The Cohabitation Effect on Marriage Part 2
Posted on 28 August 2008 by cory
Find related content at the end of the article. Share your thoughts by leaving a comment and rating.
Many people today are seeing cohabitation as an acceptable alternative to marriage, but is it? Since 1970 the number of heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage has increased over 1000 percent, according to the Rutgers National Marriage Project (NMP).
From a NMP study:
“Yet cohabitation in place of marriage should be considered a major societal concern. For one thing, marriage typically brings with it, according to an abundance of research, many benefits for those involved. Married people tend to be happier, healthier, wealthier, and they live longer. The available empirical evidence suggests that these benefits of marriage diminish considerably if the marital bond is replaced by non-marital cohabitation. Moreover, the evidence is now clear that people who marry after cohabiting (assuming that they are not already engaged or committed to each other when they first cohabit) tend to have a higher chance of breakup.”
Cohabitation has started a gradual decline in the attitude toward marriage. 44 percent of Europeans and 17 percent of Americans have agreed with the statement that living together in a long term relationship is just as good as marriage. This is the sort of attitude that lays the foundation for negative attitudes toward marriage. If marriage is not seen as more special or important than another form of commitment, then will not be treated as such.
Studies have shown that 11 percent more women who are in cohabiting relationships report physical abuse than those women who are in married relationships. Moreover, couples who cohabit experience more infidelity and are less likely to receive financial assistance from family.
Education also plays a huge part in cohabitation. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are cohabit. This brings an interesting idea to the forefront, since many people believe marriage to be a religious issue. Most people who are highly educated tend to be less active in their religion. Lower levels of education also point toward lower levels of income, so cohabiting couples are also likely to have lower incomes.
The negative effects of cohabitation do tend to break down among cohabiting couples who intend to marry. Many, but not all couples who cohabit with the intent to marry, exhibit relational behaviors similar to married couples.
So, the question then, is why cohabit? If you do not intend to marry the person that you are with, why are you living with them?
Popularity: 13% [?]
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags | cohabitating, cohabitation, Life, living together, Marriage
Rate this article
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
August 28th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
I’m not sure I understand your education/cohabitation connection. You say there is a connection between higher education and lack of cohabitation, but then you reference religion and education. I’m not sure if I follow the connection, what are you trying to say? Single women outnumber married couples [1], so one might assume that these people with “higher education” aren’t getting married either.
“So, the question then, is why cohabit? If you do not intend to marry the person that you are with, why are you living with them?”
Devil’s advocate hat: ON!
Why is a marriage so much more sacred than a couple who loves each other and decides not to get married? Why do you *have* to get married? Some people do not see the necessity in getting married; for some it just isn’t practical and doesn’t work for them. I know a couple who were both married in the past and swore after their marriage ended that they would never get married again. Marriage isn’t for everyone. Nor cohabitation, nor “open relationships”. You find what works for you and your significant other; what other justifications do you need?
August 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
@Russ I was really making a clunky correlation between the fact that people who are highly educated:
are less likely to be highly religious and
are less likely to cohabit
Therefore:
Marriage is not necessarily good just for those who are religious. From a sociological point of view, marriage is the ideal relationship for society because it promotes a more healthy relationship and a more healthy society.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Here’s a question to Russ: why not get married? What’s the point of living together that marriage doesn’t offer? Answer: an easy out.
I hear it all the time: “it’s just a piece of paper.” That argument works both ways. If that’s all that’s holding it together, then it’s no barrier to becoming married.
But that’s not the issue. The fact is, marriage is a REAL commitment, and cohabitation isn’t. It’s a $1.95 worth of marriage; a disposal marriage. If it “doesn’t work for you,” then you just get out.
I won’t go into the arguments against cohabitation just on the couple level, but it should be pretty obvious what the arguments against it are when it comes to children the couple might have.
Commitment is something that this world needs more of, not less. I am not alone in saying that modern society is damaged, not enhanced, by the growing trend of walking away from things when the going gets rough or otherwise inconvenient.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I’d like for my kids to think that marriage is something very, very special. From my own personal experience, cohabitation did slightly lessen how “big” the big day could have been.
As I get older, I know that my views are becoming slightly more conservative (most people would call me a liberal on many social issues). The struggle I am having now, at this point in my life, is that the attitude of “whatever works for people” that I normally have is all fine and good, until it comes to my family. I don’t want my kids to do “whatever works” – I want them to do what is right.
Is cohabitation right? I guess it depends on the situation – it is one of those gray areas for me. Am I going to say that two people in their 30s or 40s should not live together – no. Do I want my kids to shack up with someone at 21 years old – NO! Is that a double standard? You decide.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hi all,
I think the same as Tom & Jeremy. And, if 2 people do love one another Russ, why wouldn’t it work for them to get married?? to me it seems like they lack faith in their feelings towards one another. And marriage is what God intended when he created us, that the “man would leave his parents and [attach] to his wife, and the two would become one flesh”
I got married when i was 20, and my husband and I still cherish our love, our marriage, our family (we have two children now). Marriage is the key to hapiness after God
My prayer is that the next generations understand the joy and blessings offered in the frame of marriage, so less cohabitation and more step of faith!
: )
August 30th, 2008 at 6:34 am
ps: sorry for intrusion, since this website is for men
August 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Mel, no problem. Women are definitely wanted here at HusbandsandDads. Just because the site is primarily geared towards men doesn’t mean we don’t value women’s opinions.
August 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Thank you
September 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
I agree with you all in that marriage is something that we need to re-establish as an honorable ideal. However, I would like to point out that commitment is not the problem here. Whether or not a couple is married or not says nothing about their level of commitment. Some couples are simply not allowed to get married, other couples simply do not want to get married. It is quite a sweeping generalization to say that these couples are not committed to one another.
I know many couples who are so disillusioned with marriage that they refuse to be a part of it. Marriage is a joke to most people. The idea of a “starter husband” and Britney Spears’ 55-hour long marriage are the types of things that led to the downfall of marriage. In the argument for cohabitation, I don’t think the problem is a lack of commitment; its a lack of respect for marriage.
I have been asked how one can respect the institution of marriage when a person can get married and divorced three times in a month, yet a couple who has been committed to one another for over 20 years cannot get married because they’re gay?
For many, marriage is the right path, no questions asked. However there is a group of people who don’t necessarily agree. The world is changing and the idea of marriage isn’t practical for some people anymore. This does NOT mean that they lack commitment or that they are somehow less of a couple because they don’t have “that piece of paper”.
Fortunately, many companies are understanding this and are allowing things like benefits to be shared with households instead of just “spouses”. This helps those who either cannot or do not want to get married.
(On a side note – I agree with you 100%, Tom. Commitment is definitely something we need more of! Commitment to our jobs, our relationships, our mortgages, our credit card debt. We need to teach our youngsters to own up to their responsibilities and keep their word.)
September 1st, 2008 at 5:29 am
Russ – In my opinion, it’s not just a piece of paper. It’s what that piece of paper represents. While it is true that a couple can be committed to each other without a formal contract, there’s a certain seriousness, a certain gravity that goes along with formalizing a commitment, in front of witnesses and in a legal way, that isn’t carried through by two people who simply verbally agree to be committed to each other.
You speak of marriage as if it’s a dead institution, as if it’s a foregone conclusion that marriage is no longer the ideal situation. Just because so many celebrities and others make a mockery of marriage doesn’t mean that marriage isn’t sacrosanct or important. Indeed, the fact that it is mocked and derided like that seems to point to me that it is even more important.
Just because marriage isn’t practical for some people doesn’t mean it should be thrown out the window. There are a lot of things we do that just aren’t practical, but we do them anyway, because they’re right.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
hi all,
I feel sorry to hear how the celebrities have managed to “sabotage” the institution of marriage, marriage is a one life time commitment, and in my opinion, nobody should be allowed to re-marry another person.
it is just like divorcing is “so easy” nowadays, the 1st solution that pops up in the minds of pple who go through a crisis that lasts a bit more than a month :s
It is terrible and pathetic.
Marriage IS and should remain this beautiful commitment, made between 2 people, to one another AND in front of a community of witnesses AND above all, in front of God.
Then again, marriage must be preserved, one must work out his marriage, take care of it, not think it as granted.
I see in cohabitation a lack of faith in the relationship, I repeat. Why would it be impossible for two people that truly love each other and intend to love and remain faithful for the rest of their life to choose cohabitation?
Many think about marriage that it is just a piece of paper, well I’d say thank God there is this “piece of paper” that reminds one of the commitment he/she took publicly, unlike in the cohabitation case…
Anyways, we cannot change people’s mentality, only One can, and I do pray that marriage would get its initial value and meaning back.
September 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@Cory – I agree with you; marriage is an important venture and something that should be respected and admired. I was married because I felt is was the right thing to do, however I don’t think that marriage is the only way to publicly declare my wife and I’s commitment. I am merely pointing out that marriage is not for everyone, and a couple who cohabits is not any less important than those who do not. Cohabitation or people who decide not to get married didn’t make marriage any less sacrosanct; the people who get married and mock the institution are the ones who are making marriage less than sacred. I think we need to figure out how to make marriage something to strive for instead of a mockery. We (our media) need to show more examples of marriages that show that commitment; a relationship lasting 20 years should make news – not a breakup/divorce after a week. Take back the idea that marriage is something to be proud of.
