Giving love a chance and working hard at it is success enough in my book. You''ll never what will happen if you try---you just may find you''re with somebody you cannot live without. But if you don''t try, the odds are very high you will end up without a life partner.

Low success rate of what? The first marriage or the success of marriage as an institution? Just because some of us have to try twice at it doesn''t mean marriage doesn''t work.
So many first marriages don''t work out - it''s a user problem, not an institutional malaise.

i think the traditional idea of marriage is slowly changing, so i think our definition of marriage should also reflect that. i have some friends who are basically married but arn''t officially, does that make what they have less significant?... i don''t personally think so...

I have been happily married for a while now but I also know lots of people who are together but not married and they honour their commitment just as much as the rest of us. And so they should.

I think if we''d be honest about it, the failure rate of marriage is much higher than 50%. Include all the people who have or have had extra-marital affairs and the wedding promise to be "faithful till death do us part" is almost a total farce.
If we look for biblical support, we see that in the bible most men had more than one wife, not just one after the other, but at the same time. A few examples: King Solomon had seven hundred wives, no less, plus 300 concubines (1 Kings 11). And good old Jacob, the father of Israel, had at least four Genesis 30). In the New Testament only bishops were required to be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3). Most everyone else presumably had more than one. Maybe we have to be honest about the reality that most men are by instinct hunters and conquerors, and having them make a promise to be faithful to one woman is a set-up for failure. What do you think?

I don''t know if I buy the idea that men can''t help themselves as far as their sexuality is concerned. I read a statistic that said over 50% of men are unfaithful to their partners (and over 30% of women are, as well). But that means that a large number of men and women CAN make the choice to be faithful.

I know that sex is a very powerful urge, and that we are all capable of making choices that, in retrospect, we might regret. But part of our spiritual evolution involves recognizing those moments when we have choice (i.e. all moments), and making choices based on our deepest values.

I don''t think we need to throw out marriage, but I do wish more people would spend more time preparing themselves for a serious commitment to another, whether that involves an official marriage ceremony or not. The beauty and fragility and challenge of bringing two people together to live in one household is not something to be taken lightly...

Doesn''t it all depend on how we measure success. As long as we consider a successful marriage to be one in which the parties to the marriage have stuck it out through thick and thin from vows to death then the failure rate will be high. Maybe the measuring stick should be different?

It''s so easy to lie with statistics. How do we let ourselves get herded into questioning the sanctity of a sacramental marriage because of that democratically pleasing 50% number. Somehow we think that sing over half of marriages are failing that there is a problem with marriage. Wrong. Remember that Hitler was democratically elected -- that didn''t make him morally justified. In the case of sacramental marriages (ones that involve promisses by both parties AND God) the success rate is far better than 50%. Just think what the success rate would be among the Faithful of God if couples actually lived the promisses they make and rely on the Holy Spirit and an active prayer life to get them throught the rough spots. Couples are to love each other and sacrifice everything for each other "as Christ loved the Church". If we all actually tried 10% harder to actually do this in the heat of an argument, we wouldn''t be examining success rates anymore.

Marriage is an ideal that we need to continue to strive for. I think that marriage failure has to do a lot more with our freedoms as a society - we focus on that much more than our responsibilities. The commitments in marriage are often taken far to lightly. That said, there is a point when we need to be able to say that a marriage should be ended. There is a point when we would live more faithfully by being separated than by being married just for the sake of being married. If all you have left in a marriage is not breaking your marriage vows, then it isn''t much of a marriage, and "work harder" is not always a valid answer. Marriage holds some important promises - it is about you professing publicly your love and commitment for another person - I think that is pretty important.

Marriage depends on attitude. If you go into it with the idea that you're giving your whole self to someone else, you've got a better chance than if you're just expecting to get something out of it. If self-giving is your thing, then marriage might well be for you. If you're not into self-giving, then avoid marriage at all costs. Or find someone you hate, and buy 'em a house.

