NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading and posting in the sex before marriage oriented post I'm wondering what people think about living with a partner before marriage? I know some people might have religious beliefs against it but, if you can, it would be nice if you support your position (for or against) with your basic reasoning.

My opinion on the matter is that it is basically foolish to marry anyone without living with them for a time first. My reasoning for this is that if you plan to spend your entire life with someone you should know them extremely well first. I'm positive this would help to lower divorce rates as many people run off an get married during the honeymood period of a relationship without really knowing what they are getting into.

Marrying people without living with them worked better in the past when people's lives were pretty much the same and only crazy or rich people had private lives. These days if you're not going to live with someone beforehand you need to know them very well some other way. A lot of marriages collapse because people don't know eachother that well.

I've seen marriages work both ways, and fail both ways.
Personally, I'd want to live with the person before I married them, but there's no saying that my marriage would have a better chance of success if I did. Even arranged marriages have a similar success rate to other marriages.

You don't really get to know someone until you wake up next to them and share chores for a few months. Relationships that were fine before can crack under such conditions, and unless you intend on living in seperate apartments after marriage, I strongly suggest a pair of people should find out whether they are suited for one another.

Throw philosophical analyses out the window. Statistically speaking, living with someone before marriage decreases the likelihood of a lifetime commitment after marriage.

Statistically speaking, if you are the type of person that wants to 'test drive' before commitment, you will never be happy, because eventually, a new model that you didn't get to test drive will come out and you (and your partner about you as well) will think that hey, I don't have to put up with this shit, there's something better out there for me...


Marriage is not about finding the best person for you, it's about making yourself the best person for your spouse, and until you figure that out for yourself, you'll wind up in divorces, either your spouse will divorce you or you will divorce your spouse...

Make the commitment, make it work. Sacrifice yourself for your spouse, if you’re not willing to do it, don’t get married.

Throw philosophical analyses out the window. Statistically speaking, living with someone before marriage decreases the likelihood of a lifetime commitment after marriage.

Statistically speaking, if you are the type of person that wants to 'test drive' before commitment, you will never be happy, because eventually, a new model that you didn't get to test drive will come out and you (and your partner about you as well) will think that hey, I don't have to put up with this shit, there's something better out there for me...


Marriage is not about finding the best person for you, it's about making yourself the best person for your spouse, and until you figure that out for yourself, you'll wind up in divorces, either your spouse will divorce you or you will divorce your spouse...

Make the commitment, make it work. Sacrifice yourself for your spouse, if you’re not willing to do it, don’t get married.

I can't help but wondering... where did you get those statistics???

I wish I would have lived with my soon to be ex before we married. I wouldn't have gotten married had I known what I soon found out after we were married.

Throw philosophical analyses out the window. Statistically speaking, living with someone before marriage decreases the likelihood of a lifetime commitment after marriage.

Statistically speaking, if you are the type of person that wants to 'test drive' before commitment, you will never be happy, because eventually, a new model that you didn't get to test drive will come out and you (and your partner about you as well) will think that hey, I don't have to put up with this shit, there's something better out there for me...


Marriage is not about finding the best person for you, it's about making yourself the best person for your spouse, and until you figure that out for yourself, you'll wind up in divorces, either your spouse will divorce you or you will divorce your spouse...

Make the commitment, make it work. Sacrifice yourself for your spouse, if you’re not willing to do it, don’t get married.

I'm interested: where did you get said statistics?

In general, I would think one would want to know what sorts of sacrifices one might have to make in a relationship before finalising it. Because the people would have lived together they would already have some degree of commitment, the issue would merely be whether or not there is anything that could utterly shatter it.

Marriage is not about finding the best person for you, it's about making yourself the best person for your spouse, and until you figure that out for yourself, you'll wind up in divorces, either your spouse will divorce you or you will divorce your spouse...

Make the commitment, make it work. Sacrifice yourself for your spouse, if you’re not willing to do it, don’t get married.I disagree. I think marriage is about finding the best person for you and then making yourself the best person for them. You shouldn't sacrifice yourself if the person isn't worth it in the first place.

Throw philosophical analyses out the window. Statistically speaking, living with someone before marriage decreases the likelihood of a lifetime commitment after marriage.

Statistically speaking, if you are the type of person that wants to 'test drive' before commitment, you will never be happy, because eventually, a new model that you didn't get to test drive will come out and you (and your partner about you as well) will think that hey, I don't have to put up with this shit, there's something better out there for me...


Show me the statistics.

Isn't dating a 'test drive'? Postponing a ceremony is simply doing everything you would normally do without having to get a divorce if you find that they can't even wash a dish by themselves. You are basically saying that you should just commit to someone without getting to know them the best that you can. If you don't 'test drive' someone than that is pretty much an arranged marriage. What does making sure something will work out have to do with infidelity? You need to provide the statistics you are referring to and clarify the connection you are making between infidelity and living with someone before marriage. As of now you just make giant leaps with no basis and pretend they are fact.

I've seen marriages work both ways, and fail both ways.
Personally, I'd want to live with the person before I married them, but there's no saying that my marriage would have a better chance of success if I did. Even arranged marriages have a similar success rate to other marriages.

Arranged marriages cannot be compared to non-arranged marriages in that way. There are hidden factors such as cultural differences and the ability for the woman to get a divorce that effect the numbers behind the scenes. Many arranged marriage systems have no respect for the woman involved and thus there really isn't any way for her to get a divorce afterwards. Of course I'm sure this is not always the case but regardless I think you can see the point I'm making.

~Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.
~ Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence
for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
~ Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf

~Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.
~ Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence
for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
~ Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf

While the fact that this is an organization whose mission statement involves revitalizing marriage should imply some degree of bias, I'll try to take on the actual arguments here.

The second two seem to be mixing up cause and effect. Unmarried couples are often worse off than married couples because they are avoiding marriage because things are going badly.

Arranged marriages cannot be compared to non-arranged marriages in that way. There are hidden factors such as cultural differences and the ability for the woman to get a divorce that effect the numbers behind the scenes. Many arranged marriage systems have no respect for the woman involved and thus there really isn't any way for her to get a divorce afterwards. Of course I'm sure this is not always the case but regardless I think you can see the point I'm making.Yes, you are right. Still though, I think Greenlander has a point in that people now give up on partnershps that could be resolved by compromise, and pragmatic problem solving. These are dwindling values in our instant-gratification culture. It isn't that people that actually aren't compatible get married (very few pwople will ever be perfectly compatible); its that people give up on each other without a real effort.

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf
__________________You think I'm going to believe a "review" carried out by a group called "the marriage project"?. An impartianl source is the only acceptable source.

i have lived together with my wife for about 1 month...and we are married now since 13 years...

i have lived together with my wife for about 1 month...and we are married now since 13 years...

In which order?:p

Jesus, deciding how to conduct your most intimate personal relationships based on a statistical analysis is just about the most retarded thing I ever heard.

Personally I would never marry someone without have been with them for a good few years, or without having lived with them first. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, at least in theory, and knowing as much as you can about how you relate to your significant other in a living situation seems like an important consideration before making that commitment. To me marriage isn't about sticking together and working to overcome obstacles no matter what just because you're married, it's about finding a person who you've found you want to be with in every given situation, who still makes you happy in the long run. And then you marry them.

It's not about "test-driving", it's about respecting yourself and your partner by not making such huge decisions without the influence of experience.

- snip -


Damn right! If you are not completely sure that you know all the flaws of your partner and you still love him/her, then ffs DO NOT GET MARRIED.

The goal is not to live in a marriage, the goal is to live in a good relationship AND then perhaps, if you're absolutely certain, make it trafitionally official by the formal marriage.

In which order?:p
LOL

i just wanna say, it doesn´t matter how long you live with your partner before mariage

~Living together before marriage increases the risk of breaking up after marriage.
~ Living together outside of marriage increases the risk of domestic violence
for women, and the risk of physical and sexual abuse for children.
~ Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbeing than married couples.
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/swlt2.pdf

Unfortunately your source as well as your points are very misleading.

True - Unmarried couples living together have higher domestic violence rates.
False - Marriages formed after living together first have higher domestic violence rates.

True - Unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and wellbing than married couples
--This is an unrelated point. Perhaps they are no married because the relationship sucks? That makes a lot of sense and if they did get married and they were already unhappy with eachother it isn't too difficult to imagine it won't work out.

As for the first point I can find no numbers to support that statement in either the report you provided or any others. If you can find them I would be interested in reading it.

i have lived together with my wife for about 1 month...and we are married now since 13 years...

In directly my wife lived with me for several months. She kept two places. Italians you know ;)

We are going on 15 years.

Sorry Greeny. We are long term and I have yet to hit her.

As I don't intend to ever get married, I feel that my views are not quite as important as other people's in this matter.

But I honestly think that it's foolish to the extreme not to live together before getting married. It's naive to think that you should make a lifelong commitment (which in all likelyhood it's not going to be anyway, but that's beside the point) without knowing as much as you can about your partner at the time.
I'm pretty sure that more than enough surprises will be left for the time after you're married, as it's already been pointed out, people change. Immensely.

