Faith

Does Cohabitation Damage Marriages? Dueling Op-Eds Weigh the Odds

Op Eds Make Cases for and Against Cohabitation Before Marriage

(Photo: Shutterstock)

As Hannah Seligson writes in an op-ed for The Daily Beast, it’s spring (obviously) and love is in the air in the animal (and plant for that matter) kingdom. Birds are nesting. Bunnies running rampant. Pollen that didn’t make it to a floral stigma now covers your car.

On the human side of the animal world, Seligson explains new leases are starting to blossom among couples as they take what a significant percentage of young adults consider the “next step” in their relationship. It’s a decision that Seligson writes 70 to 90 percent of young people will choose to make.

(Related: CDC: Nearly 1 in 4 babies born to unwed cohabiters)

Seligson is writing a response to what she calls a “viral” New York Times op-ed that made a case against cohabitation before marriage. The Sunday piece by young adult psychologist Meg Jay “The Downside of Cohabitating Before Marriage” holds this central thesis:

Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect.

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

Jay then goes on to detail what all can go wrong when two individuals couple themselves in a marriage-like environment without the legal commitment. With 7.5 million couples living together before marriage and many saying they wouldn’t consider marriage until testing out their relationship in this manner, Jay writes that men and women see this next step differently.

Jay writes women see living together as a progression toward marriage itself, while men see it as a trial or a way to postpone commitment. Where things get sticky, Jay writes, is when couples decide they don‘t want to make it work and they’ve heavily invested their living situation with shared leases, furniture, pets, you name it.

(Related: Study: More children affected by cohabiting couples than divorce)

On the flip side is Seligson’s “The Case for Cohabitation,” in which she points out going through a breakup is more favorable than divorce. Seligson cites the viewpoint of some “cohabitation researchers”:

“Some of the most recent studies are finding no effect on the likelihood of divorce, even along racial and class lines,” says Pam Smock, director of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan, who has been researching cohabitation for two decades.

“Cohabitation may actually be keeping divorce rates steady by weeding out couples who would have been more likely to get divorced had they not lived together and realized they weren’t compatible. A lot of these cohabitation relationships do breakup,” Smock points out.

Seligson reports cohabitation researcher Sharon Sassler, a professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, saying it’s the “serial cohabiters” that are skewing the statistics on the correlation between divorce rates and living together before marriage. Sassler, “If you’ve only lived with the person you are going to marry, you have no greater chance of getting divorced than a couple who hasn’t lived together.”

So why the bad reputation for living together? Seligson thinks it has a long history of being stigmatized. She cites laws in the United States as an example of how this stigma is perpetuated. For example, having to check “single” or “married” on forms. Countries like New Zealand, she points out, have rather recently enacted a third category called “defacto” — couples living together unmarried.

Even though Seligson does not believe the difficulties of cohabitation are different than the difficulties in marriage, she does acknowledge that perhaps more “enlightened conversation about cohabitation” and it’s consequences should take place. These conversations would include, for example, discussing steps toward marriage; what happens when one gets pregnant; and what happens to assets if they split up.

Let us know what your thoughts about the pros and cons of cohabiting before marriage below.

Comments (85)

1 2
  • G-WHIZ
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:11pm

    Lawyers DON”T make any money$$ when “cohabbitators” breakup…One of them “just up and leaves”…no divorce…no “pre-nupps”…no endless continuations sucking-both-sides-$$dry! Only “higher-inteligence“ developed the consept of ”mariage”…No other animal/plant on earth has these problems. They stay-together as long as they want to…sometimes “forever” with only each-other. There is no “coveting annother’s spouce“ if one does get ”in ones’ space” he/she gets a big”GRRRrrrrrrr!!! .. and he/she leaves!…end of problem.

    Report Post »  
    • CS
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 4:39pm

      If you don’t want the government involved in your business, DO NOT GET A MARRIAGE LICENSE or any other kind of license if you can avoid it. Period! Did Adam and Eve have a marriage license, did the Indians have marriage licenses? No! Only a corrupt government who wants to control the people will require licenses and/or “certificates.” Do yourself a favor and don’t do it. The definition of a license is “Permission to do something that is otherwise illegal, immoral, or in some other way not permitted.” Permitted by WHO? The “government” whoever “they” are. Do you really need permission from another MAN/MEN, who are no different from you AT ALL to get married? Or do you just need confirmation from God? Think about it.