I think that the reason relationships, marriage or commonlaw are not lasting is people seem to rush into them. People meet and within a coupe of weeks they are living together. I think that if they went back to dating long enough to get to know the other person before sex and living together, that more marriages would work.

I believe that this is why 2nd marriages are more successful, because once stung, we tend to be more cautious.

Is it possible that new ideals (ie. freedom to choose divorce; a choice not so readily available in the past) has simply enabled those who feel they made a mistake believe they have a place to turn? Can that be all bad?

Perhaps it is however, when that same freedom of choice is enabling those to use divorce as a tool for having options upon entering marriage - should that marriage dissolve.

My bottom line belief is that I think there are people who take commitments seriously and will do their best while there are those will never choose to live up to anything - employment, chore or whatever. I simply hope to meet the person who will do their best - wherever that leads. If it leads to divorce, so be it. At least one can say they tried.

I have been dating my boyfriend for over 3 years (and I'm only 19 years old!) and I hope one day that we will get married. Frankly I think its well worth the risk. Marriage is supposed to be the ultimate expression of love afterall and enduring love should survive agruments, money troubles and childrearing. What concerns me most is how people who get divorced scramble to hurt one another after the fact, either by leaving their ex-spouse penniless or by refusing shared custody of children.

I must say that I also went against the norm. I met a wonderful person about 15 years ago. We lived together for almost 10 years. We went through some tough times, trials and tribulations, but through it all, we lived through it and we prospered. We finally got married when we thought it was time 3 years ago, and now have a wonderful son to share out lives with. I had a great time learning about my partner and I don't believe we would be better together if we had gotten married right away. During the 10 years together we were able to sort out what was important to us, what was important in our lives, and w e matured, both physically and spiritually, I love my life and stand by the choices we made. We decided to ger married because it would make us stronger as a couple and we were at the time in our life where we wanted to show the love and commitment we have for each other. I truly believe I will be with my wife for the remainder of my days here on earth!

I don't have a problem with couples living together first provided it is not rushed into but getting married is the ultimate statement of commitment and unless a couple does this I think that there is always some doubt as to their continuation and commitment. I don't worry about the statistics because if we did that then no one would drive on our roads either. There is an old saying in hockey that 100% of shots not taken result in no goals so if you don't risk in life you will never know the ultimate joy of finding your life partner. There may be heartbreak at times but how sad it would be to look back at one's life and not see any risks or excitement. Life is too short for that!

I don't WANT to "give my whole self to someone", nor do I think that is the correct attitude to take in ANY relationship. I could never expect anyone to "give themself entirely to me." That's crazy!

It's important that the two people involved be committed to each other, but co-dependence kills everything. Keep your separate bank accounts, take vacations alone, buy your own things - you'll open fewer doors for resentment to set in.

While I agree that co-dependance is a pit-fall that many seem to fall into, w should make the distinction between co-dependance and inter-dependance.

When two people in a relationship get to a point where they are unable to funtion on their own, the relationship can become a kind of 'crutch'. Resentment and a feeling of being 'trapped' by this dependance is frequently a major cause of relationship failures. This is co-dependance.

Inter-dependance is what happens when two independant people make a conscious choice to be together. It also helps to have a common goal on which you both agree on before embarking on the 'marriage' path.

Final side-note: Women, I will be blunt and say this to you : become your own woman before shackin' up with someone else. In the end you might realize you didn't need a partner after all, who knows ?

I've never been married. I am in a committed relationship, going on 5 years.

I think the Bible states that if a man and woman enter into the state of matrimony, the husband is suppose to give honour to his wife and vica versa, as they become one flesh. So I would think it depends how they treat one another in the relationship.

In response to Barend's comment, I find it curious as to why the particular Biblical support cited was chosen.

Last time I checked, there was much documentation in the Bible which could easily lend itself to being a culprit in the dissolution of "marriage." Poverty, illness, even an apple (!!) could be cited. But instead, concubines and bigomy was the chosen "support."

