Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage

[LimitedGovernment]

Let's look at the actual statistics and patterns instead of the words of the article.

Based on the numbers, these are the general statements for analysis:

People who cohabitate tend to delay marriage and get divorced more often.

People who delay marriage the most have a pattern of being in bad relationships.

Women who cohabitate view it as a step to marriage.

Men who cohabitate tend to view it as a way to explore options without commitment.

Possible conclusions to be drawn from just these statements:

People who cohabitate for long periods of time do so because they are bad with relationships and do not want to get married; thus divorces result from bad relationship skills.

Men who cohabitate do so because they want to test the waters until they find the person that they like the most; thus divorces result from the non-commital perspectives of men.

Women who cohabitate do so with the expectation that the men will commit to them; thus divorces result of women's expectation of commitment from those that they live with (to the exclusion of other considerations).

Possible conclusions to be drawn when considering other relevant research:

Both men and women lack effective communication skills - this results in the perspectives and situations that lead to serial cohabitation and divorce.

Both men and women have unrealistic expectations about marriage - this results in the perspectives and situations that lead to delaying marriage and getting divorced.


None of these conclusions that can be drawn justify the headline's implication that cohabitation causes marriages to fail.

Edit: Nor does it justify the idea that cohabitation is a bad thing in general - that it is a bad form of relationship.

Furthermore, this topic belongs in a different forum. Probably "Hot Topics" in "Misc. Discussion", but at least in "Off Topic". The "Freedom Living" forum is for off-the-grid info.

 

[Ivash]

Wow OP is getting trolled pretty badly.

It is common knowledge that cohabitation leads to unhappier marriages and more divorce. Why is that is under debate? Those that deny these facts deny reality.

As for the value of marriage, it is shown to have good side effects on the members mental and physical health, but the particular gains are for the children.

 

[majinkoola]

Correlation does not imply causation. You can't draw any conclusion from this, except for the fact that people who cohabitate before marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate. There easily could be a confounding variable which affects both the independent variable (cohabitating) and dependent variable (divorce).

 

[Yieu]

Thank you for this article. Something didn't seem right when people suggested living together before we married to "get to know each other".

To be clear, this is also a Hindu religious principle to not live together before marriage (and we are not Hindu by birth).

Some of us have no desire to ever marry. We're agnostics, what would be the reason for us to get married? We have no god to profess our faith to one another before.

It is true that marriage is entirely a religious thing, as you have mentioned. You don't have reason to marry if you're not religious, so I would see the quote above as more of an accurate statement than a complaint.

But with this in mind, there is nothing wrong with people voluntarily applying this religious principle of marriage and deciding to not co-habitate, and this principle applies to all major religions. No one is forcing it onto others, we just want to do it the way we feel is right for ourselves.

And to break a common myth regarding marriage:

Marriage is not "just a legal agreement", or "just a piece of paper", it is a relationship which involves a third person -- the Lord.

 

[speciallyblend]

Thank you for your deep insight.

it is true, hell me and my wife lived together before we married. This article sounds like hogwash to me simple hogwash.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Marriage is what you make of it. A marriage without love is doomed to fail. On top of that, love is a choice, not an emotion. Trust me, when things get really stormy in your relationship, you really have to make the choice to love your partner and see them through to the other side.

I've been married and divorced. I've learned a lot from it. Now I'm getting married again. I'm currently living with my fiance'. Just as it was a conscious choice to live together, it'll be a conscious choice to stay together. Marriages are hard as hell. Ten years into the marriage it's not going to matter whether or not you lived together for that six months, or that year, or that five years before marriage. What's going to matter is how resolved you are at making your marriage work no fucking matter what.

 

[driller80545]

it is true, hell me and my wife lived together before we married. This article sounds like hogwash to me simple hogwash.

b

So did my wife and I. I agree with the hogwash description. Nothing wrong with being sure the organ fits well in the cathedral before you buy it.

 

[Yieu]

Marriage is what you make of it.

This is true, and the only marriage to be concerned about is one's own. I didn't like when others told us we should live together first, and I wouldn't tell anyone to do as I did, either.

 

[idiom]

And as far as "1940s morality" is concerned.....divorce rates were much lower then. A connection maybe?

It was incredibly hard to get divorced or earn a living as a woman then.

What we really need to do is ban employment of women. Then they will fight tooth and nail to stay married.

 

[jmdrake]

Correlation does not imply causation. You can't draw any conclusion from this, except for the fact that people who cohabitate before marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate. There easily could be a confounding variable which affects both the independent variable (cohabitating) and dependent variable (divorce).

True. But non-correlation does imply lack of causation. And correlation implies evidence. Therefore the title of the thread is 100% correct. Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage. Really, the "arguments" in this thread are beyond silly. If people who cohabited had lower divorce rates the "free love" crowd would be treating that news as gospel.

 

[jmdrake]

It was incredibly hard to get divorced or earn a living as a woman then.

What we really need to do is ban employment of women. Then they will fight tooth and nail to stay married.

Yeah. And today with easy divorce and women working outside the home, those who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who do not. That doesn't mean that you should be barred from cohabitating. Do what you want. I won't stop you.

 

[awake]

You mean living together hurts your chances of living together?

 

[angelatc]

'force' was in quotes; You are trying to suggest cohabitation is harmful.
JBS really should have thought twice before writing up something this bad, IMO.
This is a Liberty movement, don't you have something more valuable to contribute?

Part of embracing liberty is being prepared to embrace the consequences of your choices. You can't seriously be sticking your fingers in your ears yealling "LALALALA" because you don't want to hear this, can you?

 

[angelatc]

Wow OP is getting trolled pretty badly.

It is common knowledge that cohabitation leads to unhappier marriages and more divorce. Why that is under debate. .

Because the liberals don't want to face the truth.

My grandfather smoked 2 packs a day for 70 some years. The fact that he did not get cancer does not mean the odds of him getting cancer were not higher than they would have been if he had not smoked.

 

[angelatc]

Marriage is what you make of it. A marriage without love is doomed to fail. On top of that, love is a choice, not an emotion. Trust me, when things get really stormy in your relationship, you really have to make the choice to love your partner and see them through to the other side.

I've been married and divorced.

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Ivash]

Correlation does not imply causation. You can't draw any conclusion from this, except for the fact that people who cohabitate before marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate. There easily could be a confounding variable which affects both the independent variable (cohabitating) and dependent variable (divorce).

The term 'correlation does not imply causation' is being used by everyone to try and discredit statistics that don't fit into their world view. Unless you have an actual argument to what else could affect the rate, your entire post simply isn't a real response.

I'll throw one to you, though: those who co-inhabit tend to be less religious than those who don't, and the religious tend to get divorced less often ('religious' in this case being defined as those who go to Church on a regular bases- this holds for many of the people who are only culturally religious).

 

[TheGrinch]

The term 'correlation does not imply causation' is being used by everyone to try and discredit statistics that don't fit into their world view. Unless you have an actual argument to what else could affect the rate, your entire post simply isn't a real response.

Can pretty easily flip that one, and say that denying that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is used by everyone seeking to validate statistics that do fit into their world view. It is not on the people who are not sold that it's not the case to provide proof, it's up to those providing the statistics to show that these are not simply spurious relationships.

Actually, by you throwing him a bone, you did show one way that contributes to it's likely spuriousness. My grandparents were religious folks who believed in family values, and thus, despite the fact that they got along so poorly that my Grandad ended up building an apartment to live in on the other side of the property, they stayed together only to both be there for the kids, and certainly did not have a healthy relationship.

Thus, in their case, their decision to stay together had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the marriage or co-habitation. So it's pretty easy to say that divorce rates among different demographics might have very little to do with cohabitation, and don't necessarily correlate to marriage satisfaction. All that it means is that people who are more religious or committed might be less inclined to co-habitate pre-marriage and get divorced, but it certainly doesn't mean their marriage is necessarily any happier.

Thus, a relationship between divorce and co-habitation, tells us little to nothing about the quality of marriage like it implies. You can have a miserable marriage but be drawn not to get divorced, jsut as easily as someone else might have a more fulfilling marriage but be mroe inclined to get divorced. The realtionship seems entirely spurious, or even if causal, co-habitation tells us very little about the most important factor: quality of marriage.

 

[Voluntary Man]

i conducted my own informal survey, over many years, starting before i even met my wife, and came to the same conclusion. i talked to so many people who had lived together for 8 years, and then divorced after two years of marriage, that i was determined i would never shack up, not if i wanted the best chance for a successful marriage. i mean, really, what kind of idiot got into marriage without making a best effort to avoid divorce? and who shacks up without even acknowledging the possibility of marriage?

Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage
The New American
Written by Kelly Holt
Saturday, 21 April 2012 22:30

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Can pretty easily flip that one

Thank you for your post. Sincerely.

i mean, really, what kind of idiot got into marriage without making a best effort to avoid divorce? and who shacks up without even acknowledging the possibility of marriage?

The goal of marriage isn't to avoid divorce. It's to have a better life for the people involved.

Plenty of people have worthwhile relationships without ever being married.

 

[Ivash]

Can pretty easily flip that one, and say that denying that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is used by everyone seeking to validate statistics that do fit into their world view. It is not on the people who are not sold that it's not the case to provide proof, it's up to those providing the statistics to show that these are not simply spurious relationships.

Actually, by you throwing him a bone, you did show one way that contributes to it's likely spuriousness. My grandparents were religious folks who believed in family values, and thus, despite the fact that they got along so poorly that my Grandad ended up building an apartment to live in on the other side of the property, they stayed together only to both be there for the kids, and certainly did not have a healthy relationship.

Thus, in their case, their decision to stay together had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the marriage or co-habitation. So it's pretty easy to say that divorce rates among different demographics might have very little to do with cohabitation, and don't necessarily correlate to marriage satisfaction. All that it means is that people who are more religious or committed might be less inclined to co-habitate pre-marriage and get divorced, but it certainly doesn't mean their marriage is necessarily any happier.

Thus, a relationship between divorce and co-habitation, tells us little to nothing about the quality of marriage like it implies. You can have a miserable marriage but be drawn not to get divorced, jsut as easily as someone else might have a more fulfilling marriage but be mroe inclined to get divorced. The realtionship seems entirely spurious, or even if causal, co-habitation tells us very little about the most important factor: quality of marriage.

We're having a simple debate here- I have neither the desire nor the ability to actually legislate any particular beliefs of my own. As I am not the one implying that all available statistics are worthless I am in no need to back up my allegations- I already have a set of proof for them. I actually wrote a book on marriage and its impact on happiness, health, and a child's upbringing, so I've gone over literally thousands of studies and their implications. I'm speaking from a position of knowledge when it comes to this matter.

Finally, and importantly as it is so often ignored on the internet, it is an accepted form of debating that he who is promoting a viewpoint, whatever that viewpoint may be, that needs to set out to prove that viewpoint. In other words, he is trying to prove the set of points false, and as he is trying to advance that goal it is on him to do so, not on me. It has absolutely nothing to do with who is 'sold' on an issue or not- psychologically the odds of even the most rational of issues convincing another person to drop their argument are slim, which is perhaps the most important thing I learned when going to Dartmouth College.

Likely spuriousness? While I'm happy that you believe that anecdotal evidence is admissible in a debate, it doesn't actually mean anything when compared to statistical evidence...

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/04/17/does-marriage-help-your-health-and-happiness/
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/married-people-happier-than-singles.htm

(That last survey has a nice little quote: Nevertheless, psychologists have pointed to marriage as the single most reliable happiness indicator. Across nations and ethnic groups, people report greater happiness from marriage than career, community or money.) Those all show marriages significant positive impacts on marriage- and they were only two of dozens of similar studies I could have picked.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698975884747
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC261432
http://marri.us/get.cfm?i=RS11I02
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/38/religion-and-family

-shows positive correlation between quality of marriage and religion.

Yes, admittedly, all of these are taken from a quick scan on Google. They are only a few among many hundreds that show similar findings, however.