Why cohabitation over marriage?

[doubtThomas]

This again? No, the studies show a correlation between divorce and cohabitation. But that doesn’t mean one causes the other. Define the word "correlation."

Very likely, the actual cause is that couples who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage are more likely to cohabitate and to divorce, but that does not mean cohabitation plays any role in divorce. Please clarify.

Why are people cohabitating more these days? Don’t know why. I wouldn’t recommend it. Recent studies have shown that those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates. Cohabitating woman were 80% more likely to separate or divorce than were woman who had not lived with their spouses before marriage (Psychology Today - findings by Yale University sociologist Neil Bennett). The National Surveys of Families and Households indicates that “unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57% to 30%.” Another 5 yr. study by William Axinn of the University of Chicago found “of 800 couples reported in the Journal of Demography, those who cohabit are most accepting of divorce.” In a Canadian study at the University of Western Ontario, sociologists found a direct relationship between cohabitation and divorce when investigating over 8,000 ever-married men and women. It was determined that living in a non-marital union “has a direct negative impact on subsequent marital stability,” because living in such a union “undermines the legitimacy of formal marriage” and so "reduces commitment of marriage."

Marriage is much less sacred than it used to be and society is much more open about sex than it used to be.

This leads to two scenarios: the first is a couple that sees the high divorce rate and are so concerned about it that they want a “trial marriage” to ensure that thing will work out (after all, nearly half of all children getting married these days come from divorced parents). So they move in together. Those who have trial marriages don’t have better marriages.Trial runs, to test whether the relationship “works” aren’t successful, in fact the opposite is true. Research indicates that couples who live together before marriage have significantly lower marital satisfaction than those who do not cohabit and they have weaker marriages, not stronger ones. Conventional wisdom says its acceptable to have a “trial period” to “try the shoe on to see if it fits” or to “test drive a car before you buy it.” For marriage, just the opposite is true. A newly married couple makes a deliberate effort to accomodate each other because they know their relationship will be for life. They want to build compatibility, not test it. Dating, not living with someone, is supposed to be about learning about someone.

The second scenario are couples that don’t believe marriage is required in order to form a long-term commitment so they move in together. **Those people living together have no lasting commitments or responsibilities. Cohabitation involves “no public commitment, no pledge for the future, no official pronouncement of love and responsibility. Their’s is a private arrangement based on an emotional bond. The commitment” of living together is simply a month-to-month rental agreement." As long as you behave yourself and keep me happy, I’ll stick around."

Marriage, on the other hand, is much more than a love partnership. It is a public event that involves legal and societal responsibilities. It not only brings together two people but also two families and two communities. It is not just for here and now; it is, “'til death do us part.”**

I HOPE THIS HAS HELPED.

 

[Joe_5859]

First of all, why would you have said it if you didn’t imply causation? It wouldn’t have been germane to the discussion otherwise. Second, your language structure clearly does indicate causation. This indication comes from the grouping of the two phrases and the time dependent nature of the language structure.

Not indicating causation would have been a phrase such as “Couples that cohabitate are also more likely to get divorced” which indicates correlation but not necessarily causation.

I said: “…couples who cohabitate before getting married are more likely to get divorced…”

You think it would be better if I said: “Couples that cohabitate are also more likely to get divorced”.

So you won’t begrudge me the absence of the word “also”?

I have said that correlation does not imply causation in more posts than I can count. I’ve used it so much I’ve thought of adding it to my signature.

Nonetheless, thank you for clarifying. Yes, correlation does not imply causation (though, of course, there always could be a causal relationship, but it is very difficult to prove causation in cases like this). But that doesn’t mean the link between the two is irrelevant or isn’t worth talking about. I think we can agree on that, no?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

But that doesn’t mean the link between the two is irrelevant or isn’t worth talking about. I think we can agree on that, no?

I guess it depends if you think couples staying in unhappy marriages is something to brag about.

 

[crazzeto]

I guess it depends if you think couples staying in unhappy marriages is something to brag about.

Interesting POV, how about a couple that realizes that due to the sacramental nature of their marriage and who properly puts God first will be open and sensitive to the needs and feelings of their partner… And like wise will tend to rationally work through their problems more often than individuals looking for instance gratification, and what’s in it for me.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Someone once said that cohabitation “is a commitment to a non-commitment”.

