Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FIRST-PERSON: The truth about cohabitation
Baptist Press ^ | Jan 9, 2007 | Ed Litton

Posted on 01/09/2007 5:15:22 PM PST by Tim Long

SARALAND, Ala. (BP)--The number of unmarried couples living together in America increased tenfold from 1960 to 2000. The U.S. Census estimates that about 10 million people are living with someone of the opposite sex. That totals about 8 percent of U.S. coupled households. Most unmarried partners who live together are between 25 and 34 years of age.

It once was stigmatized as "living in sin" or "shacking up," but now cohabitation has replaced dating. It has become mainstream as a way to discover if a person is a suitable partner for life. While marriage as an ideal is not dead, it does seem to be staggering and falling into the ropes.

According to USA Today, more than two-thirds of married couples in the United States now say they lived together before marriage. The number of unmarried, opposite-sex households is rising dramatically.

A crisis of confidence exists among younger Americans, not just in the institution of marriage, but in the process of finding a suitable life mate. The most divorced generation in history is struggling to trust the traditional courting process, choosing instead to dive right into the most intimate aspects of a relationship. Thus, some argue that since divorce is a reality, it makes sense to measure compatibility, and what better way to discover compatibility than to do a trial run at marriage. There is great confidence today in this new found process, but the question is, does it work?

In a groundbreaking study that examined the effects of cohabitation on the long-term quality of marriage, the Alabama Policy Institute (API) conducted a study of more than 1,300 married couples. The results are eye-opening. The study shows that the longer a couple cohabits before marriage, the less satisfied they are with their marriage. John Hill, API's director of research, said, "Specifically, couples who cohabit before marriage tend to be more depressed, more dependent and are more likely to believe their relationship will end as compared with married couples who did not cohabit." The API study indicates that in times of stress and conflict couples who cohabitate are more likely to handle their conflicts with heated arguing, hitting and throwing. According to USA TODAY, couples live together about two years and then either marry or break up.

Marriage is more than who you sleep next to and with whom you may share expenses. It is the deepest sharing of the most intimate part of your life. This is not easy to graph on a chart, but every human soul longs for it. God created us for intimacy and He built an environment in which we can experience it. Cohabitation has all the powerful elements that make up intimacy but lacks one major ingredient -- commitment. Commitment is the fence that protects, the lock that guarantees, and the alarm system that ensures that vulnerability is not easily compromised. Marriage is a covenant of mutual protection, devotion, sacrifice and love. It is binding for this very reason. It is not only safe for our most vulnerable moments but also for the most vulnerable people in the world -- children.

When we remember what marriage was designed to do and who designed it, the contorted, sophomoric logic of those who conclude that living together is a good choice evaporates. It is not inconsequential that the loss of confidence in marriage coincides with a loss in confidence in God and the Bible. The children and grandchildren of the sexual revolution need to examine what that revolution has caused: a skyrocketing divorce rate and a frustrating loss of intimacy. The best experiment may be to experiment with the ancient writings of a timeless God who loved us enough to construct a safe place called marriage in which to flourish. --30-- Ed Litton is the senior pastor of First Baptist North Mobile in Saraland, Ala.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: commitment

1 posted on 01/09/2007 5:15:24 PM PST by Tim Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
I shared an apartment with my fiancée after getting engaged, but both agreed not to consumate the relationship until we were actually married. I think that worked out pretty well. While I sense a societal belief that a men and women can't possibly have the discipline to share an aprtment without exchanging bodily fluids, I felt (and I think my wife agreed) that a couple that couldn't exercise even that level of discipline shouldn't get married since real marriage requires a lot more discipline than that. So we consumated our relationship on the honeymoon.
2 posted on 01/09/2007 5:22:30 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

Given the existing family law - both in its text and in its practice - it is amazing that the numbers cited are not 10 times higher.


3 posted on 01/09/2007 5:22:45 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Instant gratification, instant bread and instant circuses !
4 posted on 01/09/2007 5:24:06 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

This is old news I thought. Haven't there been studies concluding pre-marriage co-habitation correlates with increased divorce rates for at least ten years?


5 posted on 01/09/2007 5:24:33 PM PST by amchugh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

you gopt that right. Love is the triumph of hope over experience. (or so I'm told)


6 posted on 01/09/2007 5:24:40 PM PST by Rakkasan1 ((Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

'the Alabama Policy Institute'?

Guess that's how it is over in bama,
but in the rest of the lower 48--and PR
the Hawk flies free! ;<)


7 posted on 01/09/2007 5:26:28 PM PST by Natchez Hawk (What's so funny about the first, second, and fourth Amendments?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

Or maybe it's just being one sort of person or another. Hard to say.


8 posted on 01/09/2007 5:27:55 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amchugh
This is old news I thought. Haven't there been studies concluding pre-marriage co-habitation correlates with increased divorce rates for at least ten years?

Yep...

Hey Kids! Want Good Sex? Try Abstinence.

9 posted on 01/09/2007 5:32:15 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: supercat

One thing not having premarital sex does is build trust. If your husband/wife showed the discipline to abstain from sex with you prior to marriage, 30 years later when they have to go out of town you will trust them to not cheat.


10 posted on 01/09/2007 5:34:02 PM PST by MovementConservative (The US will win in Iraq. Thank you all US troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Natchez Hawk
Alabama Policy Institute

Auburn was nearly called that until 1960 something. Alabama Polytech Institute = Auburn University...

11 posted on 01/09/2007 5:34:21 PM PST by LowOiL (Paul wrote, "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
When we remember what marriage was designed to do and who designed it, the contorted, sophomoric logic of those who conclude that living together is a good choice evaporates. It is not inconsequential that the loss of confidence in marriage coincides with a loss in confidence in God and the Bible.

My wife and I lived together for nearly two years before we were married. This was back in the early 1970's ... the term most popular in that era was 'shacking up'. We've been happily married (well, we've had our moments) for nearly 33 years. It worked for us ...

12 posted on 01/09/2007 5:35:19 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amchugh
This is old news I thought. Haven't there been studies concluding pre-marriage co-habitation correlates with increased divorce rates for at least ten years?

Indeed there have, although it's very difficult to determine cause and effect from such studies.

If two people live together for years before getting married, and basically act the same after they got married as they did before, I could see why divorce would be likely. In many such situations, the marriage is largely an afterthought to the relationship--a sort of "oh why not". Cohabitation without marriage is an arrangement of convenience: "I'll love, honor, and cherish you as long as things don't get too rough". Getting married after a few years, if not accompanied by real changes in the relationship, could be closer to "Well it doesn't look as though things are going to get too rough" than to "I am going to be faithfully yours as long as we both shall live, especially when things get rough as they are almost certain to do".

It should hardly be surprising that an attitude of "Things don't seem too rough" would lead to divorce. On the other hand, I don't know any good way to predict how people will perform in hard situations; if they naturally occur and a couple survives, that's a good sign, but I wouldn't think it wise to create them artificially.

13 posted on 01/09/2007 5:47:17 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
The study shows that the longer a couple cohabits before marriage, the less satisfied they are with their marriage.

Makes sense. After enough time, they realize their improbability of trading up and settle for what they have. Such settlements are often pregnancy driven. Even after saying their I do's, they're probably wishing that a better deal will eventually come along.

14 posted on 01/09/2007 5:48:57 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MovementConservative
One thing not having premarital sex does is build trust. If your husband/wife showed the discipline to abstain from sex with you prior to marriage, 30 years later when they have to go out of town you will trust them to not cheat.

In some ways I feel like an oddball for having shared an apartment without consumating the relationship. It worked well for me and my wife, but I've not read any discussion anywhere of taking that approach. Is there some reason it wouldn't be a good approach for others to take?

15 posted on 01/09/2007 5:52:55 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MovementConservative
"30 years later when they have to go out of town you will trust them to not cheat."
30 or more years later the regular aging process would take care of that.
16 posted on 01/09/2007 5:55:43 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Makes sense. After enough time, they realize their improbability of trading up and settle for what they have. Such settlements are often pregnancy driven. Even after saying their I do's, they're probably wishing that a better deal will eventually come along.

Good point. By the time I moved into the new apartment with my fiancée I wanted her, forever, and nobody else. Even if someone who somehow managed to be more intelligent, witty, cute, and alluring had suddenly taken an interest in me at that point, I wouldn't have cared. I had chosen the person I wanted and she had chosen me. I wasn't hoping for something better, since I already had the best.

Of course, some people do shack up with the idea that it's a good way for them to pass the time until they find something better. And on the surface such behavior is perfectly logical. On the other hand, even though cohabitation will make it harder for either person to find anyone better, the attitude of "passing time" will mean that when someone does find someone who seems better (as will likely happen at some point) the relationship will be doomed.

17 posted on 01/09/2007 6:00:53 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LowOiL

Ahhh...

Thanks for the info.


18 posted on 01/09/2007 6:08:01 PM PST by Natchez Hawk (What's so funny about the first, second, and fourth Amendments?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: amchugh
You're right. I've heard this many times from various sourses for quite a few years now. Wish I could remember some but I can't except that some were Christian ministries. Makes sense. God is sure against it.

My dad used to say, "there's on free lunch", and "try it before you buy it has nothing to do with dating." I know he was right on the money.

19 posted on 01/09/2007 6:09:02 PM PST by Frwy (Eternity without Jesus is a hell-of-a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frwy
God is sure against it.

The Bible provides that if a man deflowers a virgin, her father may at his option either compel him to marry her, or make him pay the 'bride price' without marrying her.

Indeed, it seems to me that while men were permitted to marry non-virgins if they so chose, the act of deflowering a virgin effectively consumated a marriage (whether the couple had been ceremonially married before the act or not).

A logical system. A major purpose of marriage (if not the most important) was to allow men to know that any children their wives bore would be theirs. A man who took a virgin wife could be sure that she wasn't pregnant with someone else's child. Consequently, virgin females were highly desirable. A man who bedded a virgin would greatly diminish her chances of taking anyone else as a husband--thus the requirement that the man either marry the person or pay compensation for her reduced marriageability.

20 posted on 01/09/2007 6:51:31 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long

Numerous studies confirm this particular one.

In a theological sense, that G*d thought enough of the issue to issue a commandment, it can be said to have already been studied at the highest level.

Ironic that soft science PhD's confirm the most basic element of Judeo-Christian life, as well as one of the Commandments. Publishing that result must have deeply distressed their little Marxist egos.


21 posted on 01/09/2007 6:57:42 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
My obserevation of such long term cohabitation is that the female of the couple gets quite frustrated and worn, and leaves while her biological clock is still ticking, to find a real man who wants to start a marriage and a family.

Cohab is extended rehab of men who cannot grow up, and it almost always fails.

22 posted on 01/09/2007 7:23:59 PM PST by Candor7 (The hope of the West disappears into liberal flatulance, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
The study is on the Alabama Policy Institute website. Here are some revealing aspects of it:

This study uses data from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), which was conducted by the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin between March 1987 and May 1988. Since previous research suggests the effects of cohabitation on marital stability are limited to the first 10 years of marriage, data from only the first wave were chosen to acquire the largest number of participants who had been married the shortest amount of time.

That's pretty much ancient history.

23 posted on 01/09/2007 7:27:09 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Here's another interesting finding from the API study: The couples who cohabitated had more sex by a large margin -- much larger than any other differences measured except conflict and depression.

It appears that what the study may have found is that people in the group studied who were more emotional/volatile tended to cohabitate before marriage -- perhaps because they were more cautious about commitments or perhaps because they had parents whose volitility led to divorce and/or marital discord. Moreover, by eliminating every cohabitating couple who stayed married more than 10 years, they eliminated a huge percentage of the happily married cohabitators.

24 posted on 01/09/2007 7:47:02 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
The results are eye-opening. The study shows that the longer a couple cohabits before marriage, the less satisfied they are with their marriage...not really so eye-opening - one of the few consistent findings in all of the social sciences has been in a number of studies showing that there is less success in marriage, however measured, for those who cohabited before than for those who didn't......
25 posted on 01/09/2007 9:03:58 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson