Chastity Makes Marriage Better

It may fly in the face of our oversexed culture's conventional wisdom, but people who remain chaste before marriage have better marriages according to a number of measures. The Medical News reports:

A new study that appeared in the Journal of Family Psychology finds that couples who wait until exchanging vows to have sex are “are happier with the quality of sex” and enjoy a “stable, happier marriage”. The team of researchers assessed 2,035 married couples in an online questionnaire based study called ‘RELATE’.

The results showed that couples who waited until marriage to have sex rated sexual quality 15% higher than people who had premarital sex, rated relationship stability as 22% higher and rated satisfaction with their relationships 20% higher.

The study controlled for religiosity and found, “Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction.” So the study seems pretty solid. There's always room for criticism though, The Economist notes:

Unfortunately, Dr Busby’s method cannot distinguish the cause of this. It could be, as many moralists preach, that the delay itself is improving. It could, though, be that the sort of people who are happy to delay having sex are also better at relationships. Correlation, in other words, rather than causation. That is material for another study.

That criticism is valid enough I suppose. Can't rule out selection bias. BUT if you're a young person getting into a relationship and considering marriage, choosing a mate is very much about selection bias. And no matter the reason why, the results are clear: if you and your partner can stay chaste you're marriage will be happier for it.

A Gay 'Rights' Trifecta

"It makes no sense that Mr. Lusk could be acquitted in a Quebec court and then found liable for moral and punitive damages in front of a human rights tribunal," Mr. Angers said. "These tribunals are just in another world."

That's a pretty good summary of the situation after the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fined a man $12,000 for saying a bad word:

The case against Mr. Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel of the Canadian Forces, stems from an April 2004, incident in which Mr. Thibault is alleged to have driven recklessly down their street in the Montreal suburb of Pointe Claire while neighbourhood children, including Mr. Lusk's son, were playing road hockey.

A witness testified that Mr. Thibault had run a stop sign and driven at high speed toward one of the kids, nearly hitting the child. . . When Mr. Lusk heard about the latest encounter with Mr. Thibault, he decided to take the matter up with his neighbours.

Messrs. Thibault and Wouters allege Mr. Lusk showed up at their home yelling and hitting their metal gate, an accusation Mr. Lusk steadfastly denies. The couple said Mr. Lusk accused Mr. Wouters, who had not been in the car, of driving dangerously and endangering the lives of his children, calling him a "f---ing faggot." . . .

Police also charged him with assault and uttering death threats, but he was later acquitted.

Still, the Human Rights Tribunal, using surveillance footage of the encounter captured by cameras Messrs. Thibault and Wouters had installed on their home, ruled "by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant, by his behaviour, his comments and his attitude, has violated the rights of the plaintiffs, on the basis of their sexual orientation."

I really don't know where to start. This is a grave injustice. First it was a matter between neighbours. It's pretty common for neighbours to have disagreements, and it is a father's responsibility to protect his children. I can't imagine the police treating this type of complaint seriously under any other circumstances.

Second Mr Lusk was acquitted of all charges related to the incident. We have a constitutional right not to be tried twice for the same crime so the Human Rights tribunal seems to be tramping all over Mr Lusk's rights.

Finally, I came across the story via a comment on my last post about the disturbing pace our rights are being eroded in the name of 'human rights.' That post referenced a court ruling that marriage commissioners cannot op out of performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and the silly censorship of the 1980s hit song Money for Nothing. That makes 3 decisions in one week that tramped on the rights of individuals in favour of the gay lobby.

I suppose now is the time for a disclaimer. I have nothing against gays individually or as a community, but when our basic rights are trampled on to appease a vocal minority we must stand up to protect them.

A Call to Leadership

Today's rain clouds did have a silver lining. I was able to pick up Faith FM 94.3 on the drive home. They played this new song called Lead Me. Actually it's not that new apparently it's been #1 on the Christian music charts for a few weeks but I just heard it today.



The song is a powerful reminder to men that we have to take a leadership role in our families and leadership means self sacrifice. The song also inspired the band Sanctus Real to post a special prayer on their website, which the announcer read on air today:

Lead Me- a prayer for husbands

Christ Jesus, you have called me to love my wife tenderly and sacrificially, even as you love the church, but too often I know myself to be a selfish man with a distracted heart. Please give me patience, gentleness, and kindness toward my wife, and the wisdom to value her for her gifts and ideas. Teach me to be vulnerable with her, openly sharing my own heart and thoughts, hopes and fears, even as I seek to better understand her.

Remind me to be ever mindful of her interests and needs with each decision I make and to structure my life in such a way that she receives the best of my energy and attention, rather than the leftovers. Give me courage to passionately pursue relationship with her even when I feel wronged or wounded. Let me become for her a man of tenderness, kindness, creativity, and integrity, protecting and cherishing her by vigilantly guarding my own eyes and heart.

Above all, teach me to lead as you led, Jesus, in humility and service. Only by your grace can I be a godly man and a good husband for my wife.

Lead me Lord, I pray.

As a rather remarkable coincidence today's readings at Mass included Ephesians 5:21-33:

Brothers and sisters:

Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the Church,he himself the savior of the Body. As the Church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the Church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his Body.

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church.

In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

Maybe God's trying to tell me something.

More Questions Than Answers

The Toronto Sun reports that married men are apparently much more attractive to women than single men. Sounds like a recipe for heartbreak to me:

According to a recent study out of Oklahoma State University, the urge to lure away a married man is a real phenomenon known as "mate poaching."

For the study, men and women were asked to describe their ideal romantic partner and were told they'd be computer matched with someone who met their criteria. Half of the participants were told their matches were involved with somebody else, whereas the other 50% believed them to be single.

Here's where things get sticky. When researchers described a man as single, just 59% of the women expressed interest in him, but when he was considered off-the-market, a whopping 90% were eager to get their hooks in.

Men, however, showed no preference for women in relationships.

I never would have expected those results. I honestly would have thought people in general would look for someone unattached so there's fewer complications.


I pointed the story out to a friend of mine at work, and she explained that if a man's married at least one other woman thought he was a good catch and at least he's willing to make a committment. Once a guy gets past a certain age she figures there must be a reason he's still single.


I definitely appreciated her insight but I'm still left with more questions than answers:

Why do women and men think so differently about this?

Aren't women who pursue a married man just setting themselves up for heartbreak?

Shouldn't married men be more aware of this to better guard their hearts and remain faithful?

Is it possible that I'M EVEN MORE ATTRACTIVE than I thought? ;P

Social Policy in the Election

I haven't blogged much on the election this past week. One big reason is I'm upset at Harper's complete refusal to even let his MPs bring up the topic of abortion. I think it shows a contempt of parliament, and a contempt for many of his supporters, donors and volunteers.

However, I think it's useful to think about the reason he made that claim. Harper felt the need to insulate himself from the claims he has a hidden agenda to radically change Canadian social policy. I just don't understand how that can stick, he's had three years to try to push an agenda and he hasn't done anything.

I understand social policy is divisive and most people would rather just not talk about it. In real life, neither do I. For this reason, the opposition has a lot of incentive to make Harper look like an extremist. After all, it's worked before. The only problem is it's a pile of hooey. If you want to avoid difficult social issues, the only way to vote is Conservative.

The left has plenty of social issues they want to press. Liberal senators are regularly pushing for euthanasia. The NDP and the Greens are for decriminalizing drugs. Further down the line are polygamy and legal prostitution.

As much as I would like him too, Harper is not going to push the abortion issue, but he won't push the other issues either and that's a very good thing.

Songs that say, Don't cheat, Don't Leave

I've got two country stations on my radio presets. I knew this song was big when I heard it twice in 5 minutes while scanning the channels. Taylor Swift's, "Should've Said No" is a grand kiss off to her cheating boyfriend. It's totally simplistic, no torn emotions just plain punchy. Simple message to men, be faithful or you're toast. Give it a listen:



It kind of reminds me about the song Cheaper to Keep Her by Aaron Lines that made the circuit a few months ago. Similar message to men, DON'T Leave because you’ll just screw up your life! I enjoy both these songs because they’re just so refreshingly direct. I think they’re just plain fun, as long as you’re not in the situation. If you are, they’e gotta sting and you have my sympathy. But I think these two songs are popular because they contain warnings that deep down we men know we need to hear. (I think they’re popular with women because they can laugh at men.)



Stay Strong by the Newsboys is different. First, it’s not country, I’ve heard it a few times on my drive home on the local Christian music station. More important it’s hopeful it’s talking to us BEFORE we make a bad decision. It’s definitely my favourite of these three songs:



I like all three of these songs especially the last one. They may be direct, maybe even preachy, but they're definitely catchy. It’s refreshing to have some explicitly encouraging music especially when popular culture seems to diminish committed relationships.

FACT: Church Going Men Have Happier Marriages

A new research brief from the Centre for Marriage and Families finds that church going men have happier marriages than other men:

For men, 70 percent of husbands who attend church regularly report they are “very happy” in their marriages, compared to 59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church. . . In addition, a study of urban relationships found that men’s religious attendance was a better predictor of women’s relationship satisfaction than women’s own religious attendance.

That's huge! In other words 18% (70/59) more church going men (in America) have very happy marriages than men who stay home. Naturally these men had marriages that were more likely to last:

Specifically, data from the NSFH indicate that men and women who attended religious services regularly (several times a month or more) were approximately 35 percent less likely to divorce between 1988 and 1993, compared to their married peers who rarely or never attended religious services. Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and Jews who attended services regularly were especially likely to avoid divorce, compared to churchgoing evangelical Protestants and black Protestants. In all probability, low Catholic divorce rates are linked to Catholic teaching about the importance of marital permanence.

Yay Catholics!

Finally, the research shows that church going men spend more time with their children including helping with group activities:

Compared to dads who say they have no religious affiliation, fathers who attend
church regularly (several times a month or more) devote at least two hours a
week more in youth-related activities, such as helping in Boy Scouts, coaching
soccer, and leading a church youth group.

So men, want a happier marriage? Get to church! Women and mothers want a happier marriage, get your husband to church. The data show he'll thank you for it.

H/T Lifesite News

The Globe is Right About Families

I was pleasantly surprised to read the headline editorial, "No Replacing Traditional Families," from the Globe and Mail today:

Not all families are equal for the raising of children. Not every form of diversity deserves celebration. Canada's 2006 census, released yesterday, shows that marriage is in decline, and common-law unions and single parenthood continue to grow. And that is not good for kids. Marriage is still the best framework in which to raise healthy, happy children.

To applaud diversity for diversity's sake is to evade responsibility for the effects of that diversity on children. Common-law unions are more likely to break down than marriages, and the children of single-parent families tend to face disadvantages. "Children growing up in single-parent families are more likely to repeat grades, and to be less healthe than children living in two-parent families," says a Canadian government report on the well-being of the country's children, citing the huge database known as the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. "These children are also less likely to get along well with friends and parents than children living in two-parent families." Problems of hyperactivity, aggression or conduct disorders and other behaviour problems are also higher in single-parent families, the report says. These findings hold true regardless of the income of the single parents.

The editorial board is absolutely right! Could it be a sign of rational thought in the Main Stream Media? I hope so. It's about time that we stop making 'diversity' the primary definition of what it means to be Canadian. It's also time to stop the war against 'the traditional family.' Our society depends on healthy families to create healthly children and healthy citizens. It's time to start supporting them.

A Faint Glimmer of Hope for the Anglican Church

Last Sunday's decision by Canadian Anglican Bishop's not to bless gay marriage has narrowly averted a crisis that would have led to the Canadian Church's expulsion from the Anglican Communion, a mass exodus of members and the closure of countless parishes. It is clearly a victory for reason and the church as a whole. It was also a surprise victory given the church's relentless march to irrelevance.

It's a rare moment for Anglicans faithful to scripture such as Anglican Essentials to claim any victory in the battles for theological purity. Instead they focused on the short comings of the synod with these two quotes from the Edmonton Sun:

Cheryl Chang, a spokeswoman for Anglican Essentials, a group lobbying against same sex blessings, said she believes confused and frustrated parishioners will start finding other churches immediately.

"People (will) leave to go to the Catholic Church, the Baptist church, the Pentecostal church. That's going to happen starting next Sunday, or next Monday even," Chang said.

"These are decisions that are very confusing for the church, and ultimately, very divisive."

And

"To do what they've done is to step apart from the worldwide Anglican communion," said The Rev. Canon Charlie Masters, the head of Anglican Essentials.

"This is a very sad day for Anglicans."

Come on guys. What would you have said if the Church had decided to bless same-sex unions? It very nearly did. Instead, you won the key vote. You worked hard for this victory claim it.

What Canon Masters and Mrs Chang are focusing on is a decision by the Synod that blessing same-sex unions “not in conflict with the core doctrine” of the church. OK, it's a set back, but it doesn't have any bearing on the actual practices of the church. Advocates for same sex blessings such as Bishop Michael Ingham will have a hard time continuing to go against the expressed wishes of the Synod.

