Is it okay for people to live together before getting married?

[Michael Chris]

1) Born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
2) I am a devout Christian.
3) Sociological information obtained through several (nonreligious) undergrad classes (take it as you like).

On religious grounds I am very much opposed, but approaching the issue for a non Christian I am still opposed due to the fact that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher chance of getting a divorce if they get married. That's not my opinion that is backed up by a fair amount of research.

However, that research has been primarily conducted in the US, and would not necessarily translate over into places with different cultural norms.

 

[iguana_tonante]

1) Born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
2) I am a devout Christian.
3) Sociological information obtained through several (nonreligious) undergrad classes (take it as you like).

On religious grounds I am very much opposed, but approaching the issue for a non Christian I am still opposed due to the fact that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher chance of getting a divorce if they get married. That's not my opinion that is backed up by a fair amount of research.

However, that research has been primarily conducted in the US, and would not necessarily translate over into places with different cultural norms.

Even if your sociological informations are true (which I find dubious, but I don't have counter-informations to show), it could just mean that people that don't cohabit before marriage are more likely not to divorce even if they are married to abusive, alcoholic, violent partners. Divorce rate is not an index of marital happiness.

 

[Jen]

Along with your answer to the above, please state (i) where you spent your formative years (i.e., what city/state/country), (ii) how religious you are, and/or (iii) any other factor that you think plays into why you think the way you do. Thanks!

Dear god, I hope it's okay. I'm moving in with my boyfriend next month!!

1. I was born and raised in a suburb of Milwaukee (I spent a few years in my early 20's in San Diego).

2. I'm a recovering Catholic (meaning I'm agnostic)

3. I think it's very important to have a basis of friendship with your significant other, and that will translate into living together (and marriage if that's what you want). My boyfriend and I were friends for a very long time prior to us dating, and that has helped out a lot. Since I'm totally against marriage, this is the option for me, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[cultcross]

May I ask what you think could be personal, not-religious reason for going straight to marriage without living together? I understand religious reasons: I don't agree, but I can understand them. But I can't see any secular reason for that.

Well some people only want to sleep with their spouse in the lifetime for completely personal and non religious reasons. Not everyone has a casual attitude to sex.

 

[The Castellan]

My boyfriend and I were friends for a very long time prior to us dating, and that has helped out a lot.

Wow, one does not often see that nowadyas.

 

[JustKate]

On religious grounds I am very much opposed, but approaching the issue for a non Christian I am still opposed due to the fact that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher chance of getting a divorce if they get married. That's not my opinion that is backed up by a fair amount of research.

However, that research has been primarily conducted in the US, and would not necessarily translate over into places with different cultural norms.

Even if your sociological informations are true (which I find dubious, but I don't have counter-informations to show), it could just mean that people that don't cohabit before marriage are more likely not to divorce even if they are married to abusive, alcoholic, violent partners. Divorce rate is not an index of marital happiness.

Actually, no matter how "dubious" this might sound to some people, Michael Chris is absolutely right - at least that's what I understand. (And he's also right, as far as I know, that most of this research involved only couples in the U.S.)

I think there's been more than one study, but the one I've heard of most often was done in 1995 and then repeated several years later by a University of Denver researcher named Scott Stanley, who's done a lot of work on risk factors for divorce. You can find a bunch of hits about it by googling his name + divorce, but here's one of the many articles I found: http://www.smartmarriages.com/7.html. And here's Stanley's faculty listing: https://portfolio.du.edu/pc/port?portfolio=sstanley

The reason postulated by researchers is that living together before marriage (in some cases) indicates a lack of commitment to marriage. That is, it's not necessarily a lack of commitment to the other person but to the concept of marriage itself.

The same study also showed, however, that unmarried couples who live together but who have already made a commitment to marry (that is, they are engaged or otherwise very committed to each other) have a divorce rate that is virtually identical to couples who didn't live together before marriage. So it's the level of commitment to marriage that seems to matter, not so much the living together.

