Topic: Couples should live together before marriage
General Purpose: To argue
Specific Purpose: To argue that living together before marriage can help a couple be ready for marriage.
Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Couples should live together before marriage to (1) learn compatibility, (2) learn partners routines and habits, and (3) for financial relief to prepare for a life together.
Introduction
According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, cohabitation has become a normal part of life in the eyes of more than half of young singles in the United States. As of 2002, more than 50 percent of women ages 19 to 44 had cohabited for at least a part of their life, compared with only 33 percent in 1987(Brandon). For years, there has been a big debate on whether or not couples should live together before the man has knelt on one knee and man and women both have said their “I dos”.
In 1960 they used to call couples cohabitation “Living with a sin”. It was not nearly as socially acceptable as it is today due to the strict religion in the past.
The majority of problems with premarital cohabitation today still come from the religious community.
Relationships are a very tough situation to be a part of, a person has to think of the right way to act on a date, dress to impress, and establish similar views as their partners.
Many of my family members have cohabitated before marrying their significant others.
Their relationships have been successful to this day.
I
Cohabitation is the norm in society today. When a couple decides to live together, it usually happens when a decision of I will spend one night and then pretty soon all of the clothes are at the
“In addition to the research showing the detriments of living together, several studies have discovered-with 80 percent to 94 percent accuracy-the variables that predict which marriages will thrive and which will not. This means unmarried couples can know in advance if they have a better-than-average chance of succeeding in marriage.” (pg.507). With an appeal to emotion, it is not a good idea to test a marriage as a result of making the relationship more worse and have more consequences that could lead to a divorce. Overall this essay, is an appeal to ignorance and a slippery slope. It constantly argues about the same topic with an additional lack of quality evidence to believe, since it is not specific to prove that the whole main argument would be
According to Dalton Conley, cohabitation is the “living together in an intimate relationship without formal, legal, or religious sanctioning”(Conley 458). From this, one can assume that cohabitation happens primarily between two people that are in a relationship. When looking at cohabitation within the United States, it has become more evident that it is slowly increasing in popularity. During the early ages, cohabitation was considered very scandalous and was frowned upon, but as the years progress, more and more couples start living together. Whether it is to experience the lifestyle they would have living together as if they were married or living together in order to save money, more and more people are living with their significant other.
Many couples find themselves cohabiting today because it is cheaper and more convenient while others take it as a step forward in their committed relationships. Regardless of reason cohabiting has become a union of choice. In recent years cohabitation has transformed from an act of deviance to a norm in many societies. We will be focusing on how time and social change determines cohabitation and divorce.
In this essay, “The Cohabitation Epidemic,” by Neil Clark Warren, is talking about why many people decide to live their lives in cohabitation instead of getting married right away. Older generations would look at cohabiting as being something bad or even immoral. In this century, this epidemic is something common and, notwithstanding, normal. Over the years, the U.S. Census Bureau has kept up with how this lifestyle has evolved. In 1970, they had 1 million people that were “unmarried-partner households,” and that number rose to 3.2 million in 1990. In the year 2000, they had 11 million people living in those situations.
First, the author states that those married couples who directly married without cohabitation have a lower divorce rate than those having cohabitation before marriage. Warren intends to prove that marriage provides stable relationship between a couple and cohabitation undermines such a relationship. The premises Warren used to support his claim are a result from one study and David and Barbara’s review. The problem here is based on the evidence Warren provided; it is difficult to conclude that marriage can hold people together and cohabitation may destroy such stable relationship between a couple. One reason is the sample size used in the study is too small compared to the millions of people who cohabit. Hasty generalization makes this premise questionably lead to the conclusion. The other premise which is the review from David and Barbara is also not trustable because no detailed evidence is provided to
Interview questions emphasized cohabitation and the links between cohabitation and marriage. The final sample consisted of 6,881 married couples and 682 cohabiting couples; of these, 5,648 spouses and 519 cohabiting partners completed questionnaires (Vol. 22, Issue 2).
A survey of 14000 adults states in ‘A Guide to Family Issues: The Marriage Advantage’ that marriage was a pertinent factor contributing to happiness and satisfaction with forty percent of the married individuals being happy as opposed to 25 percent of either single or cohabiting individuals. The same study shows that ninety eight percent of never married respondents wished to marry and out of those 88% believed that it should be a lifelong commitment. Even though, divorce rates are rising numerous researches show that young people aspire to have a lasting marriage.
a) Many people saying that living together before marriage is like when you are taking a car for a test-drive to help the person decide if they want that kind of car. They figure that while during their trial period it will give
Therefore, living together will ensure the couple whether or not they can get along in the future. Those people consider pre-cohabitation as an effective way to prepare themselves for being a family. According to Popenoe David, “in case the relationship goes sour, they can avoid the trouble, expense and emotional trauma” (4). It is a good idea to live together because if the couples have troubles they can just move out and continue with their separate lives without being obliged to undergo the different procedures of divorce. In the end, perhaps after living with various people, a person will finally find their appropriate partner for marriage and be happy. Popenoe points out that, “living together helps you see past romanticized notions and clue in to what marriage will really be like”(8). Accordingly, choosing reality as a primary factor to determine the result of cohabitation is a wise decision. People who cohabitate get a clue to see whether or not they will be able to share their lives with the partners they have chosen and what kind of disagreements might proceed within the relationship. Overall, the best opportunity of living up to one-another’s assumptions is to apprehend what they really are in advance and know what they care about.
Although marriage has been a central factor and gives meaning to human lives, the change in people’s lifestyles and behaviors through a long period of social development has resulted in alternate choices such as being single or nonmarital living. As a result, cohabitation has become more popular as a trendy life choice for young people. The majority of couples choose cohabitation as a precursor to marriage to gain a better understanding of each other. However, there are exceptions, such as where Thornton, Azinn, and Xie have noted: “In fact, the couple may simply slide or drift from single into the sharing of living quarters with little explicit discussion or decision-making. This sliding into cohabitation without
These constraints lead some cohabiting couples to marry, even though they would not have married under other circumstances. On the basis of this framework, Stanley, Rhoades, et al. (2006) argued that couples who are engaged prior to cohabitation, compared with those who are not, should report fewer problems and greater relationship stability following marriage, given that they already have made a major commitment to their partners. Several studies have provided evidence consistent with this hypothesis (Brown, 2004; Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009).
In todays’ world, with increased incidence of unsuccessful relationship or marriages, there are some people who want/prefer to live together before marriage so that they can understand each other and they don’t have to experience a painful divorce. In my point of view, this is another option/type of marriage. Because if the relationship won’t work successfully then they can separate their ways easily and live happily. By living together before marriage, they have time to know about each other's living style and behavior and their relation get even stronger than before but if it does not work then they can move ahead in their lives before taking a wrong step of living together for the whole life but sometimes living together is against to some family principles, ethics of society, religious point of view. Sometimes these types of relationships are very successful without any regret in life and on the other hand it comes out as an unsuccessful and worst relationship. But I think advantages are more powerful than disadvantages.
together in the early 1980's were between 25 and 34 years old, and an additional
Opponents of cohabitation commonly cite statistics that indicate that couples who have lived together before marriage are more likely to divorce, and that unhappiness, ill health, poverty, and domestic violence are more common in unmarried couples than in married ones. Cohabitation advocates, in turn, cite limited research that either disproves these claims or indicates that the statistical differences are due to other factors than the fact of cohabitation itself.