      Report Post »  
    • Arfmoogle
      Posted on April 28, 2012 at 3:07am

      Having an extra-marital relationship is more about selfishness than anything else. Cohabiting is all about ME, and what I get, and what I refuse to give. Marriage, on the other hand, is supposed to be about the OTHER person, and is a covenant (a pact, or promise based on one’s sacred honor) something most of us in this day and time know little, or nothing about. The covenant of marriage protects the man and woman, and, perhaps more importantly, the children that inevitably come along.
      A Marriage involving a Man, a Woman, and Child–that is a family. And that is the building block of civilization. Without that building block we digress into a breakdown of civilization (if you don’t believe me, I dare you to take a walk in the “Flats” in downtown Oakland, CA anytime after 4:30pm).
      For those of you who don’t believe in God, or have ushered Him out of your memory, too bad, you’ll never get this. But for those of you who do, the same God who created air, and cows, and lettuce also thought of marriage. He knows better than we do, and He also knows our tendency toward ME-ism (AKA:cohabitation), so, He thought up marriage to save us from our terminal selfcenteredness, and to protect children while they are growing to maturity.
      The self-righteous cohabitors will fight to defend their “rights,” but will not stand up to defend the defenseless–the children they propagate. To me, that is a definition of cowardice. Do I hear an, “Amen!”?

      Report Post » Arfmoogle  
  • sbenard
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:55am

    I’ve never understood why women in particular would agree to cohabitate. They always pay the highest price, especially if they have children. My best friend’s niece, after bearing two children to a man she has lived with for years, just lost him and them, since he has taken custody. Furthermore, since they parted ways having never married, she is now facing eviction because she can’t pay the rent without him. Social research consistently shows that the most successful families are ones with a father, a mother who are married to each other, and children. If men really love the women they seek to share their lives with, then they will be EAGER to make a commitment to them. Women shouldn’t be deceived. If he really loves you, he’ll marry you!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • Leslie Anne
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:16pm

      The time she wasted shacking up with that guy and bearing his children could have been better spent meeting a man who actually wanted to marry her and have a family. Over the course of all those years, the decent single-guys-without-baggage have been off marrying other women. Now she’ll get to choose between “there‘s a reason this guy’s never been married“ and ”guys with baggage”. Of course, she may be fortunate and meet a nice guy without baggage, but then again, nice guys with no baggage and good prospects aren’t exactly beating down doors to meet a woman with baggage.

      Report Post »  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:40pm

      @Leslie
      Well stated.

      Report Post »  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 2:52pm

      @SBENARD / LESLIE
      Even without having children during the cohabitation years (which usually starts in the 20s and continues into the 30s), a woman is likely to discover that her time was wasted and she’s farther along on the biological clock than she thought. Now the issue is: How to squeeze finding a man TO MARRY, settling in the marriage, then successfully getting pregnant in the 7 to 8 yrs “good” childbearing years left to her. Cohabitation is much more risky for a woman than a man who, when he’s in his mid 40s can choose a woman 10-12 yrs his junior to bear his children.

      Report Post »  
    • GhostOfJefferson
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:31am

      Strange, my wife and I lived together before we got married, for 2 years. Married in 1991. Still married today and all signs point to both of us dying in love in our elderly years. It’s as if, gasp, individuals can work out things for themselves without overbearing moral busybodies honking at them 24/7. Film at 11.

      Report Post » GhostOfJefferson  
    • Cherieo3
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 6:22pm

      The two preceeding your post…just can’t/won’t commit. They can make all kinds of excuses as to why..but it really comes down to the fact. If they see someone they think they like BETTER than the one they are living with…then they are FREE TO WALK…much easier. That is all it amounts to..COMMITTMENT. If a guy can’t commit…he isn’t worth wasting time on either. This is my two-cents worth! lol

      Report Post »  
  • Mandors
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:33am

    These “studies” on living together before marriage have been around for 25 years and don’t prove anything. It’s a matter of common sense. If two people are really meant to be together, living together before they get married isn‘t’ going to change anything. Some couples move in just to stay together. Those relationships are shaking to begin with, and marriage, which they try next, won’t help.

    Report Post » Mandors  
  • sbenard
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:30am

    We have known for decades that cohabitation before marriage leads to LOWER success rates in marriage. I remember reading about some research to this effect in the newspaper 20 years ago. The research clearly showed that people who married following cohabitation had higher divorce rates than couples that married before sex. This really is nothing new, but those who don’t care will dismiss it anyway.
    The research has been clear for decades; if you want the highest chances for marital success, do NOT cohabitate first!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • Carolynp
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:47pm

      Totally agree. To me it seems obvious that if you feel you “need” to find out if you’re sexually compatable before marriage, that means that if there are sexual problems in the marriage, you’ll leave for greener pastures. If you feel like you “need” to check out whether or not he pushes up the toothpaste correctly, you’ll leave when petty things bother you. When you get married, you burn the ships, and many in our society aren’t capable of this kind of commitment.

      Report Post »  
    • Valerius Poplicola
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 12:53am

      Carolynp, well said.

      Report Post » Valerius Poplicola  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 2:06am

      Carol, and what if sexual compatability means as long as that person is sexy enough? Maintaining independence is the main reason people fear marriage, but that independence maintained in this pretend marriage is something that has to be overcome if its to ever become a self-sacrificing real one. If everything is 50-50 then as soon as a short-term balance shifts the other one has a “moral” out.

      Report Post »  
  • Leslie Anne
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:20am

    I don’t understand why most women even bother with men anymore. Why would a woman want to work all day outside the home and then cook, clean, and take care of kids and a man all night? In the good ol’ days, a woman traded her freedom in order to stay home and take care of her family–that was her job. Now, a good number of women are being dumped on–working all day at a job, then going home and working some more. Worse yet are the fools who “live together” and have babies before even getting married.

    If you want a family, make the man marry you first…and choose a man who’s frugal and motivated enough to earn a good living so you can actually stay home and raise the kids.

    Report Post »  
    • hatchetjob
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:51pm

      Excellent!! I agree. And I think a lot of women are giving out their bodies freely these days. It is sickening to me.

      Report Post » hatchetjob  
    • MOLLYPITCHER
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 9:10am

      Well said Leslie Anne. I totally agree.

      Report Post »  
  • Neuroguy88
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:07am

    I respect the comments that were open to the question of cohabitation. However, personal experiences are only anecdotal evidence. I do agree that life is different than how people dated 100 years ago. But, the research isn’t an end all thing, some people will thrive regardless of if they waited till married or not. I do see a trend of dating couples. First, they date for a few years, then live together for some more, then marry. I personally believe that is not how premarriage should be. I can not imagine waiting years till I marry, and I certainly can not imagine doing the whole marriage thing before I get married. It would take away from the gift that is marriage. Psychology has a lot of evidence that points towards discipline as a major factor in life satisfaction. Cohabitation is clearly not working towards that goal.

    Report Post »  
    • JimL
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:42am

      People as objects. For latest chapters see porn addiction of pre-teens in the West; see growing sex slave market of Asia.

      Report Post »  
  • Leslie Anne
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:59am

    I’m allergic to marriage.
    I don’t want to live with anyone either.
    My house is MINE, all mine! :)

    Report Post »  
  • JimL
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:16am

    Divorce rate of those who practiced chastity before taking the sacrament of marriage is higher, same, lower, much lower, much-much lower?

    Report Post »  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:06am

    .
    You either Love the person you’re with or you don’t……

    Everything else is just an excuse…….

    I sure am glad my wife Loves me, because I can’t imagine life without her……….

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:25am

      or they love themselves more and never can get a relationship to work. too many selfish people in my meaningless opinion is why marriages fail. my husband is pretty stuck with me. I think my marriage has lasted so long because I am a better shot with the firearms. under threat of death…just kidding but I am a better shot and couldn’t imagine life without the man.

      Report Post »  
    • minorityconservative2
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 12:24pm

      Awwwwwww….. I hope you are spanking her and not the “monkey”, if you know what I mean.

      Report Post »  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:25pm

      Nice to hear from two couples making it a good life. Lost my love after 42 years, 6 months, one day. I still miss him. I can’t say what made it work for sure, but I know for sure we are very stubborn, committed twosome. We got married before living together, although it was getting “popular” in the early 60′s.