Heck, even being locked in an ark with a 500 year old man at the helm, an allergic reaction to the cats, barking dogs and incessant rain would be grounds for divorce. And if taken literally, one could even argue there wasn't another mate to be found on the ship to take as a concubine... So in response to the "What do you think?" question, I think we see what we want to see.

Just want to add my two cents!!

The idea of giving oneself to another doesn't have to be a bad thing. In my opinion we are too selfish these days and we leave a relationship as soon as it gets too hard or isn't good enough for "me" right now. In a successful marriage you are going to have to expect some rough and trying times. Ask anyone who has been married for a significant period of time and they will most likely tell you it wasn't all roses. Keeping everything too seperate isn't healthy for the relationship. Your marriage needs to be the most important relationship in your life, giving 100% at all times not 50%. However it works for you is how it should be but you need to be strong in rough times and sometimes carry the weight of both to get through it.

Living together doesn't have to be a bad thing if it is entered seriously and not lightly. Those who are the type to live with everyone they date are more likely to get divorced because those are the people who give up when the going gets tough. I did live with my husband before marriage but it we always knew we would get married and that our relationship was number one.

Just as an aside the statistics for second marraiges are even worse than first marriages. Often people in second marriages haven't learned from their previous mistakes and they have the added pressure of extra baggage (ex-spouses, children from previous relationships etc) that isn't to say that their isn't some extremely successful second marriages at all and I'm not even remotely trying to say taht people who have divorced haven't learned or even needed to learn I'm just honestly quoting from statistics that I had to research last year for a graduate project.

To get married is to is to receive another sacrament from our Lord. Who would not want that.... The reason for high failure rate is lack of God in our lives. If more people feared the Lord more people would take the vows very seriously.
The Holy Spirit will always give you what you need to make it work. But you have to believe

Does anyone else feel that the idea of marrige has been 'cheepened' by the way the mass media has a frenzy every time a celebrity gets married?

It is common practice now to sign a prenup, as if expecting it to not last.
Till bordum do us part, I suppose.

Why is marriage often not successful??? Cause we forget to look at what the creator of marriage has set out for our criteria in marriage. God gives us TONS of help in the bible! He's the author and he has some tips for us! First off - we miss the whole idea of committment! It's not just about how we are feeling at this exact moment (or year...) People who have experienced successful marriage know that there are ups and downs. God says he brings two imperfect people together and in their union makes them stronger. We must remember God also gives us guidelines on who we should marry!!! If we are seeking God's blessing in our lives (and our marriages) then we should probably check out what he has to say, right?? ;-)

I agree that marriage is wonderful institution. It is not designed to fail; people just abuse it. Or rather, they abuse each other. Maybe I'm the minority, but I know more HAPPILY married people than I know divorced.

Some people I know who have gotten divorced did so valid reasons, so yes, it's good to have that escape. However, if they had not gotten married at 19 years old, or married someone hoping they would stop being abusive "after"....they would not have needed this escape.

There is a reason they tell you to do things in a certain order. Go to school, "find yourself", go to the places YOU want, get the career you want, establish yourself in that field, THEN find joy with someone special and get married. Don't be afraid to look around, but be honest. And never settle, because THAT leads to divorce.

Marriage is wonderful. But caution: take your time.

I'm married and glad to be so. Second marriage for both of us.

I also spent a lifetime trying to bring some sense to gender politics. As most of you likely know, that effort failed. The gender-politics of today are so hopelessly twisted that sense does not exist.

Face it, we have a huge pool of males who will not marry: They see the risk to themselves and any potential children as far too high. Our leaders proudly demand that the males are at fault. 'Men are machines whose only purpose is to support females and dominant males' ... that's the message. At least, that's what many men hear. So marriage is in trouble right from the start.

We've got 13% of our prime male workers refusing to work. WAY TOO HIGH! Worse, the rate is climbing. When it hits 25%, we die. We cannot run Canada without these men. Few women are willing to marry these men. So we have a BIG problem. A whopper and we haven't even started looking at maybe sometime in the future talking about maybe doing something about it!

We've got a big problem with dropping testosterone rates. Males with low testosterone tend to be grumpy and sickly. They also tend to be less likely to bother with women. Sadly, current medical policy is to ignore male health issues in favor of female health issues and THAT is getting rapidly worse: What is it? 43? 44? to 1 now? Something like that: It should be 2 female to 1 male, exactly what it was before women started farting around with medical spending!. So marriage is in trouble in another way.

Canada is one of the countries which openly prefer abused children to including male victims in the family violence efforts. Why should any man take part in marriage or having children given the risk to his potential children?

I can go on and on and on ... Add in dropping sperm counts and the whole thing is a mess! Add in violent contempt for all males --don't forget, Canada is one of the worst of the worst in terms of the violence of our misandry-- and the marriage thing is in such a mess that it may well not be savable.

Little Mr. ray of sunshine ain't I?

Dropping testosterone rates? Dropping sperm counts? What on earth are you talking about?

Didn't people here? Marriage isn't about 'love'?! It's a contract between two people with corresponding rights and duties. And if my partner does not live up to her or his duties then I am in my rights to nullify that contract!

Via text message, in certain parts of the world!!

Do it for the presents!!!!!!

One of the arguments against changing the legal definition of marriage to support same-sex, back a few years ago when this was not yet enacted into law, was that it diminishes the entire institution of mariage in the traditional sense of "between a man and a woman." I never really bought that argument, and this thread hits the nail on the head as to why:

No matter your opinion on same-sex marriage, it seems to me that disposable marriages and the widespread acceptance of divorce have done far more to weaken the institution of marriage within our culture.

Then again, the strength or weakness of the institution should not make a married couple feel better or worse about their own marriage, nor should it have any bearing on a couple's decision to get married in the first place. Marriage, as I understand it, works like this: "Who cares whether the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket; at least I have you." (Or, for church folk, "We have God and now we have each other.")

Disclaimer: I am single, never married. My opinions should probably be disregarded by sensible people who have more experience in these matters!

blah: Men's health issues are not covered in the press / media. To read about them one must go to a men's health website, magazine or clinic. Quite a few Dr. are getting REALLY upset about this, but no one's listening as of yet.

Current average sperm counts are about 2/3 of what average sperm counts were at the beginnings of study in the 1940's. This is probably due to the massive use of plant based estrogens in all soaps & detergents, plus a few plastics. Low sperm count males have trouble fathering babies and women, while near ovulation can tell, which reduces the number of marriages. Not a big effect, but with the size of our population it is clearly there.

Testosterone drop is a big unknown with current levels about 4/5's of the old average and dropping. No one can figure out why it's happening. But, there's no doubt it is. As I said, males with low testosterone tend to be grumpy & sickly. Women tend to stay away from such men. That reduces the odds of marriage.

Mind you, the two may be connected. No one knows ... What is known, is that part of the marriage number drop is directly connected to men's health issues.

You had asked me a question about Roman Catholisism and what drew me to it.
I was born RC. So the church is nothing new to me. I was married in it once and divorced in it once. (ANNULLED)
I was very young and I blamed everyone but me. From there my life went down hill not in a sense of drug abuse or stuff but I just became too wise for the church. I did not belive anymore and i was not going to be sucked back in.
Many relationships later I met a very nice woman. She had a peace about her ...hard to explain. Very good R.C. in every way. Premarital sex was out John Paul II was her man. She was in love with the roman Catholic Church. I fell for her.
I got back into the Church. I went to confess all of my sins.
And by the graces of God the healing began......
So I sit here for the first time in my life telling someone Why I am in the RC Church. I am in the church for the love of my Lord Jesus Christ.........
As I follow the Church and its teachings I do find every other faith to be lacking.
I believe this to be the One Holy Cathol;ic and Apostolic Church.
I watch a TV station Channel 395 EWTN. Their website is WWW.EWTN.COM
BTW They have a live broadcast. It is such a spiritual Station.

Thanks for asking

I got married in part because it was expected by our families, and it seemed to be the best way to for us to spend our lives together. We'll be encouraging our kids to marry their "life partners" as well, as I think traditional marriage offers support that can be very important.

The ceremony itself can help couples understand the potential importance of their vows in front of their God, as well as family, friends and their "church family". So, they can tap into the support, encouragement and accountability that can often be found within an extended network of well-wishers. You may not have access to this sort of support when you live together or get married in front of a judge at City Hall. Although, the support tends to be only as good as you want it to be - if you never show up in church again as a couple, it would be hard to take advantage of the church's support for your marriage, right? Most larger churches have formal courses for married couples that can provide advice and encouragement, which can be beneficial. Even though I'm not much of a believer these days, I still see the practical value that a church can bring to a marriage, so I'd recommend it to anyone who's open-minded.

Yesterday i was at a funeral for a 96 year old man who had been mattied to his wife for 67 years. Their life was full of joy and never did they waiver, even in the extreme grief of losing a child to polio. I see marriage as something so full of hope, a true sign of what human beings are capable of in a positive, loving relationship. When it fails, that is sad, but it does not diminish what it can be.

DaveM: Yes! I've seen such couples.

I've had a worse than atrocious time with women; maybe bad luck, maybe bad choices ... probably both. Certainly sexist laws that let a female get away with almost anything. Also, I am Bi and could clearly have had a gay relationship.

Hmph!

I choose to marry and to marry a woman. In spite of all the bad that is out there, there is joy and peace in a good marriage. There is a reason for marriage and it is a good one as is seen in the marriages you mention.

I look forward to O'Pat coming home, every day I want her to come home from work, to talk, to laugh, to be silly ... to simply be together for the joy of being together.

I adore gender, the politics and the science. We've known for decades that single parents abuse kids at a nasty rate compared to married couples. We know that single mother raised kids have high odds of serious psycho-pathologies: Lone father raised kids have high odds of serious accidental injuries. Put two parents together and both the psycho-pathologies and the accidental injuries go WAY down. Just in parenting you see one reason for marriage.

There are many others. Including, as you say, JOY ...

I guess we really need to overhaul the concept of marriage. We set ourselves up for failure with ideas of "happily ever after" and the idea that anyone can "complete" you. It sounds better than "working hard ever after" or that someone "compliments you".
Ever order something or buy something because the advertising made it sound great? Everyone has. It is sad, but marriage has become something akin to that. The concept is amazing, the idea is appealing, everyone has one... then reality hits and for some, it is not what they thought they were getting.
Anyone ever read Rod McKuen's wedding vows?

Good points. Perhaps, churches could help young married couples understand the benefits of a certain amount of private time, and the pitfalls associated with finances, sexual expectations, etc. This would likely be a step in the right direction.

Frankly, it would help if couples ensured that they shared more interests before deciding to tie the knot - it's pretty difficult to make things work when one person's a fundamentalist, and the other's an agnostic, for instance.

I might add that there was once an idea that a couple should match on most, but not all of: race, religion, education, family background, etc.. Science is now close to resurrecting that old idea, it looks like it works.

Also, in the study of divorce we now know for sure that the best predictor, at >85%, is contempt. Add contempt for your partner to your marriage and you will fail. One of the science teams has been tracking couples for 30 years now: They have their study couples come into the lab every year and disagree on something. Of the couples who use contempt in their disagreements (one or both partners), almost 9 out of 10 divorced or are heading for divorce.

BTW: Many of the women in masters & PhD programs complain that men are afraid of powerful women: It turns out that the men don't like the contempt for men that is too often seen in this group. Interesting, eh? Contempt again! Add contempt and you might even fail at dating.

We could also add marrying up or down the educational ladder. Women who want the high paying / high power jobs need to start marrying down the ladder. That solves their problem. Doing so will increase the number of stay-at-home dads which means men have to start complaining about how they are seen when acting in the SaHD role.

