government's business?

[Freyr]

Wildest Bill wrote:

Yes, you did prove it(divorec)was not in fact 50% with your data. But how accurate is your data is another matter. I don't know how they pool all that information. But in my life experience and people I have known the divorce rate seems to be higher than 50%. As a matter of fact out of all my friends from high school that I still keep in contact with have all been divorced except for me and my wife and one other couple. So there is sample data that conflicts with yours.

WB, all I can say for certain is that you and a textbook on statistics have never crossed paths before. What you're spouting is gibberish.

I'm asking you to provide data to support your hypothesis that the divorce rate in this country is too high. So far all you've done is spout off how a lot of people around you have gotten divorced. I'm asking for hard facts, real numbers and you're giving me vague generalities about your acquaintences.

You're sitting in front of a computer, trying using a search engine on any of the multitude of websites and see if you can come up with any real data. If not, you're just blowing hot air and your opinion isn't worth any more than the average Joe-Blow walking down the street.

WB, it's your hypothesis, YOU provide the data.

[SisterCoyote]

Okay, Bill, I'll take your challenge.

Of my closest friends, 5 couples have married in the last 10 years. 1 divorce has occurred.

There are 7 couples in my extended family (including my parents, but neither of my grandparents, one of whom I will mention in a moment). Of those couples, 2 have been divorced - and I don't particularly think one of them could have been avoided, since the man my aunt married was arrested (and convicted) for child molestation. One of my uncles is currently separated from his wife, but they are in counselling to try and resolve their problems.

Now, five of the couples mentioned above (and all of the ones with marital problems) came from my mother's side of the family. Her mother was married and divorced three times. I can't say this created problems for the children, though in this sample the statistics would appear to support that theory. My parents are the exception rather than the rule; they've been married for 30 years and show no signs of anything other than the normal problems any couple suffers.

So while I agree with you that there is probably a correlation between divorced parents and children likely to have relationship problems I disagree that divorce is the problem you're making it out to be.

To recap (since I'm rambling on) - in my (relatively insignificant) personal sample of 12 couples we have:

3 divorces
1 separation

or a 33% divorce rate (roughly).

I'm sure someone better at statistics than I will come along and correct me, but you did ask.

[Wildest Bill]

Originally posted by Freyr:

WB, all I can say for certain is that you and a textbook on statistics have never crossed paths before.

LOL you crack me up freyr.Touche! They did in fact but I had a crappy teacher. But one thing I have learned about stats from my real life applications is that they can have bias attached.

What you're spouting is gibberish.

Is it? There is not any internet police that keeps sites from distorting information is there? Matter of fact, what keeps the gov't from distorting information? They could and I bet they have. Don't you?

What I suggested in my "gibberish" is a random sample you may not like it but I actually got data from two different sources. I want to get data from more people on this board.
I say once again do you(straight dopers)know more people that have got divorced or more people that have stayed married? Simple question.

What about you freyr in your experience. Do you know more that have stayed married or more people that have got divorced. Well?

You're sitting in front of a computer, trying using a search engine on any of the multitude of websites and see if you can come up with any real data. If not, you're just blowing hot air and your opinion isn't worth any more than the average Joe-Blow walking down the street.

There again the information on the internet sites could be distorted. Couldn't it? How do you know the cites that you have were not disorted?

I'm not being a smart ass I am really curious about the validity of info on the internet. I mean I thought that was of the function of this board was to sift throught the BS on the net to get the "staight(not biased or tainted)dope"?

[Esprix]

I'd take information over the 'net any day over your disjointed, incomprehensible ramblings.

Further, one would think that Freyr's cites are from reputable sources - like, say, government statistics.

Oh, no, wait - the government lies. I forgot. Thanks for cluing me in.

If you won't accept any other authority on the matter besides your own life experience, then this conversation just came to a screeching halt.

For the record, more friends of mine have stayed married (or stayed together, in cases where they are not permitted to marry) than gotten divorced. But my "sample data" conflicts with yours - so does that mean I'm right now, since your "sample data" made you right before?

Whatever.

Esprix