Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 83

Thread: Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    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.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Eze 22:25 There's a conspiracy of prophets within her....

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Member awake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    4,356
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    You mean living together hurts your chances of living together?

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    '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?
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivash View Post
    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.
    Last edited by angelatc; 05-04-2012 at 02:33 PM.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaneEnochs View Post
    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.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by majinkoola View Post
    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).

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivash View Post
    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.
    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  9. #38
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by JebSanderson View Post

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    Can pretty easily flip that one
    Thank you for your post. Sincerely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post
    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.
    I do not respond to people who insult my character, who refuse to do independent research, or who do not follow the spirit of the cooperative principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

    I might not continue to respond if your posts display primarily emotional reactions, because it is hard to have constructive dialogue in those kinds of situations.

    I'm a left-leaning independent; "left" meaning that I favor public-oriented policy, rather than private-oriented policy.

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinchWhoStoleDC View Post
    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/archive...and-happiness/
    http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/...an-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/10.230...47698975884747
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC261432
    http://marri.us/get.cfm?i=RS11I02
    http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/38...ion-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.

  12. #41

    Default

    Why I don't really have anything against the premise of the article, RPF seems like an odd place to put it. There are much more pressing issues to discuss at the moment.

  13. #42
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LimitedGovernment View Post
    Thank you for your post. Sincerely.



    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.
    that's kind of like saying "the goal of business isn't to avoid bankruptcy."

    i hope you would agree that divorce is an undesirable end to a marriage, much as bankruptcy is an undesirable end to a business. of course, divorce is preferable to murder, so it does have its place. however, if you can select a mate and conduct a relationship with the most desirable outcome in mind, who wouldn't do that?

    of course marriage isn't for everyone, but neither should divorce simply be accepted as the inevitable outcome of marriage. i assume that you don't accept fatal traffic accidents as an inevitable outcome of driving?

    sure, it can happen to anyone, but by taking proper precautions, you can, at least, reduce the odds of the highway fatalities, bankruptcies, and divorces happening to you.
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 05-06-2012 at 05:53 PM.

  14. #43
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    7,777
    Blog Entries
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JebSanderson View Post
    Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage
    Offered as a universal truth, I would have to call this article nonsense. I can accept that this is the case for some couples, but to assert that cohabitation is a root cause across so broad a spectrum of a large population such as that of the USA is simplistic to the point of utter ridicule. Humans are not quite so simple in their makeup; there is enormous diversity in the psychological makeup of people. Add to that the widely differing cultural factors - morality, religion, world views, and so forth.

    Such attempts at reducing human experience to single-dimensional terms usually fail pretty badly. I suspect that a truly comprehensive analytical study of why couples succeed or fail would be a monumentally tough endeavor, perhaps even impossibly so. That anyone gives a hoot about this question I find perplexing - as if knowing the answer would change anything. Young people rarely listen.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.”

  15. #44
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    why is the OP banned?

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post
    that's kind of like saying "the goal of business isn't to avoid bankruptcy."

    i hope you would agree that divorce is an undesirable end to a marriage, much as bankruptcy is an undesirable end to a business. of course, divorce is preferable to murder, so it does have its place. however, if you can select a mate and conduct a relationship with the most desirable outcome in mind, who wouldn't do that?

    of course marriage isn't for everyone, but neither should divorce simply be accepted as the inevitable outcome of marriage. i assume that you don't accept fatal traffic accidents as an inevitable outcome of driving?

    sure, it can happen to anyone, but by taking proper precautions, you can, at least, reduce the odds of the highway fatalities, bankruptcies, and divorces happening to you.
    Business and marriage really aren't comparable, because business is an activity - not a legally recognized relationship. Regardless, I can follow your analogy and maintain my point:

    People would only keep a business running if it was making them money. They shouldn't be criticized for closing their enterprise when it doesn't work out. Likewise, they shouldn't avoid getting a job to earn money in order to wait until they have a business idea that they can establish an operation based on.


    No one said that divorce should be an inevitable outcome.


    Not cohabiting isn't comparable to not texting while driving.
    I do not respond to people who insult my character, who refuse to do independent research, or who do not follow the spirit of the cooperative principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

    I might not continue to respond if your posts display primarily emotional reactions, because it is hard to have constructive dialogue in those kinds of situations.

    I'm a left-leaning independent; "left" meaning that I favor public-oriented policy, rather than private-oriented policy.

  17. #46
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LimitedGovernment View Post
    Business and marriage really aren't comparable, because business is an activity - not a legally recognized relationship. Regardless, I can follow your analogy and maintain my point:

    People would only keep a business running if it was making them money. They shouldn't be criticized for closing their enterprise when it doesn't work out. Likewise, they shouldn't avoid getting a job to earn money in order to wait until they have a business idea that they can establish an operation based on.


