... in Canada according to a study based on the 2006 census. Here's the report: http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/10/04/vanier-study004.html

There are some problems with the study - they count everyone 15 and over when the legal age for marriage is 16 (and that's extremely rare - I believe you still require parental consent until 18 but don't quote me on that). What disturbed me the most was the little box at the side:



I can't beleive infidelity is #4 on top reasons for divorce. I suspect a good proportion of divorces due to differing values, abuse (especially emotional) and even alcohol and drugs involve infidelity. In fact I'm pretty sure that "differing values" is code for one spouse thinks it's ok to cheat. Even career-related conflict is probably predominated by infidelity - if one can't screw the boss how is one supposed to get a promotion?

Anyway, I thought I would post it here in case anyone is interested. Some of the comments at the bottom are pretty funny. Some are very sad. But some are encouraging as well.

It depends on who they are asking. I betcha that numerous waywards would not admit that infidelity caused their divorces. They would claim that all of those other things on the list caused their divorce, and that their infidelity was just a side effect of those marital problems.

Frank Pittman, who has counseled with literally thousands of couples over the years, has said that over 95% of all marriages that sought his help and that ended up in divorce have involved infidelity by one or both persons. He also said that in many cases the affair did not become known until after the divorce was final.

In following up with some of these couples he even found some that many years later admitted to an affair. He is so certain that if a couple is having trouble working on their relationship with his help, or the help of others including Dr Harley, that he has begun to simply assume that the resistant spouse is having an active affair.

BTW, the 15 year old number is used by a lot of data gathering organizations. It seems that each year some as young 15 years old do in fact get a divorce. Some married the same year but others have been legally married for a year or longer (with parental consent). The State of Indiana even provides a statistic as it relates to being between the age of 15 and 40 and the probability that you have been divorced at least once.

Not only are marriages in trouble these days, it seems that MARRIAGE itself is in trouble.

Good point ImStaying. The data came from the census, so it would be a decent sample size. However, when they ask why people were divorced, they only have the answers people give to go by and assume it to be the truth. I bet everybody who answered "infidelity" was a BS. My WXH would have answered "different values and interests" or something equally benign. Waywards are liars by definition, and half of every divorce due to adultery has a wayward. The article doesn't give the numbers, but I bet if you doubled the infidelity responses to account for the lying WS's, it would more correctly reflect the truth.

Mark, marriage as we know it is definitely in trouble. I doubt it will disappear completely but I can see it becoming something associated with various religous practices, similar to baptism or first communion that are highly significant to the church members but meaningless to anyone outside the church. Legally, marriage has already lost its meaning.

Of course. No WS is going to admit that their cheating caused the destruction of the marriage. The cheating is always just a "symptom".

Even Tiger Woods's divorce stated the ever-popular "Irreconcilable Differences", which is virtually always code for "One of us was cheating and we just couldn't come to an agreement about that."

I read an article in a British newspaper today that argued that fewer people getting married is a GOOD thing for marriage. It means that those who do marry are doing so for the right reasons.

This is in response to the Labour Party's election of a leader who lives with, but is not married to, the mother of his child. This carries hardly any stigma today, and this situation has hardly been commented on in the media.

The argument is that people do not get married because of social pressure, or to have sex, or because the woman is pregnant, or to leave home, or for any of the bogus reasons that they did 40 years and more ago.

Today, they might have a child, but if, like the new Labour leader, they do not marry right away, then if they do it eventually, they do it for love. Thus, the institution of marriage is strengthened by fewer marriages, not weakened. (I wonder if the high divorce rate could be argued to strengthen it too.)

Anyway, what do you think of that argument?

SC,

I think that is like saying that to stop diagnosing people with HIV is good because it reduces the anxiety over HIV.

Part of the problem with marriage today is that people DON'T get married. While getting married because the woman was pregnant or because friends or family were driving the whole process is really a pretty weak argument to make, IMO, I think that couples have always gotten married for those reasons. In days long ago got married simply because their parents told them to marry someone. It wasn't until the free love movement of my generation that "living together" became accepted. Yet at the same time, divorce rates began to sky rocket.

Marriage, for many reasons, has been labeled as unnecessary and therefore disposable. The mantra of about three generations in a row now has been "if it feels good, do it" and commitment is an antiquated notion.

I think the love argument is dangerous and a worthless argument, especially in light of what I know of Dr Harley's Love Bank model and the research I have read regarding the way the brain works in the falling in love stage of a relationship. To say that the criteria for marriage should be love sounds like a worthy idea, yet couples use the exact argument to avoid getting married at all. People who fail to marry but instead live together argue that they live together because they love each other and often only consider marriage when the woman gets pregnant. That alone defeats the notion that living together and then marrying later is the elimination of that concept and has to do with real love. They claim to live together "for love" and marry for the children. Can't have the argument both ways.


Mark

Dont forget to add to the mantra "no matter who it hurts."

Interesting discussion - everyone is raising excellent points.

SugarCane, I somewhat agree that with fewer people getting married, those that do may be marrying for the "right" reasons, though as Mark explained, being "in love" is not necessarly the right reason. The right reasons may have more to do with values and religious beliefs - which is not to say marriage should be a cold, arranged institution or anything but that it should have some tie-in with your personal beliefs. At least if it does, there is more glue to hold it together "until death do us part."