My bigger concern is with the incoming Primate (head) of the Anglican Church in Canada:

“There is disappointment – a lot of pain. Some people will be saying ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’” said Bishop Fred Hiltz of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, who is the incoming primate or national archbishop. When asked how he might maintain discipline among clergy and bishops who want to move forward, he said, “My sense is that, as painful as these realities are, we do have a responsibility to respect the decisions of General Synod. It’s not the last time this will come up.”

Sir - there should be no more waiting, the Synod has spoken. This is the problem with the Anglican Church, the idea that doctrine and church teaching can change every few years and that liberals in the church believe they can use the same strategy as Quebec separatists, keep on voting until you get the result you want.

For those scriptural christians patient enough to stay in the Anglican Church I say fight the good fight. You still have a long uphill battle, but you won a victory on Sunday, enjoy it.

Avoid Depression: Stay Married!

Statistics Canada has once again affirmed the importance of lasting marriages to our society. In its Study on Marital Breakdown and Subsquent Depression Stats Canada found:

• Men aged 20 to 64 who had divorced or separated were 6 times more likely to report an episode of depression than were men who remained married.
• Loss of custody or a change in parental responsibilities is one of the most stressful aspects of post-divorce life for men.
• Women who had undergone a marital break-up were 3.5 times more likely to have had a bout of depression than were their counterparts who were still in a relationship.
• 43% of women who went through a break-up had a substantial drop in their household income.
• Even when taking other related factors into account, the end of a relationship was independently associated with the risk of depression among both sexes.
• The study found that most people who experienced depression in the post-relationship period were no longer depressed four years after the break-up. But for a sizeable minority, depression remained a problem.

The study focussed on married couples, but it would make sense that the same negative factors would be in play with long term unmarried relationships. The only difference is that those unmarried relationships are considerably less stable so the risk of depression is that much greater.

The bottom line is long term stable marriages are good for everyone. If you're married stay that way. If you're a law maker stop messing with marriage it's way too important to our society.

The Theology of Sex

I am absolutely amazed at an apparent lack of understanding of Christian Theology that has been on display since Anglican Bishop Michael Ingham declared:

The Christian church has a deeply flawed understanding of sex that has led to morally groundless objections to masturbation, birth control, abortion and homosexuality, says a leading Canadian Anglican bishop.

In particular, the church has been wrong for centuries on the notion that sex exists only for the purpose of procreation, Right Rev. Michael Ingham, bishop of the greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster, told a conference in Ottawa last night.

"Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality,"
he said, "a better understanding of the complex role sexuality plays in our
human nature and of the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings."

Does it? The Christian Church has a very coherent teaching on sex, and this teaching was recently enhanced by Pope John Paul the Great's Theology of the Body.

In reality the Church Teaching is really not that difficult. Here's how I understand it:

• God created man and woman to be physically complimentary.
• God gave us sex as the means to procreate and therefore it is good.
• Sex is an essential part of marriage that serves to draw husband and wife closer together and can allow the couple to participate in God's plan of creation.
• Marriage is a symbol of God's love for his people, where the two become one flesh.
• Sex outside of marriage is always sinful, and God explicitly forbids homosexual sex.
• Chastity is a high virtue that every single person is called to.
• When we remove the procreative aspect from sex, we diminish the gift that was given to us by God.

Unfortunately Bishop Ingham and his followers reject this outright assuming that traditional church teaching is a list of prohibitions. Like all of God's law, we are given this direction not to diminish our pleasure but to protect us from the hurt and emptiness that are inevitably caused by sin. God also recognizes that we will inevitably fail to meet his standard of perfection, but He is quick to forgive us every time we confess our sins.

If Bishop Ingham began to propose a new Christian Theology of Sex, he would have a very difficult time improving on the Church's current teaching, which, derives directly from God's word in the Bible. Ingham's vision of a new permissive sexual theology that called all sex moral could simply not be called Christian in any sense.

Sad

I'm sad. The House of Commons voted not to protect marriage today. When former Prime Minister Paul Martin forced the issue on Canadians with an undemocratic vote, we had same sex marriage because of a lack of democracy. Today we have same sex marriage because of a lack of will. I'm especially disappointed in those MPs who voted down the motion in a misguided attempt to make the issue go away. Sorry, it won't just go away.

Marriages Last!