As for my own views on living together before marriage, I think it can be a good thing...or a really bad thing. It really depends on why you're living together. If you go into it with a serious commitment and with the serious intention of figuring out how to make a life together work, you might find out some important things. If you don't...well, let's just say that the results are often extremely...mixed.

Many of you who so blithely assume that of course you should live together before marriage are, I am sorry to tell you, making a very serious error in reasoning. You're assuming that living together as an unmarried couple will be a good indicator of what it would be like to live together as a married couple.

And you know, it's very often not. Hence those divorce statistics, I would guess.

Sure, you can find out if somebody snores, and you can find out if he or she is a pig or a neat-freak, and you can maybe find out how he or she handles money. You can find out some useful stuff. But you won't know what it's really like to live with someone, as in commit to a life together, until you commit to a life together.

And besides, when two people have no legal ties holding them together, they don't always act the same as they do once they're married. Some might be a lot more careful and considerate before they're married than they are after. Some might be more jealous and possessive before they are married. Some will be exactly the same.

I know a lot of you won't believe me, but I'm going to say this anyway: You won't know what it's like to be married to somebody until you're actually married to that person. Marriage may only be "a piece of paper," as I've heard it described by some, but that's a pretty damn important piece of paper. Trust me.

As for the questions:
i: Born and raised in Southern California; moved to the Midwest after college (a long time ago now).
ii: Religious. I serve on the governing body of my church, which is part of the Presbyterian Church USA.
iii: I've been married twice. The first time was briefly in my 20s, but my current (and final ) husband and I have been married for more than 22 years, and we dated/lived together for nearly five years before that.

 

[Emher]

Along with your answer to the above, please state (i) where you spent your formative years (i.e., what city/state/country), (ii) how religious you are, and/or (iii) any other factor that you think plays into why you think the way you do. Thanks!

Yes.

Sweden.

Not religious at all. Spiritual yes.

My parents are pretty liberal and lived together for years before getting married.

EDIT:

Over here people would raise their eyebrows if you wouldn't live with someone before marriage. It happens but it's not very common. Personally, I think it's wise to get to know the person you want to marry since it's a bigger deal to get a divorce compared to just moving out.

i Sweden
ii I was raised in a religious home but I wouldn't call myself religious now.
iii I've seen some bad things caused by religion.

Oh hey, went over the thread and found another Swede! And yeah, that's pretty much the deal over here. Pretty wise I'd say.

Oh and I agree with your last response. Too much evil have been done in "the name of God".

 

[JiNX-01]

Along with your answer to the above, please state (i) where you spent your formative years (i.e., what city/state/country), (ii) how religious you are, and/or (iii) any other factor that you think plays into why you think the way you do. Thanks!

I think consenting adults have a right to decide who they want to live with (and when).

I grew up in Oswego, NY, pop. approx. 20,000.
I'm not particularly religious (raised Catholic, but not practicing) and, as an aside, I believe that being religious does not automatically equal being of good character or embracing morality.

 

[iguana_tonante]

As I said, I never investigated the matter statistically, so I can be wrong. It runs contrary to everything I've encountered in my life, but can be either: 1) my circle of acquaintances is not representative of the population; 2) it's a regional thing, and a similar study made in Europe (Italy) would yield very different results.

I can understand all your points, JustKate, and they are very good points. However, you make your own error in reasoning: that the divorce rate is the only (or primary) index of happiness for a relationship, and that divorce is necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, an unhappy but continuing marriage is a far worse results to a relationship that a divorce in good term. I can think of many reasons why divorce can be actually a good thing.

A point of confusion: I'm puzzled how people can decide to live together without making "a commitment to marry (that is, they are engaged or otherwise very committed to each other)". What are they going to live together for? Boredom? Curiosity? Shit and giggles? It looks to me more like casual daters taking a step longer than their stride, not the failing of a serious relationship.

As for people changing their behaviour after they are married, well, I ascribe that to the universal truth of life that most people are jerks, and so be it.

However, interesting stuff.

 

[Kestra]

The reason postulated by researchers is that living together before marriage (in some cases) indicates a lack of commitment to marriage. That is, it's not necessarily a lack of commitment to the other person but to the concept of marriage itself.

I'm totally glossing over everything else because I'm at work and just wanted to comment on this really quick before I head out for the evening. So it's totally possible that I'm missing the point of everything you're saying.

However, I think it's important to note that people have very different goals and ways of defining relationships. For some people, a lack of commitment to marriage does not equal a lack of commitment to each other. I do agree that marriage can be much more than a piece of paper, but I don't doubt that the same level of commitment can be found without it.

Not sure if that made any sense. Basically, I think people are different and it's more important to find someone who matches up with your beliefs, and shares your commitment (whatever that may be).

Edit:

A point of confusion: I'm puzzled how people can decide to live together without making "a commitment to marry (that is, they are engaged or otherwise very committed to each other)".

Not sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying you can't understand why two people would want to live together without intending to marry? They may enjoy each other's company and desire to cohabitate without wishing to having to have their relationship defined by the legal system. Also some people enjoy satisfying relationships but do not wish to stay in the same relationship for the entire length of their life. This is okay.

 

[JustKate]

As I said, I never investigated the matter statistically, so I can be wrong. It runs contrary to everything I've encountered in my life, but can be either: 1) my circle of acquaintances is not representative of the population; 2) it's a regional thing, and a similar study made in Europe (Italy) would yield very different results.

I can understand all your points, JustKate, and they are very good points. However, you make your own error in reasoning: that the divorce rate is the only (or primary) index of happiness for a relationship, and that divorce is necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, an unhappy but continuing marriage is a far worse results to a relationship that a divorce in good term. I can think of many reasons why divorce can be actually a good thing.

A point of confusion: I'm puzzled how people can decide to live together without making "a commitment to marry (that is, they are engaged or otherwise very committed to each other)". What are they going to live together for? Boredom? Curiosity? Shit and giggles? It looks to me more like casual daters taking a step longer than their stride, not the failing of a serious relationship.

As for people changing their behaviour after they are married, well, I ascribe that to the universal truth of life that most people are jerks, and so be it.

However, interesting stuff.

Well, you're absolutely right that "not getting divorced" does not equal "being happily married," but research needs a measurable outcome, and divorce or the lack thereof can at least be measured. Asking, "So...are you happy?" - that's a bit more problematic, you know?

I would argue, though, that in a country such as the U.S. in which divorce is readily obtainable, not getting divorced is at least an indicator of a successful marriage, though not the only one. It is a pretty interesting statistic, and it seems to be quite well supported by the research. Make of it what you will.


As for why people might live together if they aren't committed to each other...could I be misunderstanding you? Because lots of people live together when they aren't committed. And for lots of reasons. Here are just a few that I've encountered:

• One or both could be commitmentphobes - perhaps for good reasons (i.e., getting over a really horrible relationship).
• One or both could think that at a certain stage of a relationship, you're just supposed to move in together - that it is something you're just supposed to do. This seems to be pretty common, judging from my circle of acquaintance.
• Another reason that seems to be pretty common is "Well, we spend four or five nights together anyway, so we may as well live together." I would like to think there is more to it than this and they just aren't talking about it, but I have heard lots of people say pretty much exactly this.
• One or both could simply not believe in marriage.

There are many reasons, but the plain fact is, not every couple that lives together is committed to each other. I don't think that many move in together just for shits and giggles, though.

However, I think it's important to note that people have very different goals and ways of defining relationships. For some people, a lack of commitment to marriage does not equal a lack of commitment to each other. I do agree that marriage can be much more than a piece of paper, but I don't doubt that the same level of commitment can be found without it.

Sure. That's what I was trying to indicate, though no doubt I did so clumsily. The study was focussed exclusively on risk factors for divorce, so it didn't make any conclusions one way or another about non-marital commitment.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Along with your answer to the above, please state (i) where you spent your formative years (i.e., what city/state/country), (ii) how religious you are, and/or (iii) any other factor that you think plays into why you think the way you do. Thanks!

People can do whatever they want. However, in my opinion it's wrong on a number of levels.

CT-USA
Christian

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

For me, living together after marriage is preferable for both faith-based and personal reasons.

May I ask what you think could be personal, not-religious reason for going straight to marriage without living together? I understand religious reasons: I don't agree, but I can understand them. But I can't see any secular reason for that.

I believe I enumerated some of those reasons, both practical and emotional, in my response at the start of the thread.

I do find myself wondering, though, just how frank some couples are in TALKING to each other before marriage. I know that even though I wouldn't live with my fiance beforehand, if I got engaged, I would have some very serious, very direct conversations about the kinds of things that can drive couples apart, to make sure that we do indeed share the fundamental beliefs that couples need to be in agreement on in order to live together. (MONEY, priorities in life, attitudes about kids and how they should be raised, beliefs, and so on.) Once a relationship is that serious, I don't think tiptoeing is a good idea at all.

And if you can't stand the fire, then get out of my kitchen.

(Hell, it's even my theory that on DS9, the reason Cardassians argue when they're interested in someone isn't simply some issue of getting turned on by anger. I think they want to see how they're going to handle it as a couple when they're NOT on their best behavior anymore--judge each other's reactions under stress and expose any major hot-button issues and dealbreakers before the commitment is made.)

 

[Finn]

^thats the case with me and my fiancée. We talk about a lot of things. We even decided on the names for two of the three kids we want, how we quill struggle at first. But we aren't gonna live together until we are married in 18 months.

 

[1001001]

Along with your answer to the above, please state (i) where you spent your formative years (i.e., what city/state/country), (ii) how religious you are, and/or (iii) any other factor that you think plays into why you think the way you do. Thanks!

I think it is not only "okay", I think it's the only intelligent, responsible thing to do.

Regardless of what love stories or preachers tell you about marriage, a lot of it has to do with sharing a living space. Being roommates, in other words. Sharing a living space for life can be a very difficult thing. How do you divide the chores, what are your schedules, which way do you hang the toilet paper, etc. I've been married for 17 years, so I have a little experience in this area...



And of course, are you sexually compatible, although that does not necessarily require living together.


Oh, and I grew up Catholic in Los Angeles. I think religion is a fine thing in moderation.

 

[Kirkman1987]

I grew up in Missouri, both in a small town and then in Kansas City

I'm an atheist

There's nothing wrong with it. I've been dating my girlfriend for two and a half years and moved in four months ago. I couldn't imagine not living with her now that we're together.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Not sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying you can't understand why two people would want to live together without intending to marry? They may enjoy each other's company and desire to cohabitate without wishing to having to have their relationship defined by the legal system. Also some people enjoy satisfying relationships but do not wish to stay in the same relationship for the entire length of their life. This is okay.

I'm sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear. This was the relevant part:

"a commitment to marry (that is, they are engaged or otherwise very committed to each other)". What are they going to live together for? Boredom? Curiosity? Shit and giggles? It looks to me more like casual daters taking a step longer than their stride, not the failing of a serious relationship.

I don't see any difference, conceptually, between being "engaged" and "very committed". My love is my commitment, I don't need an official endorsement by the state or the church.

My point is that cohabitation is not something to be taken lightly, it requires commitment on the same level of marriage, just without the legally binding part. Intent to marry is not required. But commitment to the relationship is, in my opinion. I know a lot of people that are totally committed to their relationship, but don't want to marry for some reason. E.g.: dislike of having a legal contract defining the relationship, unwillingness to make it a public event (around here, if you don't invite half the town to your wedding you will be frowned upon for life, but if you just live together nobody cares), or economic reasons.

On the other hand, many people around here get married after years of cohabitation just to have discounts on house taxes or to have legal warrants in medical care. Commitment rarely enter into the equation.

Well, you're absolutely right that "not getting divorced" does not equal "being happily married," but research needs a measurable outcome, and divorce or the lack thereof can at least be measured. Asking, "So...are you happy?" - that's a bit more problematic, you know?

Agreed. I'm just pointing out the bias.

I would argue, though, that in a country such as the U.S. in which divorce is readily obtainable, not getting divorced is at least an indicator of a successful marriage, though not the only one. It is a pretty interesting statistic, and it seems to be quite well supported by the research. Make of it what you will.

Again, I agree. However, there is still a social stigma on divorce, and people might want to avoid that even if the relationship is less than successful.

As for why people might live together if they aren't committed to each other...could I be misunderstanding you? Because lots of people live together when they aren't committed.

I didn't probably express myself very clearly on the matter. I refer you to my reply to Kestra.

I believe I enumerated some of those reasons, both practical and emotional, in my response at the start of the thread.

I didn't see your post. Sorry. However, I don't find them really compelling. All you are saying (rightfully, in my opinion) is that cohabitation should not be taken lightly. I absolutely agree with you on that. But from that to suggest you shouldn't do that before marriage, doesn't automatically follow. From my experience, cohabitation usually follow after years of dating, at first casually, then more and more seriously, building a relationship, dealing with good and bad times. It's not a decision taken easily. I don't think I've ever saw anyone of my circle of acquaintances just say after a couple of weeks/months: "well, we are cool together, why don't you move in?" That's nuts, and not the good kind of nuts (like hazelnuts. I love hazelnuts). And your preoccupation about relationship falling apart, should be an advice to marry (with all the legal entangling that follows) as late as possible in a relationship, and only after all the other issues are already resolved.

As for the religious/spiritual reasons, I'm not at liberty to comment on them because they are outside my experience.

 

[Kestra]

I do find myself wondering, though, just how frank some couples are in TALKING to each other before marriage. I know that even though I wouldn't live with my fiance beforehand, if I got engaged, I would have some very serious, very direct conversations about the kinds of things that can drive couples apart, to make sure that we do indeed share the fundamental beliefs that couples need to be in agreement on in order to live together. (MONEY, priorities in life, attitudes about kids and how they should be raised, beliefs, and so on.) Once a relationship is that serious, I don't think tiptoeing is a good idea at all.

^thats the case with me and my fiancée. We talk about a lot of things. We even decided on the names for two of the three kids we want, how we quill struggle at first. But we aren't gonna live together until we are married in 18 months.

I hate to sound too cynical, I just want to point out that all these possible pitfalls might still happen, even with communication. People change, they change their minds, life events alter circumstances, and sometime people just don't know what they want when they're younger. I'm not saying you shouldn't speak about these things before; I believe it is especially imperative to speak about children and religion. Just a reminder that it's often an ongoing conversation and that things can change.

 

[propita]

May I ask what you think could be personal, not-religious reason for going straight to marriage without living together? I understand religious reasons: I don't agree, but I can understand them. But I can't see any secular reason for that.

Well some people only want to sleep with their spouse in the lifetime for completely personal and non religious reasons. Not everyone has a casual attitude to sex.

Just because one cohabitates outside of marriage does not mean that one has indiscriminate sex or a casual attitude towards it.

As I posted, Hubby and I lived together for nine years before we married. He is the only man I have loved, been with, and kissed. I am the only woman he has been with--though he did kiss two girls in college.

Also, I was about to turn 24yo my first time; he was almost 28yo. We each waited so long precisely because we do not have a casual attitude towards sex, considering it highly intimate and preferring exclusivity (some possessiveness in there, too). And, neither of us is religious--we're both torn between not believing in the existence of God and believing that God does exist, but we don't trust him for squat.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Being someone who lives with someone before being officially married (we are common law married based on our years living together so the province sees us as husband and wife without an actual marriage), I don't see what the big deal is. Marriage isn't something you rush into and it's stupid for people to marry just so they can live together. If both people are in a relationship and are adults, instead of playing high school kids and going to each other's houses, it makes more sense to just move in together, imo. Plus, there are people out there who don't want to get married. You don't have to have a piece of paper to prove how much you love your partner.


I am originally from Buffalo, NY and he is originally from Vietnam. We both live together in Ontario, Canada. I am athiest, he is buddhist.