You, personally, have done a fantastic job doing this. AGoodHusband and HusbandsandDads are a step in the right direction that we so desperately need. You’re one of the few people who are out there working to make these ideas more than what they are, which is one of the main reasons that I stick around. I agree with what you’re doing, and you have my utmost respect.
@Mel – I agree with you (I think we have all agreed from the beginning) that marriage is something to be proud of and that divorce is too easy. If marriage were not so closely tied in with particular laws, I would agree with your thought that a person should not be allowed to marry more than once. However, because not being married can put a couple at a disadvantage legally, it would be unfair to say that a particular couple is not allowed to be married, for whatever reason. I think they should separate the idea of “marriage” and allow for a commonlaw partnership, which shares the same legal benefits of marriage. This way, getting “married” can go back to being a Christian ideal with any requirements the church deems necessary and it would still allow those who are not Christian to engage in a similar contract and share similar legal benefits. Would this not make everyone happy?
As far as the cohabitation representing a lack of faith, I again point out the example of my gay friends. They have been committed to one another for over 20 years, yet it is impossible for them to get married, no matter how much they want to. This is what doesn’t make sense to a lot of people – we’re told a gay couple cannot get married because that would “violate the sanctity of marriage”, yet a man and a woman can enter a marriage and divorce a few days later. In my humble opinion, this is hypocritical – a divorce is more of a violation of the sanctity of marriage then a gay couple.
As I said to Cory, if we can adjust people perception of the idea of marriage and stop reporting about the starter marriages and the celebrity weekly marriages, and start reporting on the couples who make the commitment and make it work for 50 years, the idea of marriage might be brought back to what it should be – a practice that is deserving of respect and admiration.
September 1st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I’m sorry Russ if I made u think that couples who are not married are less important, that is not what I meant to say.
about your friends, I understand the reason why u were saying “2 people CANNOT get married” and I am sorry to say, but I will say because of what I believe being the truth, The Word of God condems such a thing as the union of 2 people of the same sex.
About re-marriage, I don’t refer to the church as we are humans and therefore far from knowing it all and being perfect, but I refer to The Word of God, in which you won’t find anywhere that it is ok to re-marry.
anyway, I hear your opinion and respect that you have a different opinion or view on cohabitation, although i disagree : )
Cheers
September 1st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
In my opinion, the institution of marriage, being intertwined with both religion and laws of the land, is a convoluted notion. We are taught one thing and shown another, from both points of view. Great points brought up in the comments.
Question: In America (as a whole, recognizing some states have exceptions), why is “marriage” the only means for couples to gain legal benefits and financial incentives? Why isn’t there a secular option of equal value in the eyes of the government, if we really have separation of church and state?
September 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The reason that there isn’t a secular option of equal value in the eyes of the law is that this country was founded as a Christian nation. It’s true. While our country is much more diverse now and there are many different religions recognized, we are still a defacto Christian nation. The majority of people in America still self identify as religious. The majority of those who identify as religious still self identify as Christians.
When you have that many people with such deeply held beliefs, it becomes very difficult to separate your religious beliefs from your governmental duties. When your elected responsibility is to uphold the interests of your constituents, you are forced to make laws and enforce laws that go along with the majority.
Until the majority of Americans feel that gay marriage is okay, that civil unions are good, then the laws will continue to be the way that they are. In the last presidential cycle, over 20 states passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Obviously Christian values are deeply intertwined in the voter’s minds.
So, to say that there has to be a complete separation of church and state is a bit of a misnomer. As long as the majority of people are religious, there’s still going to be a strong religious current throughout the government.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Our Founding Fathers only saw fit to allow property owners to vote and failed to abolish slavery until 1865. Things changed because they saw a need for things to change, and there were always dissenting views much the same as this subject matter.
I understand the historical connection, and I also believe that marriage should be special. I don’t think it needs to be the only “legal” way for people to gain benefits, rights and privileges though.
I wonder why this specific issue is one that cannot separate religion from legislation, as you say?
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi there,
uuum, I wonder why do people see in marriage the opportunity to get benefits, rights and/or privileges?
If they come along great but, these should not be the reasons that motivate people to get married. (sigh)
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
@Mel – Well, its a fact of life. Yes, in an ideal world the only reason to get married would be to share your life with the person you love. However, in a real-life application where not everyone shares this sentiment, it isn’t so black and white. A married couple is granted benefits that are not granted to people in a non marital relationship. For example (and many companies are starting to change this policy), an employee is only able to extend their health insurance to their spouse. (Off topic note, but in my humble opinion, this is one of the reasons why the health insurance industry is broken – if I’m paying for my health insurance, and I am paying extra money for extra coverage, I should be the one who determines who I am going to extend my coverage for).