I cannot count the number of times I've heard people quote the inaccurate statistic "50% of marriages end in divorce." I heard it from family, friends, acquaintances, the media, even priests and pastors. I've always known that it was a completely bogus statistic. Truthfully one of the reasons I started this blog was I wanted to write about this topic, I've just been too lazy to do all the research. Now with this latest report from Statistics Canada (brief version), my homework has been done for me. Here are some of the studies key findings:

At the time the survey was done, over two-thirds of the 16.6 million people who had married at some point in their life were still with their first spouse. They had been married for an average of 23.5 years.

There you have it, hard evidence, marriages last. Not to mention other factors that point to long marriages:

People who attend religious services during the year, even if only several times, have between a 10% and 31% lower predicted risk of marital dissolution than those who do not attend at all. (This excludes attending services on special occasions like weddings, christenings and funerals.)

This is definitely not surprising, people who have an active faith, will naturally be better equipped at being faithful.

People who do not believe that marriage is important for them to be happy have a
predicted risk of both first and subsequent marriage failure 170% to 330% higher than people who feel it is very important, when all other variables are controlled for.

The inverse is also true, if you believe in marriage, you are more likely to stay married. This statistic underlines the importance of the Catholic concept discerning your vocation; decide if you are meant to be married, or single or have a religious vocation, then commit to it. Don't let anyone convince you that believing in marriage is naïveté. Speaking of being naïve, don't buy the lie that you should live together before you are married:

Living common-law is also strongly associated with a first marital breakdown. In fact, the risk is 50% higher among people who lived with their partner before the wedding than among those who did not. This finding is supported by recent Canadian research which clearly shows that marriages preceded by a common-law
union are distinctly less stable than those that began at the altar, possibly because the tradition of marriage is less important to people who have participated in non-traditional conjugal relationships.

Common law relationships have a tendency to just happen, and they don't have the same level of stability as a wedded relationship where both husband and wife say they are committed to each other from the start. If a relationship starts with this uncertainty, it makes sense that the uncertainty will continue into the marriage. The study didn't compare couples that had abstained from sex before they were married, but this will also be an excellent indicator of the couple's ability to commit to on another.

The study authors conclude:

In general the predicted likelihood that their marriage will succeed is higher for people who marry in their 30s, did not live common-law before the wedding,
have children, attend religious services, are university educated, and believe that marriage is important if they are to be happy.

What else can I say the data speaks for itself? Actually, I'll share two short memories.

Before I even met my wife, I declared that I would never get divorced to some extended family members. They were quick to rebuke me saying I couldn't know. The data suggests you can know if your marriage will last, if you and your spouse are faith-filled and believe strongly in your committment, the odds are strongly in your favour.

Also when I was getting married, the rash of people willing to share their horror stories and bogus statistics was staggering. It's easy to see how a newly wed couple could be discouraged. Again the data says don't be. Rather, be encouraged, making the right decisions will lead to a long and healthy marriage!

Sorry, It won't Just Go Away

Ok, now I'm cheesed off. The red tories think they can muddy the waters and do away with the Conservative commitment to hold a vote on restoring traditional marriage.

This issue has been fraught with government betrayals. Stephen Harper don't disappoint us with another one. Standing up for the traditional definition of marriage was supported by the over 75% of conservative party delegates at the last party policy convention. Holding the vote was Stephen Harper's first promise in the last election.

The Liberal government betrayed Canadians when it passed a motion stating clearly in June 1999 that, "Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this {traditional} definition of marriage in Canada." But it was just a facade. Subsequently the Liberal government voted to redefine marriage in a vote where many Liberal cabinet ministers were forced to vote against their consciences. I believe that when Canadians voted for change, it included voting to allow an honest debate on this issue.

Now the Conservatives are shying away from this. The Globe and Mail article above states, "Perhaps one cabinet minister, speaking on condition of anonymity, summed it up best: “I wish it would just go away.”"

A cabinet minister was speaking on the condition of anonymity. Give me a break. You're in cabinet, not some obscure bureaucrat. Grow a backbone. You're in a position of leadership, if you're not willing to state your views clearly in public, you shouldn't be in public office at all let alone one of the key decision makers. Shame on you.

Regardless, the issue will not just go away. When new laws are forced on people in an undemocratic manner, people will continue to fight those laws - look at the pro-life movement. The only way to make any issue go away is to deal with it.

Maybe holding a vote right away isn't the best direction. To have an informed debate, parliament should begin a round of consultations with the public, and perhaps commission a study on the benefits of heterosexual marriage to society and the benefits of other legal contracts. The process may take a little bit longer, but at least it will allow for the debate that Stephen Harper promised Canadians.