    No one said that divorce should be an inevitable outcome.


    Not cohabiting isn't comparable to not texting while driving.
    you're being evasive.

    what it boils down to is this: cohabitation is a "better deal" for males than for females (yes, I'm intentionally using the immature descriptor for adult humans), because it's cheaper than dating, and provides easier and more frequent access to sex. for females, it "promises" a segue to marriage (yes, i know I'm generalizing).

    the problem, of course, as the article (and my observation) suggests is that a person is more likely to marry a cohabitant, and to miss out on other potential (and possibly more suitable) mates, while cohabitating. resulting marriages are often the result of complacency.

    although i can certainly understand why young people, especially males, mindlessly defend cohabitation, as if it were completely unrelated to marriage, because they just see it as a form of dating (a cheaper and more "productive" form), you probably shouldn't even be casually dating someone you know you wouldn't marry; it will just lead to pain, suffering, fractured families, child support, abortion, weekend fatherhood, child support, wage garnishments......

    lie to yourselves all you want. reality is hard, but reality is real.
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 05-07-2012 at 10:14 AM.

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post
    you're being evasive. what it boils down to is this: cohabitation is a "better deal" for males than for females (yes, I'm intentionally using the immature descriptor for adult humans), because it's cheaper than dating, and provides easier and more frequent access to sex. for females, it provides a segue to marriage (yes, i know I'm generalizing). the problem, of course, as the article (and my observation) suggests is that a person is more likely to marry a cohabitant, and to miss out on other potential (and possibly more suitable) mates, while cohabitating. resulting marriages are often the result of complacency. although i can certainly understand why young people, especially males, mindlessly defend cohabitation, as if it were completely unrelated to marriage, because they just see it as a form of dating (a cheaper and more "productive" form), you probably shouldn't even be casually dating someone you know you wouldn't marry; it will just lead to pain, suffering, fractured families, child support, weekend fatherhood, child support, wage garnishments......

    lie to yourselves all you want. reality is hard, but reality is real.
    This post came totally out of left field for me. It doesn't seem like you read my previous posts. Moreover, I don't see how you linked the post you quoted to these assumptions and conclusions.
    I do not respond to people who insult my character, who refuse to do independent research, or who do not follow the spirit of the cooperative principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

    I might not continue to respond if your posts display primarily emotional reactions, because it is hard to have constructive dialogue in those kinds of situations.

    I'm a left-leaning independent; "left" meaning that I favor public-oriented policy, rather than private-oriented policy.

  19. #48
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LimitedGovernment View Post
    This post came totally out of left field for me. It doesn't seem like you read my previous posts. Moreover, I don't see how you linked the post you quoted to these assumptions and conclusions.
    it's entirely possible that my post was only partly a response to yours (i have a tendency to do that). if i unfairly lumped you in with others, i apologize.

    having said that, i can agree with you that the title of the article slightly misrepresents the body, and makes it appear that if a 60 year married couple had cohabitated prior to marriage, they may have divorced after 6 years. but the body of the article is clear that, as i think you might agree, cohabitation increases the likelihood of marrying someone with whom the odds of a 60 year marriage are not good.

    my analogy was simply to suggest that many of us are more careful about entering the highway or a business than entering a marriage (justifications for cohabitation aside).
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 05-07-2012 at 10:42 AM.

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivash View Post
    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.
    When a study is referenced and there are comments regarding its results being "common knowledge", I come to the inescapable conclusion that someone missed the point.

    First, the point of a study is to gather facts in support of or to contradict a hypothesis. This is true whether or not that hypothesis is "common knowledge". You will neither learn nor refine "common knowledge" without the facts and data to establish it. You can learn myth and superstition or be guided by religion or tradition (which may have been guided by someone else's pursuit of "common knowledge" in a semi-rigorous fashion eons ago). Rather than calling something "common knowledge", state plainly this, "I have no point."

    "Why is that is under debate?" Read the link! Read the links off the link! What don't you see? The numbers!

    When you actually READ the fucking studies, what you find is bet-hedging, wishy-washy non statements.

    The belief that living together before mar-
    riage is a useful way “to find out whether you
    really get along,” and thus avoid a bad marriage
    and an eventual divorce, is now widespread
    among young people. But the available data
    on the effects of cohabitation fail to confirm
    this belief. In fact, a substantial body of evi-
    dence indicates that those who live together
    before marriage are more likely to break up
    after marriage. This evidence is controversial,
    because it is difficult to distinguish the “selec-
    tion effect” from the “experience of cohabita-
    tion effect.”
    The selection effect refers to the
    fact that people who cohabit before marriage
    have different characteristics from those who
    do not, and it may be these characteristics, and
    not the experience of cohabitation, that leads
    to marital instability. There is some empirical
    support for both positions.
    What can be said
    for certain is that no evidence has yet been
    found that those who cohabit before marriage
    have stronger marriages than those who do
    not.


    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproj...s/SOOU2001.pdf
    Here is a study - it is a PDF (warning may contain SCIENCE!):

    Premarital cohabitation provides information which allows for a
    more precise estimate of match quality with the prospective spouse. Therefore, marriages with
    prior cohabitation will be more stable on average. Demonstrating this is not easy, however. A
    simple comparison of couples who cohabited with those who did not shows that the former have
    higher divorce rates. By using several indirect tests and a more direct bivariate probit model, we
    demonstrated that this is due to self-selection. Cohabitors have characteristics that increase the
    probability of divorce. This overcompensates the stabilizing effect of a trial marriage.
    The secular increase in divorce rates in most industrialized countries, therefore, cannot be
    explained by the growing prevalence of premarital cohabitation. On the contrary, according to
    our results cohabitation is a counteracting factor. Divorce rates would be even higher if trial
    marriages had not become a common demographic phenomenon.


    http://www.sowi.uni-mannheim.de/lehr...pers/kohab.pdf


    Readily Available Cohabitation Facts

    Living together is considered to be more stressful than being married.

    Just over 50% of first cohabiting couples ever get married.

    In the United States and in the UK, couples who live together are at a greater risk for divorce than non-cohabiting couples.

    Couples who lived together before marriage tend to divorce early in their marriage. If their marriage last seven years, then their risk for divorce is the same as couples who didn't cohabit before marriage.

    Cohabitation Facts Rarely Mentioned

    In France and Germany cohabiting couples have a slightly lower risk of divorce.

    If cohabitation is limited to a person's future spouse, there is no elevated risk of divorce.

    In the U.S., cohabiting couples taking premarital education courses or counseling are not at a higher risk for divorce.

    http://marriage.about.com/od/cohabit...cohabfacts.htm
    Nobody told those Germans or Frenchies about our "common knowledge".

  21. #50
    Member donnay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Live Free or Die Trying!
    Posts
    19,894
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    I think getting a government sanctioned marriage certificate is far worse that living with someone.
    *Legal Disclaimer: While I am a keen researcher and want nothing more than to help people, I am not a doctor and more importantly, I am not your doctor. Any article I post that contains general information about medical conditions, treatments and remedies is to bring awareness. The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You should never delay seeking medical advice, or discontinue any medical treatment because of information in an article I have posted. The only advice I would give is to continue to research further and use discernment with all advice.

  22. #51

    Default

    Cohabitation IS marriage.

    To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  23. #52
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    I think getting a government sanctioned marriage certificate is far worse that living with someone.
    i didn't understand this thread to be a judgment against the virtue of cohabitation, but against the wisdom of it.

    in my opinion, a license/certificate doesn't make a marriage (ICE, apparently, agrees with me). in fact, if you're shacking up, especially if you have children in common, i consider you married, regardless of how you define your relationship. so, by my standard, the divorce rate is MUCH higher among cohabiters.
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 05-07-2012 at 12:01 PM.

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Cohabitation IS marriage.

    To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.
    Despite my annoying post above, I think you have the winning point (assuming cohabitaion includes sex and joint maintenance of the household whether financially or with labor). This explains why some speak out against cohabitation: it is a loophole to their control of institutional marriage. Long before people were against interracial marriage, they were against mixed races holding hands together. Just as anti-sodomy laws preceded the anti-gay marriage movement. The goal posts move and fabrications like the OP's article are the squeaking as statists lose control.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Cohabitation IS marriage.

    To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.


    So people who aren't religious and have a formal marriage ceremony aren't married? The above post makes no sense. Marriage is a contract. You can fulfill the contract without state involvement, but if you don't sit down and do a contract, "count the costs" so to speak....well...you're not doing yourself or your loved one any favors. People have tried cohabitating without any kind of contract, then "life happens" even to the best and often they wish they had done something different. Take Stieg Larson for instance. The guy who wrote "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? When he died did his girlfriend and the love of his life get his money? Nope. It went to his estranged family. If he was "married" that wouldn't have been a problem. If the term "marriage" was offensive to him, he could have just gotten "contracted". Get a will, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc and map out all of the defaults that the marriage contract would have done for him. Of course all of that implies some kind of a commitment. And if you are that committed why not express that commitment in front of your friends and family?
    Last edited by jmdrake; 05-07-2012 at 12:36 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Eze 22:25 There's a conspiracy of prophets within her....

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.

  26. #55

    Default

    Studies like this have no merit. Divorce rate has been high forever. Not one common denominator is the answer. Another useless study. There are many reasons couples decide to live together. Mine had nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is not taken seriously anymore, that is the main cause of failure. I'm 30 and still haven't decided on getting married. Rushing to that decision is most likely the leading cause of divorce. Has nothing to do with living together before-hand.

    I could do a study and say the more the lower class grows, the higher the rate of divorce.....but its hogwash, just like this study. You can't perform a study like this based on one scenario out of thousands of possible scenarios. It is just misleading and comes off as propaganda.

  27. #56

    Default

    Please don't tell my wife this shit.

    We lived together for 7 years before we got "officially" married.



    Bullshit study is bullshit.

    edit,,
    Looks like Marrying Sam is still in business too.. (curiosity, I had to check)
    http://www.marryingsam.com/
    Last edited by pcosmar; 05-07-2012 at 03:16 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post


    So people who aren't religious and have a formal marriage ceremony aren't married? The above post makes no sense. Marriage is a contract. You can fulfill the contract without state involvement, but if you don't sit down and do a contract, "count the costs" so to speak....well...you're not doing yourself or your loved one any favors. People have tried cohabitating without any kind of contract, then "life happens" even to the best and often they wish they had done something different. Take Stieg Larson for instance. The guy who wrote "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? When he died did his girlfriend and the love of his life get his money? Nope. It went to his estranged family. If he was "married" that wouldn't have been a problem. If the term "marriage" was offensive to him, he could have just gotten "contracted". Get a will, durable power of attorney, durable power of attorney for healthcare etc and map out all of the defaults that the marriage contract would have done for him. Of course all of that implies some kind of a commitment. And if you are that committed why not express that commitment in front of your friends and family?
    I was saying that the idea of marriage as only a religious one is garbage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post
    it's entirely possible that my post was only partly a response to yours (i have a tendency to do that). if i unfairly lumped you in with others, i apologize.

    having said that, i can agree with you that the title of the article slightly misrepresents the body, and makes it appear that if a 60 year married couple had cohabitated prior to marriage, they may have divorced after 6 years. but the body of the article is clear that, as i think you might agree, cohabitation increases the likelihood of marrying someone with whom the odds of a 60 year marriage are not good.

    my analogy was simply to suggest that many of us are more careful about entering the highway or a business than entering a marriage (justifications for cohabitation aside).
    Thanks for the fair reply. I disagree that the article provides reason to conclude that cohabitation increases the likelihood of long-term successful marriage. I do agree that it shows some correlation between the two, which - in the presence of other information in the same direction - could be a part of a case for that conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Cohabitation IS marriage.

    To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.
    I agree that a domestic partnership is essentially marriage. The only point I'd disagree from is that people who make a contract about the partnership have a different kind of domestic partnership that's closer to people's understanding of marriage. (Which obviously is a point that is very important to other people.)
    I do not respond to people who insult my character, who refuse to do independent research, or who do not follow the spirit of the cooperative principle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

    I might not continue to respond if your posts display primarily emotional reactions, because it is hard to have constructive dialogue in those kinds of situations.

    I'm a left-leaning independent; "left" meaning that I favor public-oriented policy, rather than private-oriented policy.

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JebSanderson View Post
    No, I want Biblical morality.
    just like alqueda wants islamic morality??

    Quote Originally Posted by JebSanderson View Post
    And what's wrong with me wanting to live a certain way? Or am I only allowed to live by your set of values?
    nothing, its when you start telling others how to live their life that i have a problem with.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Cohabitation IS marriage.

    To suggest otherwise is to say that nobody outside of a specific faith can be married.
    This is correct.

    In New Zealand this is legally true. If you were cohabiting and you break-up the other person gets half your stuff. Etc. Basically a full divorce procedure.

    Cohabitation is just a de facto marriage. One can enter all sorts of de facto legal arrangements. As long as business partners are on the same side they don't need a written contract. It just helps a lot when things go south.


    In fact a lot of business arrangements I have been involved with would have been insulted if I had asked for a contract. It would imply that I didn't trust their word, or that I might not live up to mine.

    When you get married how extensive is the pre-nuptial agreement you require? Your standard courthouse document is only the mid-point on the spectrum of how legally married you can be.

    Do you think maybe your partner might be unfaithful unless he/she sign a contract saying he/she is married to you?

    I really love this clip:

    Last edited by idiom; 05-09-2012 at 02:04 PM.
    Stop the Looting and Start Prosecuting! Gold plated Tungsten IS Money!
    We Must Dissent A colher não existe.
    A government is just a body of people, notably, usually, ungoverned.

    "You mean this entire war started because The Empire dressed as the enemy? That's exactly what happened in the last major war! Our government is so stupid!"

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •