Should two people live together before marriage?

[Tex]

I caught this article on CNN a few days ago. It's a woman asking the above question, and unsurprisingly, she resoundingly supports living together first.

It would have been an unremarkable, even predictable, article, were it not for this interesting passage near the end:

That's why I'm very skeptical about the recent University of Denver study that suggests that couples who live together before marriage have a way better chance of getting divorced. Really? The study suggests that couples who cohabitate may be entering into marriage for the wrong reasons -- like financial convenience, testing out the waters, or because of a "We're already here, why not?" mentality.

While the study may have a point, I don't think it changes my mind in the least. The findings make me no less cautious about marriage. You're damn straight I want to test-drive the car before I purchase it (to use another awful analogy). And believe me, this "cow" will be in the driver's seat before she ties the knot.

One would think a professional journalist writing such a piece would give a contrarian scientific study more than a passing glance, and then dismiss it on anecdote.

Marriage is no longer about commitment, but about convenience. She and her live-in boyfriend ended their relationship after 3 years. She apparently thinks the experience gained makes her more likely to be committed in a marriage, when empirical evidence suggest it will do the opposite. How ironic, when she couldn't even make that relationship endure.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I caught this article on CNN a few days ago. It's a woman asking the above question, and unsurprisingly, she resoundingly supports living together first.

It would have been an unremarkable, even predictable, article, were it not for this interesting passage near the end:



One would think a professional journalist writing such a piece would give a contrarian scientific study more than a passing glance, and then dismiss it on anecdote.

Marriage is no longer about commitment, but about convenience. She and her live-in boyfriend ended their relationship after 3 years. She apparently thinks the experience gained makes her more likely to be committed in a marriage, when empirical evidence suggest it will do the opposite. How ironic, when she couldn't even make that relationship endure.

Other studies which I have read seem to indicate that it is inconsequential, one way or the other, but the Denver study sounds interesting.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Other studies which I have read seem to indicate that it is inconsequential, one way or the other, but the Denver study sounds interesting.

the difference will become even greater over time as those who wait first are going to become a smaller, more religious portion of society who are much less likely to believe in divorce.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

I caught this article on CNN a few days ago. It's a woman asking the above question, and unsurprisingly, she resoundingly supports living together first.

It would have been an unremarkable, even predictable, article, were it not for this interesting passage near the end:



One would think a professional journalist writing such a piece would give a contrarian scientific study more than a passing glance, and then dismiss it on anecdote.

Marriage is no longer about commitment, but about convenience. She and her live-in boyfriend ended their relationship after 3 years. She apparently thinks the experience gained makes her more likely to be committed in a marriage, when empirical evidence suggest it will do the opposite. How ironic, when she couldn't even make that relationship endure.

success in marriage is much more related to being committed to making it work and to the institution than it is to any of the benefits gained from living together first. I think intuitively the point of living together first is because you're not ready to take the next step and fully merge your life with someone else and make it legally binding. So the whole relationship is based on the idea that it's not permanent. When they get married maybe it's harder to feel that you've actually taken a bigger step because what really changes? Not that much. I've seen lots of examples of people who were together for several years before getting married, and then divorce quickly. It's hardly an uncommon phenomenon that may be hard to explain, but it happens a lot.

[MikeWaters]

Has it ever occurred to anyone, that when divorce is culturally not acceptable, it can lead to unhappy marriages?

If staying married is important to me, than I have to work at keeping my partner happy, or maybe she will leave me.

If I know it is unlikely she will leave me, then I don't need to work very much at all.

As long as the Bishops deal with the fallout from this, I don't think I much care. I don't think I could be a Bishop, because I might actually suggest (quite often) that people get divorced.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Has it ever occurred to anyone, that when divorce is culturally not acceptable, it can lead to unhappy marriages?

If staying married is important to me, than I have to work at keeping my partner happy, or maybe she will leave me.

If I know it is unlikely she will leave me, then I don't need to work very much at all.

As long as the Bishops deal with the fallout from this, I don't think I much care. I don't think I could be a Bishop, because I might actually suggest (quite often) that people get divorced.

Good observations, Mike.

Hanging together may make some people work harder and make some care less than they should.

Divorce is the choice between a bad marriage and separating, not a choice between a happy marriage and separating. Heck, if one could simply choose that as opposed to divorce, who wouldn't?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Good observations, Mike.

thanks, I'll be here all night.

[BYUsportsguy]

The marriage question is a loaded one. People are too dynamic and there are too many variables to give a generic answer that either yes or no fits even a majority of cases.

I have seen studies for and against cohabitation, and I have also known many couples that have gone done the cohabitation path before marriage.

My personal experience says it doesn't help a marriage succeed any better than those who wait until after marriage when the couple is getting into it for the right reasons.

People who marry for the wrong reasons won't succeed no matter if they cohabitate or not before marriage.

I think the whole idea of cohabitation before marriage reflects the selfish attitude, whereas marriage should be a good part self-less.

My sister in law has lived with her boyfriend for nearly 10 years. They have split up and gotten back to together many many many times. They talk about getting married as if it was just a pointless detail that will complicate their lives, in which case I certainly hope they DO NOT get married because that'll make things ten times worse. That is, unless they change their whole attitude about it.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Divorce is the choice between a bad marriage and separating, not a choice between a happy marriage and separating. Heck, if one could simply choose that as opposed to divorce, who wouldn't?

WTF? Uhhh....I might buy that definition as long as it is qualified with: divorce should only be the absolute last resort, and only considered after a couple has truly attempted to reconcile their differences, or resolve whatever problems are causing the marriage to be unsatisfactory for one or both parties. Of course it takes two willing parties to want to do this.