So, your point is that marriage is of no help whatever in encuraging parents to stay together?
Sure, some parents might stay together and raise children to their adulthood (the Defoe article mentions that the bennefits of two-parent families extends till children are well into their adult years). But I feel safe in saying that except for married parents, that is a very rare thing in America.
If you look at the divorce rate, how could you argue otherwise?
If you look at the number of kids being raised in parent-absent households ... where there was never any marriage to begin with, it's nice to assume that had the parents been married they would have stayed married. But isn't necessarily so, and again, look at the divorce rate.
Sure, some parents might stay together and raise children to their adulthood (the Defoe article mentions that the bennefits of two-parent families extends till children are well into their adult years). But I feel safe in saying that except for married parents, that is a very rare thing in America.
Yes it is rare in the USA. But the article was using Scandinavia as an example. And there are more two-parent households (not necessarily married) than there are in the USA. There is also a lower teen conception rate, poverty, etc.
What are they doing that keeps more parents together?
Look marriage is great, but what is it that keeps parents together, married or not, for the benefit of their kids?