Interesting observation.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Interesting POV, how about a couple that realizes that due to the sacramental nature of their marriage and who properly puts God first will be open and sensitive to the needs and feelings of their partner… And like wise will tend to rationally work through their problems more often than individuals looking for instance gratification, and what’s in it for me.

Which is why cohabitation is only a symptom and the cause for the high divorce rate goes much deeper. The people who live together are less likely to think suffering for a marriage is worthwhile and almost certainly do not view marriage as an unbreakable covenant. If you point out the higher divorce rate it will likely be taken as a positive sign that people are not forced to stay in miserable or abusive marriages.

 

[crazzeto]

Which is why cohabitation is only a symptom and the cause for the high divorce rate goes much deeper. The people who live together are less likely to think suffering for a marriage is worthwhile and almost certainly do not view marriage as an unbreakable covenant. If you point out the higher divorce rate it will likely be taken as a positive sign that people are not forced to stay in miserable or abusive marriages.

First of all, it’s not that simple. The fact is people are defined by the choices they make everyday, as well as the values of society around them. Thus in a culture which values the self, over anything else, and behaviours like cohabitation… It becomes far more likely that an individual in that setting will accept these “values”.

With regard to your latter comment, never did the Church teach that abusive relationships are good, or that one must stay in one. There are a number of tragic psychological reasons why people stay in relationships… Which means, people trapped in abusive relationships aren’t better off in a self centered culture which values breaking up marriages when it’s convinent. They’ll stay in the abusive relationships regardless.

 

[CoffeeHound]

Define the word “correlation.”

Given other statistical controls, variation in variable X is accompanied by variation in variable Y a statistically significant proportionate of the potential occurrences.

Example: People who drive a Ferrari tend to live in a big house.

Please clarify.

Let’s reuse the above: People who drive a Ferrari tend to live in a big house.

That doesn’t mean that driving a Ferrari leads to living in a big house. Wealth leads to both driving a Ferrari and to living in a big house.

The same argument can be made for cohabitation and divorce. Let’s say that I believe marriage is a “useless legalization of my love.” If that’s my opinion, I’m more likely to cohabitate because I don’t value marriage. I’m also more likely to divorce because I don’t value marriage. So the cause of the divorce isn’t cohabitation, it’s a decreased value of marriage.

Don’t know why. I wouldn’t recommend it. Recent studies have shown that those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates.
…
Research indicates that couples who live together before marriage have significantly lower marital satisfaction than those who do not cohabit and they have weaker marriages, not stronger ones.

That’s actually the point of my above post. You can’t make that connection.

I will, however, make the hypothesis that there is a connection between cohabitation and divorce. People who live together before marriage then move in have no real change in their lives. The marriage seems to be on paper-only. Couples that have to move in together, start having sex, etc. experience a “shock effect” where their lives are forever different because of the marriage.

However, based on the correlation studies I’ve seen (at least one referenced above), you can’t make the claim that the above is true. You need a more in-depth study.

Nonetheless, thank you for clarifying. Yes, correlation does not imply causation (though, of course, there always could be a causal relationship, but it is very difficult to prove causation in cases like this). But that doesn’t mean the link between the two is irrelevant or isn’t worth talking about. I think we can agree on that, no?

Agreed. I just really dislike when use that argument to claim why cohabitation is bad. Let’s call it what it is. It’s sinful because it’s scandal and it’s not recommended because it depreciates the value of marriage.

 

[agapewolf]

Actually,

The cohabitation aspect is more of a causation, but in a different way. The couples that cohabit while dating, before deciding on marriage have the large higher divorce rate. The couples that cohabit after deciding to be married, presumably closer to the wedding, is lower.

 

[CoffeeHound]

Actually,

The cohabitation aspect is more of a causation, but in a different way. The couples that cohabit while dating, before deciding on marriage have the large higher divorce rate. The couples that cohabit after deciding to be married, presumably closer to the wedding, is lower.

Can you prove that?

 

[doubtThomas]

That’s actually the point of my above post. You can’t make that connection.

I will, however, make the hypothesis that there is a connection between cohabitation and divorce. People who live together before marriage then move in have no real change in their lives. The marriage seems to be on paper-only. Couples that have to move in together, start having sex, etc. experience a “shock effect” where their lives are forever different because of the marriage. :whacky: Please re-read the above information in green. I’ll pray for you.

