Growing Evidence That Cohabitation Harms Chances of Successful Marriage

[Feeding the Abscess]

Cohabitation IS marriage.

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

[Voluntary Man]

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.

[The Free Hornet]

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.

[jmdrake]

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?

[JSaindon]

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.

[pcosmar]

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/

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

[LimitedGovernment]

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.

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.)

[Kelly.]

No, I want Biblical morality.

just like alqueda wants islamic morality??

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.

[idiom]

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: