I can understand that divorces happen due to incompatibility reasons. But 50% is too high a number for that reason alone.
Also I've heard marriage rates itself in the west are quite low. Never understood the logic behind that.
My wife and I got married after 6 weeks of acquaintance, in order to get visas that would allow us to live in the same country so we could get to know each other better. The deal was, if it didn't work, it didn't work, and we'd go our separate ways.
But once you've made that commitment, and you realize this person is really somebody you like, a lot, and you'd have to research international law to figure out a divorce, then ... well, you learn to work through the most unbelievable and outrageous problems.
We have had very, very bad times. And we've had a lot of pretty damn good times. Every year, we don't get divorced.
There's nothing magical about marriage. There's most definitely nothing magical about love. You can love somebody passionately and that has nothing at all to do with marriage. Confusing these things is why people hurt themselves so often.
You really gotta get that bad stuff out in the open, talk about it, yell about, whatever it takes. Don't be pissed off about something for weeks on end (even more than a day is too long). To keep a marriage strong, both partners have to learn to deal w/ each other's idiosyncrasies and communicate about perceived grievances, annoyances, and so on. Extreme stubbornness, selfishness, all these things are pretty much incompatible with a healthy marriage.
For people with religious convictions, I understand: your god(s) hate you if you have relationships not sanctioned by your religious authorities. I am specifically asking about secular people in the US and Europe, who choose to enter a contract with the government about their personal lives.
Is it taxes? It seems much easier to me to just make more money than to make "till death do us part" work.
For health insurance, domestic partnerships work closely enough. (This is a US-specific problem.)
It seems to me that most marriages occur because the wedding industry has done a phenomenal job of marketing itself. Many girls grow up dreaming about their weddings. Men, assuming that women want this, go along. With predictable results in the divorce rate.
Companionship and love have nothing to do with a piece of paper filed with the local government.
Marriage is just a way that society found to keep both parties more committed into it.
Commitment and accountability to the person how bears your children, or who supports you through medical school or your startup years, has everything to do with a piece of paper filed with the local government.
I cringe whenever it happens but this is one of those things the social right wing seems to be correct on. Marriage should be about giving legal protection to the relationship that best serves the raising of healthy children. How it gets twisted into a debate about equality I have never understood.
We should just abolish the institution altogether.
I don't like marriage, as an institution. I'm married, because I'm quite certain that I want to stay with this person, because of tax benefits and a clearly defined situation for offsprings (from 'parental rights' to banal things like 'last name of the little one').
Without that, I couldn't care less about marriage (yes, my wife knows that pov). I'm not religious, so all the reasons for marriage listed there don't apply. Looking at society I think that - depending on the country/region/culture, I guess - marriage lost its meaning.
You might disagree and think that marriage is still an important concept, but in that case I'd argue that divorce shouldn't be ~that easy~. That doesn't mix in my world. The _only_ value of marriage, subjective of course, is the binding vow to stay with someone, period. Reducing that to "Yeah, 'til death or .. something else" is really nonsense, in absolute terms.
I love my wife, but my signature & vow aren't better than a vow I presented her on a random beach in France, with no witnesses.
Ignoring my impression of the value of marriage: Lots of people around me (and my former self certainly as well) seem to be less tolerant. If it's more and more easy to find a new partner (the original article mentions finding people on craigslist..), why would you invest time and energy in this current relationship, that goes through a hard time? The incentive is lowered: You can find people easily (online, offline), society doesn't really care if you were married before in general (certainly not everywhere, but in the western countries I know that's the case) and getting a divorce is ~easy~ (although, potentially nasty/expensive/etc). Why should you work hard to overcome problems in a relationship where a lot of the initial giddy feeling stuff is gone (substituted with something just as good perhaps, if you're happy. But .. in times of crisis you'll probably forget about that)?
Let's get back to the question, shall we? In a word, in my expectation, the reason for a high rate of divorce is:
Lazyness
Do you feel the same could be said about non-marriage relationships that end? As someone who is married, I see absolutely no difference between getting divorced now and breaking up with a partner before getting married.
But that's kind of my point: What's in a marriage, if not 'stability' or the vow to keep it going? If you agree that this isn't the case anymore for large parts of the world, what's the value or meaning of being married?
Of course non-marriage relationships fail all the time and the very same impatient / lazy outlook on life might be part of the reason. I'm just arguing that marriage was meant to (in culture, religion) be different.
I don't think it needs to have any value or meaning.
What is the meaning in, say, receiving a diploma/degree? I've never once looked back and thought, boy, I'm sure glad I have that piece of paper. The education I received remains with or without it. The recognition means absolutely nothing. It is really just an excuse to celebrate something going on in your life.
- I'm just arguing that marriage was meant to (in culture, religion) be different.
There seems to be two schools on this matter:
1. It was once traditionally illegal for mixed-race couples to be together, and marriage provided a licence from the state to allow those relationships on a case-by-case basis.
2. Alternatively, women were once thought to be the inferior gender and were pressured to bend to the wishes of their husband, and the marriage license made that control legally binding to a single entity.
Neither are socially acceptable anymore, thus any historical usage of marriage has been lost.
You have more important things to be doing right now than hang out on HN. Take care of your baby, take care of your wife, and sleep when you have a moment off from those.
Nexus 7 and HN to the rescue. :)
Divorce is a taboo in India. The blog post says it's taboo to talk about in US as well, but it's totally different from not even considering divorce as an option. People endure bad relationships as divorce isn't something on the table for most. Despite all the development, women still aren't empowered enough. Women who are at the receiving ends of an abusive relationship will have to muster a lot of courage to even think about divorce, and then life after divorce will be difficult for them everywhere except for reverse metropolitan ghettos.
As another commenter pointed out, no good marriage ever ended in a divorce(Louis CK).
Gold diggers(I would guess they constitute a very small %; people who attract gold diggers generally do pre-nups), ugly child custody and alimony battles, and high divorce rates are the price of empowerment. Just like people drawing Barack Obama with ape like features is the price of democracy and freedom.
Actually dowry law is misused quite a lot in our country and is not a small percentage by any means. And is also contributing to loss in faith in the institute of marriage to a large extent.
Then with the rise of feminism, marriage becomes some prison to be escaped with little consequences. Unhappy, divorced parents leads to children disaffected with marriage and the rate falls with each generation.
Compared to when?