Cohabitation and divorce rates

[CelticChristian]

I was having a conversation with my secular friend recently, when the topic of cohabitation came up. I said that cohabiting couples have much higher divorce rates than those who don’t live together before marriage.

He replied:
“That’s not a fair statistic. People who don’t live together before marriage are deeply religious, and deeply religious people don’t believe in divorce, or at least have a very negative view of it. That’s the only reason their divorce rates are lower”.

How do I reply to this? Is this indeed the only reason there is such discrepency? Or (as I strongly suspect) is there something to do with cohabitation *itself *which makes such couples more likely to split up?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[1ke]

I suggest that you go to the Rutgers University website for their Marriage Project. They did a study on cohabitation prior to marriage and divorce.

 

[lsu]

Look around most of the catholic faith has a high divorce rate. Check with other religons check there divorce rate. What catholics don’t understand is that they allow there people go and sin in the world.Drinking ,drugs,bar hoping,parting with there children,yes they of leagly age. Husbands coming home late at night while the wife is at home past out drunk. By the way this is a married catholic family.

But when there’s a boyfriend and girlfriend living together that work and come.No drinking and go and eat out on Friday nights that a sin. I rather stay away drom the catholic religon because they encourage to go out and party.

 

[chevalier]

Naww, Catholics don’t encourage getting drunk or neglecting one’s spouse. It’s not a sin to have fun and we aren’t made for suffering alone.

 

[CapIV]

I think it is more than just cohabitation that has led to an increase in divorce rates. I think it is more a result of how birth control has become acceptable and abortion has been legalized. And nowadays, it is also probably has to do with the fact that over half of Americans are brought up in broken homes.

 

[CapIV]

Look around most of the catholic faith has a high divorce rate. Check with other religons check there divorce rate. What catholics don’t understand is that they allow there people go and sin in the world.Drinking ,drugs,bar hoping,parting with there children,yes they of leagly age. Husbands coming home late at night while the wife is at home past out drunk. By the way this is a married catholic family.

But when there’s a boyfriend and girlfriend living together that work and come.No drinking and go and eat out on Friday nights that a sin. I rather stay away drom the catholic religon because they encourage to go out and party.

umm, what?

 

[SHEMP]

I would reply by trying not to make a comparison. I would focus on the cohabitation group as a separate study. What is the divorce rate in this group (I thought that it approaches 70%)? What is the rate of physical abuse in those who are not married and cohabitate?

I think that the numbers will at least show that one cannot make the claim that cohabitation will make divorce uncommon or that it will decrease physical abuse. The numbers are very high in this group. I would try to explore with the secular individual as to what might be the reason for the high rate of divorce in this group. Why might there be a high rate of physical abuse? There seems to be a dependency that develops in these relationships. They are not “trial” relationships. The data would suggest that it is difficult for these couples to separate if they are not compatible. Could one conclude that a courtship prior to marriage might in fact allow a couple to better determine compatibility? How does sexual intercourse and cohabitation impact the relationship prior to marriage.

There are many questions that can be thought about and considered independent of the comparison of divorce rates.

 

[mlchance]

He replied:
“That’s not a fair statistic. People who don’t live together before marriage are deeply religious, and deeply religious people don’t believe in divorce, or at least have a very negative view of it. That’s the only reason their divorce rates are lower”.

How do I reply to this?

So, basically, he agrees you’re right, and then attempts to belittle your correctness. Since he’s acknowledged that non-cohabitators have lower divorce rates, and if he says that it’s better to not divorce than to divorce in general, it seems as if he’s admitting that society would be better off if people were more religious.

Hardly seems like a very effective rebuttal of your initial point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[otjm]

I suggest that you go to the Rutgers University website for their Marriage Project. They did a study on cohabitation prior to marriage and divorce.

See also the study by a professor at Cornell University; sorry that I have lost my citation; but his study showed that couples cohabiting broke - 50% within a year, 90% within 5 years; I think it was published in the journal Demographics.

 

[BillP]

So, basically, he agrees you’re right, and then attempts to belittle your correctness. Since he’s acknowledged that non-cohabitators have lower divorce rates, and if he says that it’s better to not divorce than to divorce in general, it seems as if he’s admitting that society would be better off if people were more religious.

Hardly seems like a very effective rebuttal of your initial point.

– Mark L. Chance.

It is if the OP is using the statistic to try to imply that cohabitation causes divorce. And this:

Or (as I strongly suspect) is there something to do with cohabitation *itself *which makes such couples more likely to split up?

certainly sounds like that was the implication.

Remember “correlation is not causation” and post hoc doesn’t necessarily prompter hoc.

 

[otjm]

I was having a conversation with my secular friend recently, when the topic of cohabitation came up. I said that cohabiting couples have much higher divorce rates than those who don’t live together before marriage.

He replied:
“That’s not a fair statistic. People who don’t live together before marriage are deeply religious, and deeply religious people don’t believe in divorce, or at least have a very negative view of it. That’s the only reason their divorce rates are lower”.

How do I reply to this? Is this indeed the only reason there is such discrepency? Or (as I strongly suspect) is there something to do with cohabitation *itself *which makes such couples more likely to split up?

Thanks and God bless.

How do you apply. A very good question, because most people tend to look at complex issues in very simplistic terms.

It is simplistic to reduce non-divorcing among believers to the fact that they don’t believe in divorce. Underlying their belief is their acceptance of certain “rules”, or moral stances; and it is easy to get lost in an arguement about rules vs. non-rules (or different rules), as if the rules were simply made in a vacuum.

Underlying all moral rules are certain presumptions; and underlying rules within the Judeo-Christian general guidelines is the issue of who and what Man is. I use the term “general” as I don’t want to get side-tracked about recent morla musings among theologienas who do not want to accept the 2000 year old common basis among Christians, and the 1500 or 2000 more years within the Judaic community - in other words, the Ten Commandments and what has commonly been accepted as flowing from that. To wit: fornication is a sin.

It is easy to get side-tracked in arguements about what sin is or is not; but at its essence, it is an act, or a failure to act as we were designed. If we were designed to act in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens family, then acting in a way contrary to that weakens family. Certain conclusions flow from that.

One of the most interesting things I learned, somewhat later than I would have liked to, was the influence of certain hormones on the body and in particular on the mind, and in particular oxytocin. It is released during nursing in women, and during intercourse in both men and women, and works on the mind, to paraphrase Janet Smith, to make us dumb and blind; it causes emotional bonding and has the effect of casuing us to overlook or minimize issues with the other that should drive us apart without its effect.

That in itself should cause anyone who is thinking, to pause and consider what effect it might have on two people who, other than sex, have little or nothing in common.

Add to that a lot of research into how people respond emotionally to various issues (for example, the issue of trust in a married couple about sexual activities outside marriage), and we have more information about why a certain moral law may reflect how, by following it, we avoid future problematic issues.

What do I mean by that? With so many people entering marriage after having multiple sexual partners (which in and of itself devalues marriage - why be married?), once they commit to marriage to another person, what is to keep either of them from wanering, or wondering if the other is wandering? Issues of trust, which often run deeper than we realize, are also part of the equation.

 

[Dale_M]

So, basically, he agrees you’re right, and then attempts to belittle your correctness. Since he’s acknowledged that non-cohabitators have lower divorce rates, and if he says that it’s better to not divorce than to divorce in general, it seems as if he’s admitting that society would be better off if people were more religious.

Yes, that basically was my take on it. People who place a high value on marriage’s unique status and special privileges are less likely to co-habit. These same people are less likely to divorce because they place a high value on marriage’s unique status.

In contrast, people who don’t give much value to marriage’s unique status are more likely to co-habit, and also to divorce… because they don’t place a high value on marriage as a unique status.