Wow as an atheist, I have not ONCE cheated yet many of my religious friends have. Your ignorance isridiculous.

ME AND MY WIFE WERE BOTH VERGINS WHEN WE GOT MARRIED WE HAVE BEEN MARRIED ALMOST 40 YEARS NOW AND EITHER ONE OF US HAS CHEATED ON EACH OTHER. D. FISH,R.FISH

Yes, Holy Matrimony meant something in an EXTREME way to me, and I thought, my husband who was even more well versed in the Bible and God's laws than myself. Twenty four years and two children later he announced he wanted out. Long story short I found out and it was proven, that he had an affair with the pastor's sister. As if that wasn't bad enough, he was an elder in the same church. Adding furtherinsult to injury, the congregation knew and saw it all and did nothing. The pastor even gave him his guest house when we seperated. A lot of good Holy Matrimony did us. No wonder attendance has dropped in churches. And yes, after my divorce, I read an article that also said the divorce rate withing the Christian community was as high as non-believers. 60%. Tragic. I heard the thumping of the Bible for 24 years and even after the seperation. Don't thump it anymore.

"Those who report no religious affiliation also report higher rates of extramarital involvement," but what if the religiously affiliated are more likely to separate or divorce & remarry (or pursue non-marital relations) (see article on higher divorce rates among more religious: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm, 2008)? In effect, both groups would have multiple sex partners in a life-time, but the latter would pose more of a threat to familial stability.


The article assumes that extramarital sex necessarily counts as infidelity. But there's a difference between cheating or infidelity, which is what this article is mainly about, and extramarital involvement. For example, my partner & I are willing to become romantically-sexually involved w/ a third party, but we wouldn't consider it cheating unless there's lack of consent from any one party. Given that those w/ lower "levels of attending religious services and religiosity" have more "permissive attitudes towards extramarital affairs," they are probably less likely to view an extramarital involvement as cheating or infidelity. So, it is intellectually dishonest for this article to conclude that "those who are not religious" "are more likely to cheat."


Also, there's a major problem w/ the validity of self-reports of shameful/embarrassing behaviors: under-reporting. Since the more religious have "less permissive attitudes towards extramarital affairs," they might be more likely to under-report their extramarital affairs. Given how much the religiously-affiliated over-report (or lie about) attending religious services and tithing (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm, 2007), I wouldn't be surprised if they significantly under-report (or lie about) extramarital involvement.

What a pile of religious bigotry. All religious belief indicates is gullibility, lower intelligence, or lower education level. Only the religious would lie and claim that religion increases fidelity in the face of objective statistics which all confirm the opposite. This is no different than religionists who insist on "abstinence" sex-education which is a proven failure. But then, dishonesty and religion were made for each other, weren't they?

oh man...so many thoughts...


ok, here is my first thought, and i will try to summarize, at the risk of making generalizations that people will nit-pick apart with details. and yes, i realize this is a personal thought and that i am probably a minority in this way of thinking. BUT. the whole idea of marriage is exactly that - an idea. in today's society where the community is hardly responsible for each other (as opposed to thousands of years ago when the community was the tribe, and they looked out for each other), marriage and family becomes the sustaining unit in this privatized, ego-centric "civilization" of today. but human beings are animals, and they have animalistic - or instinctual - urges. for a man, this means guaranteeing his lineage - by spreading his seed and increasing his chances for offspring survival. for a woman, this means finding and accepting the most suitable mate that will increase her own offspring's chances at survival, by choosing a mating partner that has the strongest characteristic traits she values.


when these instinctual urges are boxed into a set standard of relational bureaucracy (i.e., dating, engagement, marriage) in order to provide the long-term security once provided by the community, things are more than likely bound to go awry (hence high divorce rates - the increase in percentages over the years having so many facets it would be impossible to go into all of it here, but ranges from population increase, to public interest, to honest reporting, and beyond). in essence, modern-day marriage is at odds with a human being's natural and instinctual method of procreation.


all that said, the above is not to say that a successful, monogamous, committed lifetime relationship between a man and a woman is unfeasible. but i just don't think it's as common a denominator than i think most people would like to consider it.


for those concerned with religion, as i am most familiar with christianity, i will cite the book of matthew, chapter 19, verses 9-12. whoever can accept it ought to accept it - indeed!