Why is it that being married seems to benefit families more than not being married?

[SpeedyGonzalez]

I just posted this in another thread and decided to start a new thread as it's something that's always puzzled me.

Although I'm married and totally committed to the concept of marriage, I've never understood why research seems to show consistently that families do better when the parents are married than not - in terms of survival of the relationship and outcomes for the children (umm...I think they say educationally and socially kids do better? Pls correct me if I'm wrong - am writing this off the top of my head!).

My opinion has always been that people in general either relate well or relate badly (v simplistic way of stating it, apols!). So if you're married and do a crap job of relating to your partner and family, your family life is going to suffer and you're more likely to split up. And vice-versa if you're unmarried but a 'good relater' - i.e., generally speaking, if you put in the effort to make things work.

Yet the research seems to show, consistently, AFAIK, that being married itself makes a difference - not only to the couple's level of commitment, but also to the outcomes for the children - whether or not the parents' relationship functions well. I really don't understand why it should be this way. I know lots of unmarried couples who have both stayed together and split up, and lots of married couples who have done the same. So is there really a difference, and if so, why?

Thoughts, anyone?

dunno, but there's loads of stuff on it.

here

here

here

From reading, it seems they are saying it all comes down to commitment to the family unit.

I really don't know how true that is.

I do know that it's likely to spark a massive bunfight on here.
5
4
3
2
...

I've been with my partner nearly 16 years, not married. We have two kids and very happy.

Four couples we know who were married have split up in the time we have been together.

Statistics schmatistics.

It could simply be that those couples whose relationships are unstable, relate badly etc have (understandably) chosen not to marry.
And couples who relate well are stable, happy, committed choose to marry.

Puppymonkey, same here - but nearly 20 years and more than 2 kids!!

There are 3 types of families (where a fmaily = 2 parents and some children living togather)

Committed married
Committed unmarried
Uncommitted unmarried.

Since the unmarrieds get lumped together it makes it difficult to see that the important disticntion is actually between committed parents who work as a team to bring up the children, and those who are not committed to this goal (or perhaps to each other).

There are lots of uncommitted marrieds though, how many blokes/women with rings on their fingers shag around/drink/gamble/do other stuff deleterious to family life.

In a stable family unit there should only be one parameter - do the parents love and respect other and want to be together. A wedding cert. is no guarantee of that, just as 'co-habiting' doesn't mean that you are not committed.

I wonder how my household will fare as dp is married but I am not

I think that we have a lot of "selection bias" that invalidates this comparison. I guess I am saying something similar to TrillianAstra. If marriage attracts many of the committed couples due to society norms, conformity etc. then the commitment level for the AVERAGE married couple could well be higher. But this is only an average so you no offence meant to the unmarried.

So, it is possible that marriage itself is not the magic ingredient. As the statisticians are quick to remind us, correlation between two factors does NOT necessarily imply CAUSATION. So lots of married people raise stable happy kids but it may not be marriage itself but the commitment level of those deciding to get married.

If it is just a piece of paper (the marriage cert) then why dont unmarried committed couples do it.
Legally there are good reasons to get married - and society does support that (finacially for instance if one is widowed).

But I dont think it is just the marriage - but maybe those willing to actually go through the marriage ceremony have already shown a bit more commitment to each other, iyswim.

I know some committed unmarrieds, some with and some without children - they argue 'why the need to get married?' But why not???

I feel the same as OP in terms of relationships, some married couples break up, some don't, same with unmarrieds. I think that the only difference is that marrieds have made a legal commitment, so they may be unhappy but unwilling to change their situation because of legal costs, etc.

Also weddings can cost a great deal, and will take a substanial chunk of money if you aren't exactly wealthy to begin with, especially if you would prefer a bigger wedding to share it with your family and friends and this cost may put people off (or have them say "When I can afford it...")

I'm not fussed about getting married really butmy partner wants too before we have kids as he feels it's better for them as research suggests

it's so flipping easy to get divorced these days though.... marriage is not much of a commitment anyway imho.

I also wonder, and this is pure wondering unbacked up by statistics, about whether there is a difference in families, married or not, that planned to have kids, vs "happy surprises" and whether planning to have your kids make you a more stable unit? If the latter, than given (again only annecdotally) I know quite a lot of people who did the whole "get married before you start a familiy" bit, maybe that could be a factor. There's so many ifs and buts in this, and I'm deeply suspciious of the idea that marriage itself makes a difference. AS someone else said here, noone who can't write a cogent summary of the difference between correlation and causation should ever be allowed to refer to any statistics on anything. Which would apparently bar most journalists from doing so...

Age
Income
Education

In no particular order.

Mums who are older than 30 and/or earn above average wages and/or who have 18+ educational qualifications are more likely to marry before or after they have kids. Any of the above demographics seem to contribute to a better outcome for the kids, in terms of their aspirations and achievements.

Totally subjective observation - but I spent (by default) around 15 years of my life acting as a mentor of sorts to single mums from every type of background - from post- grads to women who dropped out of school at 14/15. And I witnessed at first hand how fucking hard it is to claw your way up into a self-sufficient way of life if you have no role-models.

My 4 year old won't believe I am not married as 'you live with daddy and he gave you a (non engagement) ring'. I think there is no causation, just that stable relationships are more likely to result in marriage. I have been with DP for 13 years and we have a mortgage and 2 planned for kids. We both have tertiary education (post grad in my case), come from happy families and value happiness, education, being a useful part of society, work ethic, blah blah blah. I see no reason why my kids should not flourish just as well as those of my married friends.My parents divorced when I was 15 and although I am obviously biased, I think DP and I are far more committed parents than they were

My personal feeling is that the research is a little skewed. Most of it has been conducted, I think, with the vast amount the public spends on support for single parents (ie women) and their families in view.

Poverty is a huge issue in this.

Basically, poor people are a. less likely to get married in the first place and b. more likely to split up. The reason for (b) is, oddly enough, because there is an income threshold over which it is actually a bad idea to split up, and an income below which it is actually quite OK as an economic experience to split up.

A lot of women with children but no husbands (and we are talking about women here, by and large, because all the indicators for lone parents go into reverse when lone parent is daddy - something else which argues poverty is the main factor,)are actually on benefits.

Again, as others have said, it's the lone parents (rather than unmarried co-habiting,) that, I think, skew the figures.

So you're actually talking about outcomes for poor people (poor women) and the children of poor people.

The reason the research doesn't do more sifting is because it's mainly been generated by the benefits thing, I think.

Outcomes are poor for the children. They score badly for education outcomes, income outcomes (over the course of their lives), and mental health. It's v. depressing.

I don't think the answer is marriage, per se. I think it's not to be poor.

Just my tuppence-worth.