This blog has been hanging around as a draft for a couple of weeks because it is one of those subjects which could easily get folk riled up in either direction. Perhaps those are the best kind!
It is about a research project in the States whose outcome suggests that couples who don't live together before tying the knot are more likely to stay married. This may sound counter-intuitive to some. Surely "test driving" cohabitation makes sense, the common wisdom goes. Not necessarily, according to this study, and a number that have been published through the years.
Sociologists are reluctant to speculate as to why this is so, but it does seem to have to do with the nature of commitment. Often those of strong religious background adhere to prohibitions of living together before marriage. Marriage does present us with a different expectation for longevity in relationship, including the premise that "what God has joined together, let no one put asunder." It's not that cohabitation doesn't allow for this, but some couples may consider their relationships as a different form of partnership than traditional marriage.
We celebrated our 36th anniversary this past week and Ruth is one of five siblings who have been married to their original partner for 35 years or more. Still, we take nothing for granted and we have many friends and family members who married with a genuine commitment to a lifelong covenant before God whose relationships came to an end. Some of those marriages proved to be very destructive and they have done better the second time around. A family member recently announced his engagement after years of saying that he would never marry again after a bad marriage and messy divorce. Our three children have all lived with a partner before marriage, which suggests that they live in a different generation with different outlooks on relationships.
I have seen a number of articles on this most recent study online and lots of the people who comment are highly critical, the opposite of the criticism which might have been levelled a generation ago. Interesting.
Do you have any answers? Let's hear 'em!
6 comments:
Not touching this with a ten foot pole ... !
Those of didn't cohabit had longer marriages --- what else was significant? What were the other variables? Was the social pressure that caused them not to co-habit also a force in keeping them together? Was the degree of self-restraint that kept them from cohabiting something that served them well in the marriage itself?
I haven't seen the original study so were these people who had married twenty or thirty years ago? The social milieu in whcih you make a choice to cohabit is important. I think that a study should be done of those who have/have not cohabited and then married in let's say, the past ten years. I wonder how the results would go.
At one time I would have said yes...but now I will just say, I don't know...there are so many other factors seemingly more important to the success of a marriage ,than this one.
I agree with Laura and Kathy... too many factors and other variables. I also would have said yes back in my twenties but now not so sure....
Isn't it interesting how cautious we have become about affirming the strength of the marriage union, myself included. Maybe we should all ponder this a little further.
The United Church continues to uphold the covenantal nature of marriage while acknowledging God's presence in other forms of commitment. The reality is that people still get married and surveys of young people reveal that they aspire to marriage in their future.
That's a three- metre pole Ian!
Didn't really know how to respond to this Blog. I believe in living together before marriage(don't really believe in the religious marriage bit).After talking to people about this blog. I guess it is still up the air. Maybe on Ian's three metre pole!
Post a Comment