<p>Do you have any data to back up that claim?</p>
<p>The simplest explanation often is the best explanation</p>
<p>The birth control pill is the single biggest factor in quite substantial increase in divorce rate in the 2nd half 20th century America - as the pill led directly to the sex revolution (where the majority or a significant minority of women finally accepted Hugh Heffners preaching’s that recreational sex i.e. sex w/o the necessity of love, marriage, or commitment - was a good idea)</p>
<p>Note most men (in general) were already in favor of “free sex” - the sex revolution was w/o any doubt women’s call</p>
<p>The pill arrived around 1960 and was (for the most part) perfected by the mid 1960’s - and it was starting in the mid to late 1960’s that divorce rates began skyrocketing - and kept increasing and only leveling off into the 1980’s where these rates have remained relatively high and constant for several decades - and “amazingly” stayed high DESPITE the massive increase in co-habitation w/o marriage</p>
<p>The pill by increasing by a substantial amount the pool of sexually liberated and sexually active single women (in effect) increased the opportunity cost (benefits foregone) for the typical married man - and when this 1st large tidal wave of young libertines made themselves available to married men by the late 1960’s - that is precisely when the divorce rate took off</p>
<p>Only the best marriages could survive this massive societal change: for example marriages where spouses viewed the marriage as bigger than the sum of the individual parts - where “THE marriage” was deemed to be have importance far beyond the individual selfish needs of the parties, and/or marriages where spouses considered each other “best friends” -which they viewed as having significance beyond any other short term needs.</p>
<p>UCLAri:</p>
<p>Churchgoing people in this day and age are just as susceptible to secular thinking when it comes to marriage as anybody else, even in the so-called “Bible Belt” (which, by the way, is hardly closed-off from liberal secular culture these days). From a Catholic perspective, I see it all the time; most married couples in the Church today are fairly ignorant about what marriage really means in the Catholic tradition and of the theology behind it. They just want to get married like all of their friends, and that’s it. Despite their Sunday Mass attendance, they approach their marriages with a surprisingly secular mindset. </p>
<p>What this means is that secular culture has infiltrated religious culture, and it is winning. This isn’t surprising. You go to church one hour out of every week to hear some religious teaching, and the rest of the time, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, you are bombarded with messages from every direction telling you how backward and stupid these religious teachings are.</p>
<p>Ah. Okay. So you’re saying that it has nothing to do with liberalization of laws that now allow women to initiate divorce where it was once impossible? I dunno, man…seems a bit hard to ignore that factor.</p>
<p>That’s a factor, sure. But I think the secularization of marriage in the eyes of husband and wife is the greater underlying factor behind people wanting to get divorced in the first place.</p>
<p>My 'rents got divorced because my Dad couldn’t produce in bed so the Mum had an affair…pretty simple actually. No religion, no pill</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes no sense. Getting married just to have sex is one of the worst reasons out there.</p>
<p>I believe everyone responding to this post has neglected to realize that divorce isn’t necessarily “bad”. It can be beneficial in many circumstances. So what if the divorce rate is higher than it ever has been? Should that really concern us? Ostensibly, that just merely means we have more freedom today. If it weren’t for the imposed gender roles and the religious vice-grip that suffocated individual decision one-hundred years ago, I’m sure the divorce rate would barely differ from today’s.</p>
<p>“My 'rents got divorced because my Dad couldn’t produce in bed so the Mum had an affair…pretty simple actually. No religion, no pill”</p>
<p>Perhaps if the mum had viewed her marriage as a sacred vocation from God, she would have responded to the problem differently.</p>
<p>FerstAmmendment: mate are you English?</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio: Are you a self-righteous Plonker?</p>
<p>“That makes no sense. Getting married just to have sex is one of the worst reasons out there.”</p>
<p>I doubt that that is what G-U-NOT is saying. I think he means that waiting for marriage before having sex promotes the view/feeling of sanctity and sacredness in the heart and mind of a couple regarding their marital union.</p>
<p>“Fides et Ratio: Are you a self-righteous Plonker?”</p>
<p>I don’t know, what’s a “Plonker”? Not all of us are schooled in limey street lingo.</p>
<p>Plonker: dope, idiot, moron, wally, pillock, dunderhead, dimwit.</p>
<p>Fides et Captiosus: No, but as evinced by your comments and your religion’s sordid history, you are “schooled” in racism and discrimination. Maybe you shouldn’t offend other people’s mothers, especially when you aren’t aware of their circumstances.</p>
<p>Thanks, Smallz3141.</p>
<p>I’m not taking sides. I’m simply defining the term.</p>
<p>No, I’m aware but you bothered to search.</p>
<p>Ah… whatever, bee-yotch. I don’t have the energy to get into it with liberal Catholic-haters today.</p>
<p>How dare you Fides. Whenever you can’t make an argument you automatically say you “don’t have the energy to get into it with liberals”, or something similar. Anyone who uses that as an ‘excuse’ is a coward who probably can’t come with a good response, so you insult people. </p>
<p>You’re ridiculous.</p>
<p>No, really. I could spend all day on here defending myself against you gaggle of anti-Catholic vermin, with (unlike you) zero support from anybody else. It’s usually six or seven against one, one being me. Truth be told, I’m just not that interested in fighting today.</p>