      Report Post »  
  • CR750
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:52am

    I had to finally sign up to comment. This is an area I feel pretty strongly about. My wife and I lived together for about 4 years before we got married. We have been married now for 9 years and have two kids and are basically living the dream. Our marriage is as close to perfect as you can get, we’ve had huge ups and downs from family deaths to job loss to relocation….all in the first year we were married. I definitely think cohabitation is a good thing, as long as both parties have the same vision of what the end result is. Regardless of your religious beliefs, feelings about the institution of marriage itself, etc. whether you live together or not first has no bearing on the long term outcome if you are both on the same page going into it. Yes, statistically, co-habitators have higher divorce rates. But I believe that is a false reading as the divorce numbers in general are far higher now than ever before for numerous reasons. I would also posit that if cohabitation numbers were lower divorce rates would be higher yet. This is not a black and white, yes or no question, it is 100% dependent on the mindset of the parties involved.

    Report Post »  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 11:21am

      i totally agree that its based on the mindset in general. if folks are fickle not commited types neither marraige nor cohabitation will work. you have to be a loyal, commited, goal oriented person to make a relationship last a lifetime.

      Report Post »  
  • Wibbins
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:52am

    Cohabitation is a way for women to feel like they’re close to marriage, where as men get sex, a clean apartment, and meals made for them without having to worry about losing half his stuff.

    Basically, people go into marriage thinkin they have a way out through divorce, instead of trying to fix the relationship as God wanted

    Report Post »  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:56am

      Josh McDowell say that women offer sex for love and men offer love for sex. However only the sex is real.

      Report Post »  
  • piper60
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:51am

    It’s too easy to co-habit. Perhaps if the couple had a contract to fulfill when cohabiting, they’d stay together longer. Married couples who only stay together “for the kids”, aren’t much better.

    Report Post » piper60  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:53am

      Staying together for the kids is lazy. They should stay together for their integrety. They made a vow before God to love a flawed person for life. If they feel its only for the kids they don’t have the effort to make it better. They are in a marytr mindset.

      Report Post »  
  • tzion
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:49am

    I agree a breakup is easier than a divorce, but it‘s also easier to break up if cohabitation isn’t done. A breakup when the two people are living together means that one person has to actually move out. This means that the person who originally moved in is less inclined to end the relationship because of the work involved, increasing the likelihood that less than perfect couples will remain together.

    Report Post »  
  • taxpro4u03
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:41am

    No co-habitation does NOT ‘damage marriages.’ The State REQUIRING Licenses and infiltrating itself in FAMILIES damages marriages. Prior to 1933 NO ONE needed a license to marry. No one. Yes, the ‘times’ were different, however — divorce was by and large SHUNNED by people in general and the CHILDREN by and large grew up just fine. For the most part well-mannered, DISCIPLINED to school, WORK, respect for elders/authority and GOD. SINCE 1933 the American cultural society has gone to hell in a handbasket DUE to ‘government’ infiltration. Big Government ‘talks’ about ‘responsibility’ as it bloats itself into destruction providing the best example we’ve seen in 4 generations doing the exact opposite ;-) Follow the leader…. what do they expect? Mo‘ Money Mo’ regulation Mo‘ infiltration until we as a people to tell ’em ‘Nope! We got this one without ya..cease and desist.’ They have no choice. It‘s up to YOU to figger out how to NOT ’do business‘ with them as ’mandated.’ Lawfully, Legally, and Peacefully. Get the Ruby Slippers out of the closet, Dorothy and dust ‘em off. You’ve been deliberately, intentionally nefariously and seductively deceived to BELIEVE you ‘can’t go home.‘ I believe that’s called FRAUD. You only have Republic constitutionally preserved rights if you exercise and apply them properly. Once you accept YOU own you, the rest is a walk in the park….

    Report Post »  
    • XaviorOnassis
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:57am

      Correcting your history a bit because I have copies in my files of marriage licenses and mariage banns going back a lonnnng time prior to 1930.

      Having said that, I really firmly believe that the state has NO BUSINESS involving itself in marriage. The only aspect of marriage a government should concern itself with is the legal aspect–and in that manner, all unions between two consenting adults under law should be considered “civil unions” only. That is the only thing the government should be certifying. Marriage is a matter for church/personal belief…not for the state to define and all efforts to do so are not only unconstitutional but a profound breech of liberty. The state does not dictate to church how or with whom it should conduct its sacraments.

      Report Post » XaviorOnassis  
    • tzion
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:02am

      Finally someone says it. The whole concept of marriage exists only as a social and/or religious institution that acts as a contract between two individuals. The only role government should have is to recognize those contracts as binding. After all, if government can dictate how you can get married, they can also tell you when you can’t get married.

      Of course, the main reason some people would oppose taking government out of the equation is that if government has no say in what marriage is it can’t outlaw polygamy, gay marriage, etc. Liberals and progressives oppose polygamy because they see it as degrading to women while many religious conservatives oppose gay marriage for obvious reasons.

      On a more positive note, government couldn’t obligate you to recognize a marriage you saw as illegitimate.

      Report Post »  
    • soisay
      Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:34pm

      While I have my own, fairly radical, opinion on the subject at hand, I must TOTALLY DISAGREE with you little throwaway comment that “children in the 1930′s grew up fine”.

      That is a total falsehood. Yes, they were self-reliant, and not afraid to work, but most were uneducated and living through a great depression in America and war and ethnic cleansing in Europe, legal racial violence in the south. Children worked in factories, farms, scavenged to make families ends meet. Simple sicknesses lead to loss of limbs, hearing, or death.

      Furthermore, it was a time where there was no recognition of child abuse. “Spare the Rod” was actually quite celebrated. Parents could abuse their children intimately, or to the point of black eyes and broken bones without intervention. Childrens’ options were often to “run away” with very few places to run.

      I hear many stories from my own father and men his age. They are heroic sagas, funny anecdotes, and charming recollections. But I can easily see through their misdirections and understand what actually was going on during his childhood.

      Report Post » soisay  
  • Free2speakRN
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:41am

    I say, “Don’t do it!” It clouds the mind. Breaking up is hard enough. At least if you are not living together, YOU CAN GO HOME! You can go to a place that is not just another room. You could think and reason better; Make a ‘Good vs Bad’ sheet; Use the upper Head to see if you really want to be with that person. You are not as stuck.

    Report Post »  
  • XaviorOnassis
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:32am

    The problem is that people don’t get married to have a marriage anymore. They are after a kind of co-habiting co-independence. When you get married, the ideal is that you become a new thing–this union–and you sacrifice some of your personal independence to keep it going because you recognize that the UNION has a greater chance to extend the influence of your hearts to the world and together you are stronger than either can be separate. When you commit to marriage you are not committing your love and loyalty to your new spouse, but to the union of the two of you together. There are storms in every marriage and times when you might not feel as “in love” as others, but when you are married you commit to the greater idea of the union and you weather those storms. They pass.

    When people get married (or “cohabit”) with the understanding that the commitment need last only until it gets inconvenient, where is the marriage really?

    Report Post » XaviorOnassis  
  • Resolved
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:28am

    This idea that one needs to “test” their relationship is really a misnomer. In this case, ‘test’ means ‘let’s see how much I can get away with.’ A marriage is all about molding a relationship, where both parties change a bit to meet the others’ needs, where you stop living like a bachelor where only your needs matter, and start living like a responsible adult and considering the needs of others. This is the responsibility that comes with marriage. It’s not about seeing whether your current bachelor habits are compatible. I can answer that for you right away – No they’re not. You’ll have to change something. Cohabitation just gives you an easy out when you decide you’re not REALLY interested in growing up.

    Report Post » Resolved  
    • I am Jacks patriotism
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 1:06pm

      Spot on!

      Report Post » I am Jacks patriotism  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 3:33pm

      well said.

      Report Post »  
    • katiefrankie
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 4:40pm

      That’s why I think cohabitation leads to a greater divorce rate than marriage – that “Well, if this doesn’t work out, we can always walk away,” attitude. The idea that a commitment is only as strong as the outside forces buffeting it, and there is a “eject button” to push if things get too tough – how dooming and depressing!

      Family and marriage takes work. Love takes work. It has never been otherwise! Those are the most important things we have, and of course they are the things that will need the most investment and effort. That’s why I built them on a foundation of marriage, not a “test run.”

      Report Post » katiefrankie  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:44am

      Reminds me of the guy that goes to premarriage counselling with his wife. When he tells the pastor he thinks he should have sex with his girlfriend first to see if they are compatable the pastor says, “Don’t worry, it’ll fit.”