I’ll give you an example that hits very close to my heart. One member of the the gay couple I referred to in my previous comment was involved in a really horrific head-on collision on a highway. He was brought to a hospital and placed in intensive care. There was a real concern that he would not survive. The hospital contacted his parents, who then contacted his partner. The hospital stated they would not contact non-family members. When his partner arrived at the hospital, he was refused entry to ICU because the hospital had a “family only” policy. He actually had to wait for weeks to see his partner, and no one at the hospital would tell him what was going on.
Now, I understand HIPAA and hospital policy, but this was ridiculous – whether or not you agree with gay couples, these people are still human beings.
Could you imagine being told your lover could possible die at any moment and you are not allowed to see them because you’re not a family member? Had they been married (or in a civil union), he would have been allowed to see his partner with no questions asked.
A situation like this is, at best, unfair. This is why I think there should be a method to allow the same privileges (like visiting your injured partner in ICU) that a marriage allows.
I understand that Christianity is against gay marriage. That’s fine; Christians are allowed to have their beliefs and practices… but that right (should) extend beyond Christianity. At the very least, an alternative to “marriage” should be offered for those who choose not to follow the Christian path.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Indeed that is terrible, and i do feel sorry for what happened to your friends.
about benefits though, I don’t even know what they are and surely didn’t think about them when I got married, and that was only 4 years ago (meaning in the year 2000s). I just knew I love my husband and God’s willing, want to spend my life by his side.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I am totally against cohabitation being regarded as marriage. Can you imagine what effect this would have on people’s human rights? “Oh you’ve lived with him/her for 3 months, so you’ve got to support them financially”. “Whaaat? We were just good friends, that’s all”. I don’t wish to be disrespectful, but anyone who advocates that cohabitation should be recognised in law is not very bright. It would severely curtail people’s liberty. Really it would. For the sake of your freedom and good sense, OPPOSE it.
Only those who have made a formal commitment in front of others- that is those who marry- should be expected to support each other. No-one but no-one should be married by default. I’m a female, by the way.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
@sam: cohabitation is already potentially regarded as marriage under the law in at least some states. It’s called “common law” marriage. All that’s required is a couple to live together and represent themselves as being married, and they are considered legally married, whether they signed a marriage license and went through a formal ceremony or not.
@Jeremy: I agree, there should be a separation between the idea of “marriage” and the legal benefits of a civil union. In other words, anybody who wants to declare a commitment to their partner can do so, legally, and receive the insurance, tax and medical benefits (such as being considered a “family member” by hospitals). But those legal commitments should be separated from the religious ceremony and commitments of “marriage.”
The Christians who believe the Bible forbids gay marriage can refuse to recognize or perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples in their churches. But regardless of what any church might say, gay people are citizens, the same as every other citizen, and should be allowed the same rights under secular law as every other citizen.
@cory: actually, many of the Founding Fathers weren’t Christians. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and large portions of the Constitution was a Deist — meaning he believed in God, but didn’t consider himself Christian. Ten of the signers of the Articles, nine signers of the Declaration, and thirteen signers of the Constitution (including George Washington and John Hancock) were Freemasons — back in their day, most Christian churches considered Freemasonry a dangerous cult and would not admit known Freemasons as members.
The Founding Fathers took pains to forbid the establishment of any “official” religion in this country — including Christianity — although they certainly could have allowed it. Many of them came from England, where the Church of England was well-established, so there was ample precedent. If they had thought it was a good idea, they would have done so. Instead, they made sure to guarantee the freedom of all citizens to hold beliefs and worship (or not) as they see fit, in whatever church they want, or in no church at all.
While the country may have been founded in part on principles that were part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the United Stats was not by established as a “Christian nation.” This is why our head of state is not — unlike in England — also the head of the “national church.” It is why there is no such thing here — again, unlike in England — as a “national church” in the first place. This country was established as a nation of secular laws that are to be enacted for the benefit of all citizens, not just those who ascribe to a particular belief system.
December 14th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
It is important to disaggregate these statistics about cohabitation from issues about poverty and class. Part of the reason people cohabit is because it is financially necessary. Part of the reason cohabitation frequency declines as people’s education level rises is because educated people can afford to live alone. So, when you see how bad cohabitation is, remember that poverty is bad, and cohabitation is more common among people living in poverty and those more accurately classified as “working poor”. It is not an issue of morality and/or religion for some people, but of cutting down on living expenses. It makes it easier to understand why cohabiting relationships are statistically more prone to failure if you take into account that financial need forces the moving-in together. It also explains why a person who cohabits with only the person he or she eventually marries experiences a lower divorce probability: that moving-in seems to me to be more likely based on choice, since it survives marriage. On the other hand, serial cohabitation is perhaps better understood as motivated by cost of living, since it does not survive even cohabitation. Maybe marriage isn’t a goal for those who practice serial cohabitation as much as increased financial stability is.