I do not think there is anything complex about marriage problems; at least in the large number view. Mind you, once you're trying to merge lives with another person, the big issues get lost in the little ones! That's where a sense of humor and a willingness to see your partner as a fellow human being make all the difference.

People don't get married just for the heck of seeing if it will last or not. People use marriage as "the next step" in a serious relationship. People get married because they love one another. Don't let statistics bother you. Sure, maybe half of marriages don't work, but that also means that half of them do!

Why wear a condom, it could break anyway.

I think that marriage as a sacred institution is on the way out. The common social definition of marriage is now based pretty much on the contractual satisfaction of individuals. The idea of mutual duty or reciprocal obligation is undermined by a more shallow (in my opinion) desire for individual happiness. If marriage is not rescued as a major core social institution, it will simply continue to erode into minor contract. i think that the acceptance of same-sex marriage is one of the symptoms of the decline of marriage. I know that this is not a popular opinion in the UCC right now, but hey, what is life without differences of opinion?

hmmm, symptom of marriage decline. Well, two people in their forties waiting to meet that one person they love forever and wanting to let the whole world know how committed they are in spite of all obstacles. I do not think I cheapened marriage at all. Celebrities do that. You can get married by Elvis or in a drive thru wedding chapel but somehow my marriage makes a sham of marriage? Hmm....

stephen, I think people getting together because they are in love is the way it should be, regardless of their gender. Talk about natural law! I just think that marriage is a male-female thing. We should be coming up with new ways of describing new relationships, otherwise we will lose (have already lost) what marriage means, and this is not a good thing socially. I am, or course, not alone in this opinion.

Just my two cents. Not a huge deal.

I don't think the analogy you presented is quite accurate. The phrase "there's a 50% chance we'll fire you" presumes that you have no ability to change those odds. But when it comes to relationships the odds are completely controllable by you and your spouse.

If you just want to approach relationships from a risk management point of view, then you can increase your odds dramatically by doing the following:

1. don't live together before getting married
2. don't have sex before getting married
3. date for at least 2 years before getting married
4. wait until you're at least 25 before getting married

Just doing those 4 things will improve the odds of your marriage working by about 200%. That doesn't even include other effective things like family support, pre-marital counselling, financial stability, having similar beliefs and values, etc.

But all those things aside, my response to someone who asks the question "Why bother getting married when your chances of success are only 50%" would be this: "Why bother having relationships with people when your chances of getting hurt are 100%?"

As they told us at school, there's lies, damned lies and statistics. Half of all marriages end in divorce is a statistic.
The majority of first marriages do not end in divorce.

41 percent of first marriages end in divorce.
60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
73 percent of third marriages end in divorce.
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200003/030_too_large.cfm

It's the second marriage that gets ya.

An interesting topic. Why get married, given the low success rate?

I've been married twice. The first time I was young, and married for the sake of the child we already had. I tried hard to make it work. It didn't. I knew in my heart the day I married him it wasn't right, but you try, and you hope, until one day you realize what you need to do for everyone involved.

The marriages that work are the ones that occur for the right reason. Love.
Why do people always say marriage is something you have to work at? If you have to work so hard at it, maybe you're not with the right person.

I've been married to my second husband for eight years, together for ten. We don't "work" at our marriage, our marriage just "works". We love and respect each other. We're kind to each other and there's no one in the world I'd rather spend my life with. He's my favourite person, and I'm pretty sure I'm his.

I think people who don't want to get married are often afraid they might be missing out on something. Someone better might come along. Things might go sideways, and, if you're not married - it's so much easier to make a quick get-away. But if you truly love someone and they love you back in the same way what are you afraid of?

Why cross a street when you could get run over?

Sophie, I don't think you can compare the commitment one has to another person in their life to the committment one has to a job. Generally speaking, mot of us place a much higher value on meaningful relationships with others rather than on our jobs. Sometimes we're lucky and have both.

I am married but would have been OK if I remained in a common law relationship. I do not believe that a legal contract makes the committment to your partner any stronger...it just makes it harder to get out of it. However, that being said, marriage is a social construct...and it is a very well established tradition in our society (and many other societies). And there is nothing wrong with tradition...the purpose of traditions, I believe, is to feel a sense of belonging. It is a social thing. That is not to say that we all get married just to feel like we're part of a big married-club but most people don't challenge why they should get married. Like most social constructs and traditions...we just assume they are right and follow them. And because most everyone else does it and it's painted in such a positive way (the gown, the limo, the ceremony, the reception etc)

I think of marriage the same way I think of any any of my other friendships....it is meant to be long term and meaningful. You don't say to anyone you first meet and become friends with...."we'll see how this works out and maybe we'll end up friends or maybe we won't"...and we certainly don't sign contracts or have cermemonies to mark our friendships. You just assume that you will remain friends. So why should your relationship with your partner be any different? I believe it is because society has taught us that we should! And I dislike the word "should"...it imlies that if you don't, you are not conforming. Gasp! Imagine not conforming!

There is obviosuly no right or wrong answer here...I am just pointing out that the ideology behind marriage works for some and not for others. And I could have gone both ways. I admit that I liked the novelty of getting married and all that comes with it (we did a small wedding in Mexico) and also liked the "tradition" aspect of it. But I do not feel that the ceremony made my committment to my husband any stronger nor do I feel that my relationship is more legitimate just because I have a piece of paper that says so.

The other issue - and I have likely lost quite a few readers here with my rambling - is that I belive the incrasing divorce rate is due to many variables...any thoughts from the rest of you as to why this is? New thread!

Sophie,

Hi,

There is an adage about "lies, damned lies and statistics" and I think that it impacts on this discussion.

Part of the statistical pollution that goes into the stat for marital success is that there are a few individuals who have had multiple marriages. I don't know that second marriages last longer. I expect that people having been burned once are twice shy and that having earned valuable knowledge the hard way they might be more realistic before taking the plunge a second time.

Still, there are some who don't learn and don't grow and they change marital partners like a super-model changes wardrobe.

I once got a call from a guy asking if I would do a quickie wedding for him. I started to explain my usual pre-marital counselling routine when he interupted me by saying that this would be his fourth marriage and her third and that they really didn't need anymore pre-marital counselling.

Which is probably true. They'd have been far better off if they had paid attention instead of going through the motions the first time around.

I declined.

Statistically if you put this guy and me side by side we have five marriages between the two of us. That is a rate of 2.5 marriages each. I bring his average down he inflates mine.

If there is a low success rate I would not pin that so much on the institution of marriage as the individuals entering into it.

Immaturity kills marriages like it kills any relationship.

Immature people shouldn't be considering marriage at all and if they do it seems unfair to blame marriage for failing when it clearly is a failure of the individuals who couldn't handle it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Umm... okay to be quite honest, when my wife and I decided to get married, we didn't really factor in statistics. Oops! :)

One might look to statistics on the breakdown of marital relationships if one expected that marital status ought to play a significant and socially-consistent role in one's relationship. We had no such expectation. In fact, our relationship just sort of kept on going along the path it was going. We liked each other. We wanted to live together and keep making most of our decisions together.

It didn't hurt that there was this special social ceremony / monkey-dance that included a party, fine food and gifts, the promise of tax benefits and the ability to apply for OSAP without declaring our parents' incomes!

So my best suggestion to the OP (or the OP's friend) is that you might get married if and when you and a partner see your relationship as *sui generis* - beyond so-called "success rates".

As for the statistics themselves, I honestly wonder if there is an availability bias at work here. Marriage and divorce are (by definition) official, recorded, and thus easy to track. "Relationships" are amorphous, flexible and sometimes over before they start. If one critiques marriage with a failure rate (and relationship without marriage is the implicit alternative) than the central statistical question ought to be whether the act and status of marriage ultimately harms the longevity and quality of the relationship itself. This question is beyond measurement, I fear, because marriage not only acts upon relationship status, but is a choice typically produced by it.