There are many reasons why people chose to live common law rather than marry - everything from pure laziness to personal opposition to the institution of marriage and all that falls between. Some live together just to save money and/or screw the government out of taxes which, as callous as it may sound still beats marrying someone for the same reasons.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know my own view on marriage has been badly tainted by my experiences, and I'm not just talking about the affair because people who are not your spouses can still cheat on you. What grinds at me is that despite the necessity for both parties to agree to enter a marital contract, it only takes one to break it. There is no pentalty whatsoever for the one who does and the thoughts, feelings and opinion of the other are completely disregarded. There is nothing to protect a BS - not legally, emotionally or in any other aspect. The actually contract - the marriage certificate that you sign with witnesses etc., has absolutely no value whatsoever, save whatever sentiment it holds to you personally. With all that being the case, why would I enter into such a contract? That's like signing up for a credit card, but they can double charge me any time they want and I just have to pay. Or signing up for snow removal, paying for it and it never happens. It's a fraud, but it's a legal fraud.

In my ideal universe, marriage means what I thought it did when I first married; what it means to most people on this board - a lifetime commitment to your spouse - for better and for worse, and all the other vows. I so want to have that but it doesn't exist in the real world so it's better that I do without.

Maybe that's why I love this board because there are others here who hope for the same ideal universe.

I think many refuse to marry out of the misguided notion that it's more romantic to live together out of "love", instead of being "forced" to live together if married. Which makes no sense, of course, but there it is.

I have heard many, many people say that they don't want to marry their partner because they think it will be easier to get out of the relationship if it doesn't work out. What a joke - if somebody walks out, the emotional devastation is just as bad whether there is a legal marriage or not. (Where do people get the idea that it feels any different??)


Exactly! And how terribly ignorant, or just plain stupid, to think it won't hurt as much if you're not married.


Depends on what you call "penalty" - some would call alimony and/or child support "penalties".


Completely agree with you there. The BS should be able to sue for Emotional Suffering and Distress the same way they can sue for alimony or child support.


well, I wouldn't say that - if I had not been legally married to XWH, my son and I would be living out of our car right now and the boy would have no legal standing as his father's son.

There is still far more than sentiment involved with the marriage certificate. That's the same argument that people use when they refuse to marry their partners - that the marriage license is "just a piece of paper". I can tell you from experience that it's anything but.

OMG, I so wish I could sue WH for emotional distress....I attempted suicide and was put in the psych ward for 7 days, then outpatient for a month, then the psychiatrist and psycologist for life....I mean if that is not emotional distress I dont know what is...

Mulan I totally agree that some people have really warped reasons for choosing to live common law rather than marry. But others also have valid reasons. My cousin's common law partner refused to marry him because she is opposed to some of the history of marriage, where marriage was used to advance family positions (among the very rich) and where brides were treated like traded goods (she's a historian). In any event, she didn't want to be part of that so they never married but they did raise 2 beautiful children and the youngest will be attending college next year. That's just an example - there are others and I can respect those (at least more than the getting-out-easier excuse).

As for legal standing for yourself and your son, here in Canada there is no difference whatsoever whether you were a common-law family or married. An ex-commonlaw spouse has the same child-care obligations as an ex-married spouse. We have spousal support here but it is extremely difficult to get it - even SAHM's who've been done nothing but raise kids for 20 years often don't get it. Married vs. common-law has nothing to do with it. Even your house and assets are divided in the exact same way whether you are common law or married.

I have a friend that has a house and two kids with her BF...He works and she collects welfare and food stamps....So I am sure the screwing the govt is a big part like you said TAB.

Married couples get the least amount of help from the govt...Well actually we get NO help.

And to speak to the flip side of all this - as soon as kids are involved, it doesn't matter whether you are married, common-law, dating or had a one-night stand. Your lives are forever entangled, whether you live together or apart, or whether you can stand each other or not. Child support laws are pretty clear here and visitation/custody orders and agreements are supported. You may become exes, but you will have to associate with them, negotiate with them, and share tax information with them until the youngest child is fully grown. It kind of defeats the purpose of "breaking up" when you have to spend 20 years dealing with one another. It has become a society where marriage means very little but you better darn well think 2 or 3 dozen times before you have a child with someone. Unfortunately, few people understand the full extent of this.

I had to reiterate this as it is exactly the source of my frustration. And not just government but society as a whole.

And this is why I got a vasectomy after my first wife had an affair and left. I'm not having children with any more people. I simply don't trust society to look out for the best interests of my child given my experience with my first wife. I don't trust government, the church or anyone to do the right thing with respect to children in the case of a wayward spouse.

So I made sure I'd not create any more children.

Just be careful, those vasectomies can reverse over time...

Only 1 out of every 2000 reverse after a zero sperm count. I went back for both of my follow up visits for the sperm counts and was deemed sterile after the second visit.

I think my odds are even better. Since I had only one testicle left to disconnect, I have half the plumbing that could spontaneously grow back

Good point there.