      Report Post »  
  • Itsjusttim
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:26am

    Check it out, when as you see all the abominations are in the Holy places as is happening, you will see plagues and diseases as you have never seen them. The joy of sex will be far removed, and it will happen globally, and not just in the nation they have targeted. And the homosexuals will get married, thinking it will offer something special, but much more emptiness and darkness will prevail upon them.
    It’s not a game, it’s not a fabrication, it’s a historic fact.

    Report Post » Itsjusttim  
  • cosmiccastaway
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:22am

    I don’t think it makes a difference. For the record, I lived with my wife and (now) stepson for 3 years before getting married. We dated for a year before moving in together. We have now been married for four years as of next month. We had a long, deliberate courtship before getting married, as both our parents had multiple divorces each. I think a big factor in break-ups, married or not, is in society itself. We live in an age of “faster, shinier, newer” rather than long term commitments. You like your $500 iPad you bought last year? Dump it! We have a brand new one that’s better than that piece of junk you wasted your money on. People don’t want to spend enough time developing a relationship and fostering it to see if they are truly meant for each other. They see each other, are attracted to each other, have a meaningful 20 minute sexual relationship, then they’re ready for the next step. Before long, “He’s a slob”, “She’s a psycho”, “I’m not that into you”, ” I’m outta here”. Whether a couple is married or co habitating, it doesn‘t matter if they don’t have similar outlooks on life and where they want to go with their relationships.

    Report Post »  
    • Red1492
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:59am

      Good analysis and I agree. Cohabitation has no bearing on whether or not a marriage stays together. We live in a society where everyone is looking for the BBB – the Bigger Better Deal. My husband and I dated for 3 years, lived together for 4 years and have been married now for 14 years. My great grandparents lived together for over 60 years and were never married until the last 6 years of their life together- something we never knew until both of them died and we discovered their marriage license. We live in a transient society that believes the grass is always greener elsewhere. People move from job to job, town to town and relationship to relationship regardless of their upbringing or background.

      Report Post » Red1492  
  • Itsjusttim
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:16am

    God has a solution for that, and is why often women mimic each other’s menstrual cycle. And it’s also why the whoring men in the Mid-East often keep the women of their harems in different quarters.

    Report Post » Itsjusttim  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:12am

    Yes it does damage marriages.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Itsjusttim
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:21am

      You think that because you weren’t delivered by your own daddy, and that bond is lost forever.

      Report Post » Itsjusttim  
  • Constructionist
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:09am

    Eventually, living with a woman will make any man want to kill himself.
    Cohabitation just starts this process earlier.
    Resistance is futile.

    Report Post » Constructionist  
    • Free2speakRN
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:44am

      Ha!

      Report Post »  
    • grand slam grandam
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:15am

      Ha, ha, ha, ha!! Than again, getting mixed up with one of these young girls nowadays who brag “I don’t cook” (implying they don’t care to make a house a home, OR COOK) would lead any reasonable man to wish for suicide.

      Report Post »  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:37am

      At the risk of undermining my serious responses, I have always felt the purpose of a first husband is to lower a woman‘s expectations to the point she’s barable to the second husband.

      Report Post »  
  • blanco5
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:08am

    Cohabitation = someone doesn’t want to get married b/c he/she wants to be free for when someone better comes along

    Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:06am

    An Individual is Unique… and a Couple “square” that.. so, it just depends upon the people!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • rockmanlinux
    Posted on April 20, 2012 at 9:03am

    Yes cohabitation affects marriage. My opinion is that since cohabitation has become more normal, divorce rates have skyrocketed.

    Report Post »  
    • Red1492
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:02am

      Actually, divorce rates have declined since their peak in the early 1980′s.

      Report Post » Red1492  
    • kevinbogard
      Posted on April 20, 2012 at 10:36am

      Divorce rates were up long before the “co-habitation” issue. Me being married or not has no bearing on others.
      Besides all of that, it’s nobodies business and I REFUSE to be somebodies poor excuse for not wanting to get married

      COP OUT !!!!!

      Report Post » kevinbogard  
    • Rohawk
      Posted on April 21, 2012 at 1:29am

      Divorce rates have dropped from their peek because people felt like they had to marry to live together. Now that the least committed don’t feel obligated to be socially accepted the most likely to divorce never marry. It just means faith in marriage has dropped to the point that the damage of first wave divorce damage has scared others from trying.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love