|
|
April 2, 2012 · By Gordon Garnos · 0 Comments
AT ISSUE: New research found that living together before marriage is more common today and doesn’t carry the stigma that it once did. But is that right? Statisticians don’t seem to look at that. But they should.
WHEN I SAW Mike McCurry‘s name commenting on the study by the (fed) Centers on the Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) I knew I was in on some interesting reading. He is a professor at South Dakota State University. He is also a demographic expert. Demography: The study of the vital statistics of human populations. The next time was when I read his report of the study.
But before you get too far in to this, I might ask what in the world could be more boring as demographics? The answer is easy. I know it’s statistics because I had to take a college course in them. So, let’s go on with both demographics and statistics.
I first met Dr. McCurry at a convention in Pierre. His report there on populations in South Dakota so interested me that I knew right then when I see his name in print, I’m going to read it.
FOR EXAMPLE: In 2000 there were 6,882 marriages in South Dakota and 2,678 divorces. Then compare those numbers with 5,939 marriages in 2010 in the state and 2,774 divorces.
In 2000 there were fewer people living in the state, but there were more marriages than a decade later. And that 10-years later, found more people living in South Dakota, but fewer marriages and more divorces than a decade earlier. What does all of this mean?
The study revealed that living together before marriage doesn’t play as big a role as it used to. That’s because there appears to be less stigma to it now.
ACCORDING TO McCurry, “It’s just because it has become more acceptable. Before that was absolutely something that people didn’t accept doing. So you would go into it and had a chance you wouldn’t get approval from either side of the family. So, if you get married, you wind up with two separate mothers-in-law busting on your case. It’s not going to be easy.”
According to the CDC study of 22,000 men and women, times have changed from the days when living together signaled a poor chance for a successful marriage later. However, living together has been a long growing trend.
For example, in the late 1960s only about 10 percent of the American couples moved in together first. Then they ended up with higher divorce rates. Today about 60 percent of the couples live together before marriage. So what does that tell you? Go back and reread the For Example paragraph.
The study also found that couples who were living together but weren’t even engaged the later marriage was less likely to survive to the 10 or 15 year mark.
OR, TO PUT IT another way, there was about a 60 percent chance of the likelihood a marriage would last at least 15 years if the couple hadn’t lived together before the wedding or were at least engaged while living together.
In other words, engagement means commitment. But if there was no firm commitment the likelihood of marriage would last 15 years fell to 53 percent. An explanation could mean a more lax attitude about commitment for whatever reason.
McCurry called cohabitation a step on the way to marriage now since two-thirds of the couples is doing it.
HOWEVER, neither the CDC study nor he go into the right or wrong of cohabitation–without that ring.
To stray from that study for a moment, the other Sunday our pastor referred to another study. It was on church membership and attendance. He said there was 30 percent of the population of any community that did not have any affiliation with a church–not even a whisper of membership. And this doesn’t even count those who go once in a while or the C’ers and E’ers (Those who go just at Christmas and Easter). Perhaps that is one reason for the lax opinions on cohabitation.
However, one person I know who seldom misses a church service, explained it this way: “It’s like taking a Saturday night bath. It’s so refreshing and also cleansing like a bath. I need both every weekend.”
I don’t know if our pastor would agree with his explanation or not, but it does make a point.
TO ILLUSTRATE what I’m trying to say, I’ll go back to the CDC study. “Almost half of the first marriages today will break up within 20 years.” Considering what the study showed is the norm today about living together before, or instead of marriage, those couples might want to reexamine their living arrangements….
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
Don't you just love it when liberals (selectively) thump the Bible to browbeat good people into going along with things the Bible clearly doesn't say or condone? Ohio Governor John Kasich is now trying to scam people into believing God is a socialist and He wants Kasich to take your property and give it to other people. Last time I checked, neither the Bible nor the U.S. Constitution gave authority for that.
GOP support for the amnesty bill is drying up like a wad of spit on the sand along the southern border of the United States. Interestingly, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was backed by the Tea Party when he was elected, has not only pushed this turd of an amnesty bill with the worst of them (like Demagogue Senator Chuck Schumer), but voted against securing the border today.
In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh interviewed Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on his radio show earlier today. There are RINOs, there are Republicans who disappoint and flirt with becoming RINOs...and then there are real Republicans. There is every indication that Ted Cruz is the real deal, and is a reliable Republican. He tells the truth, tells it like it is, and ticks off the "mainstream" media and other liberals something fierce.
Do you know what a "demagogue" is? Webster's dictionary defines demagogue as "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power." Does that describe any politicians you know? Does that describe a particular political party that you've heard of?
Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory is a former Democrat who switched to the GOP after a recent event in which black conservatives reached out to black Democrats, not through pandering but through real messaging about Republican values. In this video, Guillory explains why he switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He also shares some information that may come as a big surprise to many black Democrats.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964 |
Sorry, comments are closed on this post.