 

[agapewolf]

Can you prove that?

I was part of a class I was in that was looking into the deeper aspects of what makes marriages work. It was several stats we looked at, both religious and non. I didn’t keep records so that I could some day “prove” anything. I’m not out for a fight. If u want to simply discredit it because I don’t have it handy, fine. Doesn’t bother me. But in case it were true, then theorizing without taking the idea into consideration is pointless.

It makes complete sense if you think about it. A couple moves in without any idea of commitment, the dynamic will not likely change much after a marriage. A couple with the idea of commitment on the brain when moving in is going to approach the situation differently.

 

[faithfully]

Who responding here has actually cohabitated before marriage?

 

[CoffeeHound]

I was part of a class I was in that was looking into the deeper aspects of what makes marriages work. It was several stats we looked at, both religious and non. I didn’t keep records so that I could some day “prove” anything. I’m not out for a fight. If u want to simply discredit it because I don’t have it handy, fine. Doesn’t bother me. But in case it were true, then theorizing without taking the idea into consideration is pointless.

Given that you would be dealing with latent constructs regarding opinion and feeling, I highly doubt you were able to perform any sort of meaningful analysis with any sort of predictive validity unless you collected primary data.

Again, I’m not trying to “show up” anyone, it’s just that if you’re going to make claims that X causes Y, you need to be able to back that up with some sort of scientific proof, otherwise you’re trying to use pseudo science as evidence for a religious teaching. If there is anything that we should have learned from Christianity in the dark ages it’s that we shouldn’t be using pseudo science to prove religion. That results in hiding God’s Truth and is counterproductive.

 

[Charlotte1776]

Part of the reason for cohabitating probably comes from the fact that when you love someone, you want to be around them all the time. I am sure there were plenty of people in the past who would have cohabitated if it had been socially acceptable. Now that it is, everyone who wants to cohabitate just goes ahead and does it. Unfortunately, cohabitation before marriage has become the norm. I hear more and more people talk about their dreams for the future involving meeting a guy, moving in, then getting married.
Also, many people in my generation say they will never get married because their parents got divorced and it wrecked their lives so completely that they never want to put themselves or their children through it, so they just don’t get married in the first place.

 

[Vico]

Charlotte1776 that makes a lot of sense, it does seem natural to be around the one you love, and then later get married.

Why do couples cohabitate rather than marry?
For love, or to enjoy a sexual relationship without contract, or intention to marry later on if compatible. Desire for financial support. (Among the notoriously bad, status.)

And why do these same couples have children under this arrangement?
Accident, or belief that the children can be raised by a single parent if need be, or feeling certain that this will be a marriage later.

As Catholics, how do we view cohabitation?
Sinful, because of scandal, but even more sinful if sexual activity is occuring.

Can children of cohabitated couples receive the sacraments of the Catholic church?
I think they cannot, the Church is want to baptise without comittment that the children will be raised Catholic. Which means the parents must be at mass regularly for a period of time, and not living in a state of sin. Please correct me if this is wrong. But yes, if the children are from a previous Catholic marriage.

The action of choosing cohabitation over marriage implies some things, possibly:

1. improper Catechis so they are ignorant
2. lack of belief (or lukewarm) of what they were taught
3. intention to sin mortally

So I suspect number 2 mostly.

I went through the previous posts and was suprised that nobody mentioned disbelief that the Holy Spirit is present in a properly contracted marriage between the baptised with Church approval. Disregarding the effect of the Holy Spirit makes sacramental marriage like natural marriage.

 

[agapewolf]

Given that you would be dealing with latent constructs regarding opinion and feeling, I highly doubt you were able to perform any sort of meaningful analysis with any sort of predictive validity unless you collected primary data.

Again, I’m not trying to “show up” anyone, it’s just that if you’re going to make claims that X causes Y, you need to be able to back that up with some sort of scientific proof, otherwise you’re trying to use pseudo science as evidence for a religious teaching. If there is anything that we should have learned from Christianity in the dark ages it’s that we shouldn’t be using pseudo science to prove religion. That results in hiding God’s Truth and is counterproductive.

I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything, much less religion. This had nothing to do with proving religion.

We DID have data.

 

[crazzeto]

Can children of cohabitated couples receive the sacraments of the Catholic church?
I think they cannot, the Church is want to baptise without comittment that the children will be raised Catholic. Which means the parents must be at mass regularly for a period of time, and not living in a state of sin. Please correct me if this is wrong. But yes, if the children are from a previous Catholic marriage.

The action of choosing cohabitation over marriage implies some things, possibly:

1. improper Catechis so they are ignorant
2. lack of belief (or lukewarm) of what they were taught
3. intention to sin mortally

So I suspect number 2 mostly.

I went through the previous posts and was suprised that nobody mentioned disbelief that the Holy Spirit is present in a properly contracted marriage between the baptised with Church approval. Disregarding the effect of the Holy Spirit makes sacramental marriage like natural marriage.

This is incorrect, as it would punish the child for the sins of the parents. The children of cohabiting parents are more than welcome to receive the sacraments in the CC. In fact, one might even hope that the parents viewing their children receive the body and blood of our Savior while they can not might kick them in the pants to normalize their situation.

Otherwise perhaps the children will receive a handy cap but it won’t come from the Church. Rather it will come from their parent erroneously teaching their children that “all love is valid” and there for that there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with cohabitation which could have a tremendous impact upon the child later in life, perhaps even affect it’s salvation.

 

[doubtThomas]

I was part of a class I was in that was looking into the deeper aspects of what makes marriages work. It was several stats we looked at, both religious and non. I didn’t keep records so that I could some day “prove” anything. I’m not out for a fight. If u want to simply discredit it because I don’t have it handy, fine. Doesn’t bother me. But in case it were true, then theorizing without taking the idea into consideration is pointless.

It makes complete sense if you think about it. A couple moves in without any idea of commitment, the dynamic will not likely change much after a marriage. A couple with the idea of commitment on the brain when moving in is going to approach the situation differently.

Exactly the point I was making in prior writings. Well done, agapewolf! You can’t phrase it any better. :clapping:

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
Because it’s safer than marriage legally and financially. How is it safer? I am not following this.

You’re not? It’s safer because you don’t have the drama of a sticky divorce. You just part ways.

No one expects a marriage to fail when they get married unless they are complete fools. However, more than half of marriages end up in divorce, So what is the alternative? Don’t get married just in case? Is the breakup less painful because they are not married?

Yes, that’s the alternative for some people: to not get married just in case and just live toghether. Breaking up can be a lot less complicated without having to go through the legal actions of a divorce. Pain is relative.

and quite ugly ones. It’s scary to watch the walls come down on your friends, neighbors, acquaintances, parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. as they make their way though a divorce. Apparently, it can get ugly even if you are not married, so not sure why this is the reason they don’t get married either.

Because it can get uglier and last longer if one is married. For example, if a woman owns the apartment in which a couple is living, and her name is only on the lease, and the couple breaks up, she can have the man evicted (unless there is a homesteading law). In a marriage, unless there is violence or threat of harm, both can stay in the marital home until the divorce is over, which can take anywhere from a few months to a few years. yes, I’d say being married can make breakups a lot more complicated and ugly than when people living together part ways.

Marrying in the Church is even worse because one is expected to live as if still married (no dating others) unless they get an annulment, But anyone getting married in church that is truly faithful knows this when they are getting married…

Yes, but anyone getting married in the Church doesn’t know what their spouse will do, that is a leap of faith (in a person). And if that spouse screws up, it screws up your whole life because you are married in the Church and it was a one-shot deal. Again, making living together more appealing that marriage for some people. Not everyone. But some people.

which is hard to get. By staying single, there is less risk. Risk of what? Of having to stay and try to work it out? So they are really entering the relationship half heartedly, leaving themselves an out, “just in case?”

They’re trying to protect themselves from the damage they’ve seen happening around them in those who have fought costly and painful legal battles. Yes, of trying to stay and work it out. Marriage is work, and relationships are work. It’s much easier to run than stay and work it out. Yep, you got it right.

They aren’t entering the relationship half heartedly, they just know that trusting a human being is risky and that you better be sure (as sure as one can be) before taking the plunge. Yes, they are leaving themselves an an out, just in case.