Marriage

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
If one party can't swing an apartment payment solo, then they probably shouldn't be living in that apartment. That's just a bad financial decision imo. What would happen if one of you finds yourself without a job?

So, using your same argument...say you get married to someone before living together...and then you find you can't stand each other and get divorced. How much costlier and more complex is it to get divorced as oppose to one party just moving out?

I think the point is that you should move in OR get married to someone until you are positive it will work. If you aren't positive then you should just keep dating until you know for sure. Also, more is at stake when you get married. You both have skin in the game and have incentive to make it work.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
Yeah, my wife and I lived together before we were married, and that was the right decision for us in our unique circumstances. I think that is true for many young couples today, especially for some of the career-coordination reasons we've been talking about in this thread (e.g. college sweethearts have been dating long-distance since college, then one finally gets a coveted job in the other's city, etc.).

But as your lawyer I cannot recommend cohabitation unless you are basically certain this is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. tussin and wizards are right that if the shit goes bad, it goes bad. I've read the cases.
 

IrishSteelhead

All Flair, No Substance
Messages
11,114
Reaction score
4,686
As a lawyer, can a man legally live alone and still be married? Talk about a WIN-WIN!!!!!!!
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,263
I couldn't marry someone if I didn't live with them first. That's just one man's opinion.

I haven't had any financial issues resulting from a break up. Pretty simple to avoid. I did have one regrettable moment - an ex live in took my favorite tee shirt hostage after we broke up and played the come by and pick it up routine. I wanted my shirt bad but I just couldn't take her lip, not even for another moment. Loved that damn shirt.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,378
I think the point is that you should move in OR get married to someone until you are positive it will work. If you aren't positive then you should just keep dating until you know for sure. Also, more is at stake when you get married. You both have skin in the game and have incentive to make it work.

Yeah, I'm not saying move in with whoever you're dating at the moment. I'm saying find the person that you think could be the one, do the trial run, pop the question then if you want. Spend that time before the actual marriage in close quarters with your significant other. I guaran-damn-tee you will learn stuff about them that you never knew when you were just dating from separate locations.

Your girlfriend may keep a clean place when she knows you're coming over, but when you're living together she might be quite the slob. She may leave toothpaste all over the sink. She may leave lights, fans, and other electrical items on till infinity, even when she's left the house. She may hog the covers. She may be a horrible dish washer. She may eat food in bed all the time and leave crumbs. She may be quite the bitch in the morning. She may be horrible with money. Some of these are mild annoyances, some might be deal breakers for people. I'm sure theres far worse things, these were just some bad habits I came up with. Theres a number of things that can be avoided during courtship that will come out when you're living with someone, a few of these I experienced first hand with the previous gf :laugh:
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I also disagree with the "living together before marriage", partly because of my Catholic worldview and partly because of the psychological benefits of recognizing the clear distinction between pre and post-marriage.

After some substantial reading post-college, I grew to appreciate the distinction that marriage carries with it. Prior to marriage, we are still exploring each other and the idea of life together. You discuss everything you can think of: easy and difficult topics and anything related to the stress points of marriages, money, sex, life outside of the marriage, etc.

Post-marriage represents the finality of the act. The beginning and end of the "two become one" and should be experienced in it's totality. It was a wonderful experience to make the transition from dating (and the occasional sleepover if I'm being completely honest) to waking up with my wife.

Of course there were things to get used to but the person I married was worth it and that was determined prior to marriage, otherwise I would've never asked.

As an aside, prior to becoming Catholic I had an extensive relationship in which we cohabitated for a couple years and being able to compare the two approaches, I vastly prefer the former discussed above.
 

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
Without getting too deep into it, what do you think the Catholic church values more

Long lasting traditional marriage that doesn't end in divorce, engages in procreation, and is built on values that grow in good times and in health and withstand the bad times and sickness

Or

Preventing premarital living and more than likely premarital sex

Personally the Catholic church is more stable because it's focused on the marriage part and not the rigid structure of how we get there. Not to say traditional courtship is something they can disregard but I view marriage as one of the pillars of faith, it is a sacrament after all
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
Without getting too deep into it, what do you think the Catholic church values more

Long lasting traditional marriage that doesn't end in divorce, engages in procreation, and is built on values that grow in good times and in health and withstand the bad times and sickness

Or

Preventing premarital living and more than likely premarital sex

Personally the Catholic church is more stable because it's focused on the marriage part and not the rigid structure of how we get there. Not to say traditional courtship is something they can disregard but I view marriage as one of the pillars of faith, it is a sacrament after all

Naturally, I see the first grouping as the ultimate end but I don't believe it's easy to get there without the means.

I see the two linked but not inextricably. I think there is strong correlation between traditional courtship and successful marriages with a few outliers whom I'm happy to count amongst the successful, but I don't for a minute believe that one must be abdicated for the other.

Your questions appear to be phrased in a way that states: Success of the former rises despite or regardless of the latter and I very much disagree. I believe everything is linked and there is a psychosocial benefit to the traditional courtship model. I also recognize that some people have successful marriages despite not following the model proposed.

If we take out our inability to wait for these things in marriage, then the statistics would suggest that the most likely way to a successful marriage is to follow the traditional model put forth.

Queue all the anecdotal evidence that runs counter to the statements above.
 
Last edited:

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
Not necessarily despite or regardless, more like how we get there is less important than what it means when we do get there; There being the result of a stable traditional marriage .... From a church perspective it's better to have long traditional marriages than it is to have traditional courtship. If you can get to B through A then it's a cherry on top of cake. But if you take the winding road and still reach point B, then that would be just as good

Personally, no chance in hell I'm marrying my future wife without living with her first. She might have some repulsive OCD or things just don't mesh when it's 24/7, id rather know that upfront rather than in year 1 and one of is faced with the realization that we're finding the next 40+ years together in less than ideal situation, were getting a divorce, or grow to resent the other
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Without getting too deep into it, what do you think the Catholic church values more

Long lasting traditional marriage that doesn't end in divorce, engages in procreation, and is built on values that grow in good times and in health and withstand the bad times and sickness

Or

Preventing premarital living and more than likely premarital sex

Personally the Catholic church is more stable because it's focused on the marriage part and not the rigid structure of how we get there. Not to say traditional courtship is something they can disregard but I view marriage as one of the pillars of faith, it is a sacrament after all

Nobody made the argument that the reason not to cohabitate is because it's sinful. The arguments have been based on psychology, finances, and personal experience.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
Not necessarily despite or regardless, more like how we get there is less important than what it means when we do get there; There being the result of a stable traditional marriage .... From a church perspective it's better to have long traditional marriages than it is to have traditional courtship. If you can get to B through A then it's a cherry on top of cake. But if you take the winding road and still reach point B, then that would be just as good

Personally, no chance in hell I'm marrying my future wife without living with her first. She might have some repulsive OCD or things just don't mesh when it's 24/7, id rather know that upfront rather than in year 1 and one of is faced with the realization that we're finding the next 40+ years together in less than ideal situation, were getting a divorce, or grow to resent the other


Typical modern mindset that I completely disagree with, see above for reasoning. To assume you can get to point B without taking the prescribed route makes it a more perilous journey than it needs to be. If you don't recognize such blatant flaws of your future wife while dating then your perception must be questioned, not the space between the two of you. Why wouldn't they "mesh"?

As to wizards, I'm going there now.

I believe the primary reason for not living together is to avoid the near occasion of sin. Living together, when not fully committed, creates a bad framework for having children. If you are just "testing the waters" but still getting "your stick wet" and you bring a child into a relationship which is not welcoming, best of luck. It adds a lot of stress which many can attest.

Then many say, "we'll just use birth control, etc" then you see the precarious situation that results. Living together prior to marriage greatly increases the likelihood of grave sin.

Nearly everyone of the 50-60% of marriages that failed had similar thoughts to what you stated above. To assume you are the exception or that the high success rate in the traditional path is merely an aberration is short-sighted at best. However, I wish you all the luck in the world in finding the right woman. The wrong woman makes misery for man.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
If you made it through early adulthood and never lived with the opposite sex nor had pre marital sex then I can only salute you.

*Fine print*

If women were never interested in you then I can only give you a head nod for making it till marriage, because you had it on easy mode.
 

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
I also disagree with the "living together before marriage", partly because of my Catholic worldview

Nobody made the argument that the reason not to cohabitate is because it's sinful. The arguments have been based on psychology, finances, and personal experience.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I understand that, I brought it up for the bolded part and quite frankly it almost seemed like the conversation was tip toeing around the subject. At least as I've been reading, it appears both sides of the argument are approaching the thought as two heavyweight boxers feeling each other out at the start of the round.

Typical modern mindset that I completely disagree with, see above for reasoning. To assume you can get to point B without taking the prescribed route makes it a more perilous journey than it needs to be. If you don't recognize such blatant flaws of your future wife while dating then your perception must be questioned, not the space between the two of you. Why wouldn't they "mesh"?

As to wizards, I'm going there now.

I believe the primary reason for not living together is to avoid the near occasion of sin. Living together, when not fully committed, creates a bad framework for having children. If you are just "testing the waters" but still getting "your stick wet" and you bring a child into a relationship which is not welcoming, best of luck. It adds a lot of stress which many can attest.

Then many say, "we'll just use birth control, etc" then you see the precarious situation that results. Living together prior to marriage greatly increases the likelihood of grave sin.

Nearly everyone of the 50-60% of marriages that failed had similar thoughts to what you stated above. To assume you are the exception or that the high success rate in the traditional path is merely an aberration is short-sighted at best. However, I wish you all the luck in the world in finding the right woman. The wrong woman makes misery for man.

For the record, I appreciate both sides of the argument. I was a double major in college at private Catholic university in upstate NY. I majored in religious studies with a concentration in Roman Catholicism. Best decision I ever made. But I learned a lot about faith in general and more importantly faith as it pertains to me. Stronger than ever. So while I may have "modern" views I like to think I don't have a modern background

As for the assumption part in bold, I.Don't think I'm assuming anything more than what you're assuming. I tried to make it clear that my point of view is based on an individual not a cookie cutter template that if you follow this or that it will work. The flaws I was referencing was what you discover about a person when you live with them on 24/7 basis. If you just summarily dismiss a premise that I couldn't possibly learn anything more about a partner by living with them first, then I strongly disagree. Everyone has quirks, tendencies they tend to hide to protect themselves from judgment, and it's not uncommon for a person to discover another person turned out to be a completely different person (whether it be a relationship setting or growing a part from your best friend). It only makes sense to know as much as you can about a person before you get married. That makes a relationship like Teflon. A lot of the divorce nowadays comes from rushing into a marriage, getting married too young, and giving in to temptations. Those are all things that can be linked to not knowing your partner as well add you should

Now where my generation is different from say my parents, we are more quickly to react with a divorce rather than address the situation and resolve it. We give up more easily and more likely to abandon a marriage early on. That in my opinion, at least among the people I know with a divorce, is more about rushing into a marriage for whatever reason
 

jimmymac

Well-known member
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
242
Typical modern mindset that I completely disagree with, see above for reasoning. To assume you can get to point B without taking the prescribed route makes it a more perilous journey than it needs to be. If you don't recognize such blatant flaws of your future wife while dating then your perception must be questioned, not the space between the two of you. Why wouldn't they "mesh"?

As to wizards, I'm going there now.

I believe the primary reason for not living together is to avoid the near occasion of sin. Living together, when not fully committed, creates a bad framework for having children. If you are just "testing the waters" but still getting "your stick wet" and you bring a child into a relationship which is not welcoming, best of luck. It adds a lot of stress which many can attest.

Then many say, "we'll just use birth control, etc" then you see the precarious situation that results. Living together prior to marriage greatly increases the likelihood of grave sin.

Nearly everyone of the 50-60% of marriages that failed had similar thoughts to what you stated above. To assume you are the exception or that the high success rate in the traditional path is merely an aberration is short-sighted at best. However, I wish you all the luck in the world in finding the right woman. The wrong woman makes misery for man.

Lol
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
1. I understand that, I brought it up for the bolded part and quite frankly it almost seemed like the conversation was tip toeing around the subject. At least as I've been reading, it appears both sides of the argument are approaching the thought as two heavyweight boxers feeling each other out at the start of the round.

For the record, I appreciate both sides of the argument. I was a double major in college at private Catholic university in upstate NY. I majored in religious studies with a concentration in Roman Catholicism. Best decision I ever made. But I learned a lot about faith in general and more importantly faith as it pertains to me. Stronger than ever. So while I may have "modern" views I like to think I don't have a modern background

As for the assumption part in bold, I.Don't think I'm assuming anything more than what you're assuming.2. I tried to make it clear that my point of view is based on an individual not a cookie cutter template that if you follow this or that it will work. The flaws I was referencing was what you discover about a person when you live with them on 24/7 basis. 3. If you just summarily dismiss a premise that I couldn't possibly learn anything more about a partner by living with them first, then I strongly disagree. Everyone has quirks, tendencies they tend to hide to protect themselves from judgment, and it's not uncommon for a person to discover another person turned out to be a completely different person (whether it be a relationship setting or growing a part from your best friend). It only makes sense to know as much as you can about a person before you get married. That makes a relationship like Teflon. A lot of the divorce nowadays comes from rushing into a marriage, getting married too young, and giving in to temptations. Those are all things that can be linked to not knowing your partner as well add you should

4. Now where my generation is different from say my parents, we are more quickly to react with a divorce rather than address the situation and resolve it. We give up more easily and more likely to abandon a marriage early on. That in my opinion, at least among the people I know with a divorce, is more about rushing into a marriage for whatever reason

1. I wasn't tiptoeing as much as I was trying to cater the message to the audience. I wasn't sure if you were of a Catholic background. The message can be explained from multiple angles but after you brought up the Catholic importance of sacramental marriage, I was free to open up to some of the primary reasons for avoiding cohabitation.

2. Cookie cutter often has the connotation that it's not able to mold to the form needed. We were talking about percentages and if you like to "play the odds" then you have them in front of you. It's good that you've given this issue thought.

3. That was not my intention. I'm saying that if the right discussions are being had, then it's possible to know enough about the person without living with them. Again, the odds are that a marriage more likely fails than not if the couple cohabitate before "I do".

4. It's good you recognize some of the reasons for failed marriages. It'll serve you well to continue paying attention to trends in failed marriages.


Why "lol"?

At least give him Veritate the courtesy of your opinion rather than mocking his serious post.

Yes Jimmymac, please do us the favor of sharing more of your thoughts. It's been quite some time since, borrowing the words of irish8248, I've been summarily dismissed with "Lol".
 
Last edited:

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Typical modern mindset that I completely disagree with, see above for reasoning. To assume you can get to point B without taking the prescribed route makes it a more perilous journey than it needs to be. If you don't recognize such blatant flaws of your future wife while dating then your perception must be questioned, not the space between the two of you. Why wouldn't they "mesh"?

As to wizards, I'm going there now.

I believe the primary reason for not living together is to avoid the near occasion of sin. Living together, when not fully committed, creates a bad framework for having children. If you are just "testing the waters" but still getting "your stick wet" and you bring a child into a relationship which is not welcoming, best of luck. It adds a lot of stress which many can attest.

Then many say, "we'll just use birth control, etc" then you see the precarious situation that results. Living together prior to marriage greatly increases the likelihood of grave sin.

Nearly everyone of the 50-60% of marriages that failed had similar thoughts to what you stated above. To assume you are the exception or that the high success rate in the traditional path is merely an aberration is short-sighted at best. However, I wish you all the luck in the world in finding the right woman. The wrong woman makes misery for man.

Actually what you term the "traditional path" and people who move in together who are planning on getting married in the future (both people not just one or the other) have similar divorce rates now. Though couples who live together for other reasons and are not on the path to marriage do face a higher divorce rate. So for instance a couple that gets engaged but then moves in for a year before marriage to make sure that they are truly compatible living together would face a similar divorce rate to a couple that took your traditional path.

It will also be interesting in the future as the generations change to see if this continues to hold true or changes due to different reasons for cohabitation.
 

jimmymac

Well-known member
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
242
1. I wasn't tiptoeing as much as I was trying to cater the message to the audience. I wasn't sure if you were of a Catholic background. The message can be explained from multiple angles but after you brought up the Catholic importance of sacramental marriage, I was free to open up to some of the primary reasons for avoiding cohabitation.

2. Cookie cutter often has the connotation that it's not able to mold to the form needed. We were talking about percentages and if you like to "play the odds" then you have them in front of you. It's good that you've given this issue thought.

3. That was not my intention. I'm saying that if the right discussions are being had, then it's possible to know enough about the person without living with them. Again, the odds are that a marriage more likely fails than not if the couple cohabitate before "I do".

4. It's good you recognize some of the reasons for failed marriages. It'll serve you well to continue paying attention to trends in failed marriages.





Yes Jimmymac, please do us the favor of sharing more of your thoughts. It's been quite some time since, borrowing the words of irish8248, I've been summarily dismissed with "Lol".

Sure, I should have expanded on my Lol. I apologize for being an ass and not explaining my position, I was in a bad mood earlier.

Having said that, I find it frustrating with individuals try to judge the actions of others (not that you tried to do this necessarily) but depicting premarital sex as a "grave sin" rubbed me in this manner. Feel free to believe what you wish, but even as a Catholic, I have trouble when people attempt to determine what God's judgement will be as if it were a fact.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
3. That was not my intention. I'm saying that if the right discussions are being had, then it's possible to know enough about the person without living with them. Again, the odds are that a marriage more likely fails than not if the couple cohabitate before "I do".

Where are you getting this from? I find this very hard to believe and would like to see some type of statistic that argues this.
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
Actually what you term the "traditional path" and people who move in together who are planning on getting married in the future (both people not just one or the other) have similar divorce rates now. Though couples who live together for other reasons and are not on the path to marriage do face a higher divorce rate. So for instance a couple that gets engaged but then moves in for a year before marriage to make sure that they are truly compatible living together would face a similar divorce rate to a couple that took your traditional path.

It will also be interesting in the future as the generations change to see if this continues to hold true or changes due to different reasons for cohabitation.

I am guilty of making some assumptions:

Once this became a Catholic discussion, I was referencing conforming Catholic couples and their marriage success rate. Couples who practice NFP have a 5% divorce rate, the overwhelming majority of participants did not cohabitate before marriage.

Most divorce rates I've seen hover between 49-73% depending on the polls of various factors surrounding cohabitation. When doing a search, I see some recent research has been published refuting that unmarried couples living together are more likely to divorce. But from what I could tell, it won't go so far as to claim it minimizes the chance for divorce. Likely the data is too young.

I'm guessing most people looked at divorce rates from 1960-present day and said, "Hmmm, as cohabitation drastically increased, so did divorce". While that is an interesting trend that has value, there are so many variables at play that a good statistician would discard it in favor of better controlled studies.

Sure, I should have expanded on my Lol. I apologize for being an ass and not explaining my position, I was in a bad mood earlier.

Having said that, I find it frustrating with individuals try to judge the actions of others (not that you tried to do this necessarily) but depicting premarital sex as a "grave sin" rubbed me in this manner. Feel free to believe what you wish, but even as a Catholic, I have trouble when people attempt to determine what God's judgement will be as if it were a fact.

Thanks Jimmy for an elaboration. Since you are finished, allow me to retort. I never once pronounced judgement on anyone in this thread. Countless people have given evidence: financial, psychosocial and finally moral, for which one should avoid shacking up with a girlfriend.

Having said that, since you openly claim a Catholic faith, I feel it's in all parties best interests to examine what the Catholic Church says about the matters being discussed in this thread. They say that premarital sex, is in fact, grave sin. So I will not claim it, I will allow the institution which I bind myself to, to claim it.

In calling one's self Catholic, we are taking on the identity of that institution which means we are in conformity with Rome. If we denounce certain Catholic positions or live otherwise, we are, in fact, not Catholic but outside the Church clamoring for her to change to fit our agenda or that of the modern times.

Would you be so bold to tell your priest that you think he's being "too judge-y" with his grave sin nomenclature?

It is one thing to argue with me about matters of which the Church hasn't taken a stand, it is wholly other to argue about that which the Church has made transparent and which I have merely relayed.

The Church is my mother, and I her loyal son. I will not act like there are not definitive guidelines with which she asks me to live, not as a scornful mother but as one who is fully loving and can direct me to the most fulfilling life possible.

Your grievance isn't with me, it's with Rome.

Trap.

Set.

Sprung.



Oh, the humanity!!!

Dshans, I very much enjoy seeing your posts. Your diction is delightful and your syntax, superb!

Where are you getting this from? I find this very hard to believe and would like to see some type of statistic that argues this.

See above.
 

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
I am guilty of making some assumptions:

Once this became a Catholic discussion, I was referencing conforming Catholic couples and their marriage success rate. Couples who practice NFP have a 5% divorce rate, the overwhelming majority of participants did not cohabitate before marriage.

Most divorce rates I've seen hover between 49-73% depending on the polls of various factors surrounding cohabitation. When doing a search, I see some recent research has been published refuting that unmarried couples living together are more likely to divorce. But from what I could tell, it won't go so far as to claim it minimizes the chance for divorce. Likely the data is too young.

I'm guessing most people looked at divorce rates from 1960-present day and said, "Hmmm, as cohabitation drastically increased, so did divorce". While that is an interesting trend that has value, there are so many variables at play that a good statistician would discard it in favor of better controlled studies.

I agree with a lot of your points throughout this thread. But to be fair, divorce rates actually increased throughout the 50s-80s and have fallen ever since.

The most interesting trend in marriage is that divorce is largely decreasing, but so is the amount of people that choose to get married. Why? Because the demographics are changing. Less and less lower income citizens are getting married and it is largely the middle and upper classes tying the knot. This also ties into many of the economic problems the lower class because it is a general fact that a successful marriage is one of the best economic decisions an individual can make.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic964076.files/rotz 10-1-11.pdf

Freakonomics » Why Marry? (Part 1): A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Freakonomics » Why Marry? (Part 2): A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast
 
Last edited:

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
I agree with a lot of your points throughout this thread. But to be fair, divorce rates actually increased throughout the 50s-80s and have fallen ever since.

The most interesting trend in marriage is that divorce is largely decreasing, but so is the amount of people that choose to get married. Why? Because the demographics are changing. Less and less lower income citizens are getting married and it is largely the middle and upper classes tying the knot. This also ties into many of the economic problems the lower class because it is a general fact that a successful marriage is one of the best economic decisions an individual can make.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic964076.files/rotz 10-1-11.pdf

Freakonomics » Why Marry? (Part 1): A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Freakonomics » Why Marry? (Part 2): A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

Great points and links.

The first paper was interesting but I only skimmed it. Essentially, because the average age at marriage has risen the divorce rate has declined since the 80s with the occasional aberrations. It was hard to find the adjusted numbers for divorce rates from 1950 - Present that were used, but the results are good to know.

I don't have time to listen to the podcast yet and give it my full attention but I will get around to it. Thanks for the links and the correction.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
See above.

So it's an assumption? Judging off your comments referenced, you made it sound like that marriages without prior cohabitation had higher success rates. But if that was an opinion, you should have stated it as so.

When I looked into it, I found this study published in the Huff Post that showed there was no link between marriage success and whether they cohabitated before marriage or not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/does-cohabitation-cause-d_b_1776099.html
 

Veritate Duce Progredi

A man gotta have a code
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,352
So it's an assumption? Judging off your comments referenced, you made it sound like that marriages without prior cohabitation had higher success rates. But if that was an opinion, you should have stated it as so.

When I looked into it, I found this study published in the Huff Post that showed there was no link between marriage success and whether they cohabitated before marriage or not.

Robert Hughes, Jr.: Does Cohabitation Cause Divorce Or A Better Marriage?

The study you posted has been going since 96, and appears to show no difference either way. There are other various studies arguing on both sides but it wasn't opinion, it was simply based on old data (not to say bad data).

My other data was based on couples using NFP, which wasn't disingenuous but when the argument at hand is move-in together or not, I probably should've clarified.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
An interesting book that deals with a lot of the new trends in marraige from a social science perspective is "Coming Apart" by Charles A. Murray. Some dismissed it because they didn't like the conclusions, but its very well researched.

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010: Charles Murray: 9780307453433: Amazon.com: Books

I think most people that didn't like it because of the racial undertones (some outright) and "mein kompf" nature of his opinions. His call to embrace elitism was the cause of backlash.. not because of misguided political allegiance, as you suggest.

The élite—who, in Murray’s account, live in unprecedented geographic and social isolation from poor and working people—are themselves hardworking, unlikely to divorce, dedicated to their children, and even comparatively religious, but, unlike the élite of Victorian England, they don’t “preach what they practice.” Somehow this manifests itself in the breakdown of social mores at the opposite end of society.

“Coming Apart” is, in effect, an analysis of inequality that rules out a program of redistribution. In Murray’s view, trying to shift resources away from the élite wouldn’t do much good, because (as Murray and Richard Herrnstein argued, in far more detail, in “The Bell Curve”) the élite are genetically endowed with higher intelligence: as long as the United States is a meritocratic society, and as long as these people keep meeting at selective colleges, marrying, and improving their breeding stock, they’ll keep doing better than everybody else. Anyway, what the non-élite need isn’t money, Murray thinks; it’s better values. Very little of “Coming Apart” is devoted to government policy.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
The study you posted has been going since 96, and appears to show no difference either way. There are other various studies arguing on both sides but it wasn't opinion, it was simply based on old data (not to say bad data).

My other data was based on couples using NFP, which wasn't disingenuous but when the argument at hand is move-in together or not, I probably should've clarified.

What data? I still have seen no link. Again, you also stated it as fact, not as an opinion based off of studies you've seen. There is a big difference.
 
Top