Humanist marriages 'least likely to end in divorce'

[Duty]

Scottish couples who chose a humanist wedding are less likely to divorce than those who had other types of marriage ceremony, figures for the BBC suggest.

Humanist weddings have been legal in Scotland since 2005 and are now more popular than Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic weddings combined.
Marriage experts said divorce rates across the UK generally were declining. They said other factors could determine whether couples stayed together, such as age, wealth and shared values.

  go the theists, wakey wakey rise and shine 

[GrandizerII]

When reading articles like this, I always want to know what are the factors that come into play here that contribute to these differences.

As the article says, when you're not pressured to get married (as is often the case with traditionalist types), you're going to make better decisions when it comes to whether it's worth it to get married or not. Those who decide to get married after some good decision making process indicative of better control of one's "destiny" and of autonomy are naturally going to be less likely to feel they made some mistake by marrying and therefore are less likely to get divorced after a while. And those who decide not to get married won't have to worry about divorce.

Of course, that's just one factor, and multiple factors interacting with one another are often at play when it comes to complex human and social dynamics.

[tackattack]

So a personalized coached ceremony where the vows are coached and the ceremony reflects the pairs beliefs, lasts longer than a cookie cutter religious ceremony or legal justice of the piece; sure I can buy those stats, just disagree on your bias against religious weddings. Much like modern religion , when you just end up going through the motions you get shitty results and a lack of commitment.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So much for Humanism.  Anything that prolongs a Scottish marriage should be outlawed.

Boru

[fredd bear]

So a personalized coached ceremony where the vows are coached and the ceremony reflects the pairs beliefs, lasts longer than a cookie cutter religious ceremony or legal justice of the piece; sure I can buy those stats, just disagree on your bias against religious weddings. Much like modern religion , when you just end up going through the motions you get shitty results and a lack of commitment.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I think there is some confusion about marriages ceremonies.

A valid marriage is a contract between 2 people.  A marriage only becomes valid when registered. (here that means going to the office of"births deaths and marriages",  making a declaration and filling in a form.)

A church ceremony sanctifies a marriage. The "celebrant" sanctifies or 'celebrates 'the marriage. He /she does NOT 'marry' the two people. 

Centuries ago, a marriage was considered valid once a couple had decided and agreed to be married. No witness was required.

That   fact has never really changed in essence. A Christian would have a marriage is a contract between two people in the sight of god. 

This all changed when the church claimed marriage as a sacrament. They got away with it because the very nature of marriage changed. Marriage was initially about children. Later , it changed to being about property and inheritance, especially among monarchs and the nobility. A bastard had no right of inheritance. All children born within a marriage were legitimate, it was irrelevant who the father might be.

That concept has not been used so much since DNA has bean available to prove parentage.



--"when you just end up going through the motions you get shitty results and a lack of commitment."

Not sure the results are due to "modern religion" (what ever that might be) perhaps more a case of modern indifference and the increased secularisation of societies.

  Australia is one of the most secularised societies on earth. Most of us go to church for baptisms, marriages and funerals. Excuse the language; the rest of the time, "not a fuck is given".  I don't except that morality is predicated on committed religious belief, so I'm not fussed.. However, I  can understand how deeply distressing such a situation could be to a devout believer.

I have only ever been to one marriage where the hippy couple wrote their own vows. That was in 1971. They remain  married.


Me? I got married in a Church; it was important to my wife  and to both Catholic families.It was simply a practical thing to do. I considered my marriage vows binding ,as are any vows I have made voluntarily. It was my devout Catholic wife who ended our marriage, not me. (Australia  has 'no fault' divorce)

[brewer]

OP: That's only because not enough scottish humanists have tried to marry me.

[tackattack]

I wasn't confused on wedding ceremonies.
There are humanist there (to quote the referenced article) "Humanist weddings are deeply personal, with a unique ceremony crafted for each couple by a celebrant that gets to know them well and ensures that their script and vows reflect precisely who they are and the commitment they are making to each other."

To which the column later states that since the average expectancy of marriage and the Scots have only had their humanist weddings for around 13, it too soon and to small a sample to draw an accurate conclusion. I was just buying that it probably does last longer because it's not focused on any religions recitation or dogma which is inherent in catholic weddings and far more personal touch than just a simple civic ceremony, which is usually non-standard and often in a registrar office.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about the particulars of the wedding ceremony, jesus christ........

[The Valkyrie]

Humanist baptisms are 99% less likely to result in child molestations than Catholic ones.

[fredd bear]

Humanist baptisms are 99% less likely to result in child molestations than Catholic ones.

 THAT is a disgusting thing to say, and in no way provable. Not funny..