The goal is not to live in a marriage, the goal is to live in a good relationship AND then perhaps, if you're absolutely certain, make it trafitionally official by the formal marriage.

Exactly.

Lets sum up all the previous posts in two, easy to understand points of order.

1. You cannot truly know a person, until you live with them.

2. Why in the hell would you marry someone you dont know?

I think thats about it.

Always live with them, most long term relationships end in years 5 - 7. If you make it past this point you fairly likely to be together forever. But you don't have to wait that long, as far as living together you'll know if you can stand each other within 2 years.

I lived with a girl for 5 years before we called it off, after 2 years we was on rocky grounds. This happened to me and it is a pattern I have seen over and over again. The two values rarely vary by more then 1 or 2 years. In my specific situation we remain friends. Actually a fundamentalist Christian 'friend' of mine upon hearing of my break u said "See you should have gotten married first."
WTF?! Apparently this guy either believes that marriage has a magical ability to hold people together over everything else or he really hates me and wanted me to have to go through a divorce. We were just not meant to be, we couldn't live with each other all the legal documents and religious ceremony in the world could have stopped that. I am 100% glad I didn't get married, when I met the one because well, in the end, she wasn't.

I've heard statistics from loads of different sources that say divorce rates are significantly higher among people who live together.
Here's one of many. If you want to find your own source, by all means do your own research. (edit: this particular study has a higher divorce rate percentage than others. Most say the increased risk is 40-50% But you get the idea.)


http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html

"One study that you may find interesting was done by Bennett, Blan, and Bloom (American Sociological Review, 1988, Vol 53: 127-138) entitled, "Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link Between Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability."

The point made by the authors is that, overall, the risk of divorce after living together is 80% higher than the risk of divorce after not living together, which is already too high."

A quick google search on cohabitation before marriage will yield several articles to some good theories as to why this is the case.

I've heard statistics from loads of different sources that say divorce rates are significantly higher among people who live together.
Here's one of many. If you want to find your own source, by all means do your own research. (edit: this particular study has a higher divorce rate percentage than others. Most say the increased risk is 40-50% But you get the idea.)

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html

"One study that you may find interesting was done by Bennett, Blan, and Bloom (American Sociological Review, 1988, Vol 53: 127-138) entitled, "Commitment and the Modern Union: Assessing the Link Between Premarital Cohabitation and Subsequent Marital Stability."

The point made by the authors is that, overall, the risk of divorce after living together is 80% higher than the risk of divorce after not living together, which is already too high."

A quick google search on cohabitation before marriage will yield several articles to some good theories as to why this is the case.

That site is "marriagebuilders". In fact I can't find any site that says anything about cohabitation leading to higher divorce rates that do not have an invested interest in promoting marriage. (mostly religious and conservative family groups). If you can find me a study that has NUMBERS instead of just conjecture and speculation I would appreciate it. No study I find gives any numbers beyond general percentages that don't mean anyhting. 80% of what? 1 million? 10? Where did they collect the data from? What was the age group they sampled? Were economic, religious, and racial factors considered at all?

From what I can tell all of the articles people have linked (and the ones I've found) could be talking about 10 couples from an inner city neighborhood in Detroit that is well below the poverty line. Divorce rates are different everywhere, the sample would have to be large and very random and it is very very suspicious that not one of these articles can mention anything about the size or nature of the pool that was tested. Not to mention most are run by conservative family and religious groups. A sector of research groups that has been known to "bend" the rules of objective analysis. Example: Homosexuality

not necessary

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Feb14_00/6.htm
http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cdc.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/lovemarriage/love4.htm

Here are some links. The psych page gets into more detail and they all seem credible and are not marriage oriented sites. These sites don't provide the level of detail you said you wanted, but they don't look like the "I went out and asked five of my friends" type of surveys.

This caption is from the UM site:

"The Institute for Social Research


Established in 1948, the Institute for Social Research (ISR) is among the world’s oldest survey research organizations, and a world leader in the development and application of social science methodology.

ISR conducts some of the most widely cited studies in the nation, including the Survey of Consumer Attitudes, the National Election Studies, the Monitoring the Future Study, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the Health and Retirement Study, and the National Survey of Black Americans.

ISR researchers also collaborate with social scientists in more than 60 nations on the World Values Surveys and other projects, and the Institute has established formal ties with universities in Poland, China and South Africa. Visit the Web at www.isr.umich.edu for more information. "

It doesn't seem like an organization that would twist numbers.

The second link claims: "Data From the National Survey of Family Growth, Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, 2002".


Then there's always wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation#Divorce
if you're into that...

If you're worried the accuracy of wikipedia, you can always just use the links listed at the bottom to do further research.

And there's always google.

A google search for "cohabitation marriage" yields 931,000 results. One of those should be to the level of detail you require.


Anyway, there's an interesting argument that flows from this. Does cohabitation cause divorce, or is cohabitation a habit of couples who would be more likely to divorce anyway?

Marriages tend to last longer than cohabitations, but I'm not sure about a combination of the two, how long that lasts relatively.

Almost every guy I have ever been with put their best foot forward in the beginning. After a couple of months time they inevitably showed a side of them that was truly unbearable. I have yet to actually find someone I think I could stand spending the rest of my life with under the same roof.

Throw philosophical analyses out the window. Statistically speaking, living with someone before marriage decreases the likelihood of a lifetime commitment after marriage.

Statistically speaking, if you are the type of person that wants to 'test drive' before commitment, you will never be happy, because eventually, a new model that you didn't get to test drive will come out and you (and your partner about you as well) will think that hey, I don't have to put up with this shit, there's something better out there for me...


Marriage is not about finding the best person for you, it's about making yourself the best person for your spouse, and until you figure that out for yourself, you'll wind up in divorces, either your spouse will divorce you or you will divorce your spouse...

Make the commitment, make it work. Sacrifice yourself for your spouse, if you’re not willing to do it, don’t get married.

Very well said

Frankly, if you dont think you love someone enough to deal with their little hang ups when you live with them, then you shouldnt get married. Marriage is a serious commitment. Its not just a romantic lovey-dovey thing that you do when you've been in a relationship for about a year. It is a life time commitment. I think more people need to understand that

Lets sum up all the previous posts in two, easy to understand points of order.

1. You cannot truly know a person, until you live with them.

2. Why in the hell would you marry someone you dont know?

I think thats about it.

I disagree

You can know someone very well before you live with them. And even if you dont, then your love for them should override your fear of not knowing them. Frankly, if the love you have for a person is shattered by a few odd habits, then your love isnt strong enough for a marriage.

My opinion on the matter is that it is basically foolish to marry anyone without living with them for a time first. My reasoning for this is that if you plan to spend your entire life with someone you should know them extremely well first. I'm positive this would help to lower divorce rates as many people run off an get married during the honeymood period of a relationship without really knowing what they are getting into.
Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this view. In Britain today, more people than ever live together before marrying (about 75%, if the addresses given on marriage registers are an accurate measure), and yet the level of divorce is higher than at any time in history. I think the same is probably true elsewhere too.

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this view. In Britain today, more people than ever live together before marrying (about 75%, if the addresses given on marriage registers are an accurate measure), and yet the level of divorce is higher than at any time in history. I think the same is probably true elsewhere too.

I think to interpret those statistics correctly, you have to take into account that many of those people who don't live together before marriage do so for religious reasons. It's therefore safe to assume that they regard marriage in a religious conetxt as something holy and more binding than the average person would. As a result, they are less likely to get a divorce, no matter how bad the marriage turns out (I've seen that a good number of times, the closest example I had were my own parents. Talk about dysfunctional :rolleyes: )

Therefore, it's not the fact that couples lived together before marriage that is in any way responsible for the divorce rate, it is more the fact that marriage overall is no longer seen as something unresolvable and binding, but rather as a traditional way of declaring one's love and a tax advantage.

I think to interpret those statistics correctly, you have to take into account that many of those people who don't live together before marriage do so for religious reasons. It's therefore safe to assume that they regard marriage in a religious conetxt as something holy and more binding than the average person would. As a result, they are less likely to get a divorce, no matter how bad the marriage turns out (I've seen that a good number of times, the closest example I had were my own parents. Talk about dysfunctional :rolleyes: )
I'm not so sure that this is so. I haven't looked deeply into divorce rates among different belief groups, but I just found this little piece : http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

It would appear that divorce rates in the USA are lower among atheists and agnostics than among believers; and, amongst Christians, born-again Christians divorce more than others!

Therefore, it's not the fact that couples lived together before marriage that is in any way responsible for the divorce rate
I only said that living together doesn't appear to help prevent divorce; I didn't claim that it was a cause of divorce.

Matthew 19:10 "The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Sums it up, really.

...*snip*

Anyway, there's an interesting argument that flows from this. Does cohabitation cause divorce, or is cohabitation a habit of couples who would be more likely to divorce anyway?

I think it's likely the later. I'm leaning towards believing that the couples who would be more likely to divorce anyway live together first.

HOWEVER, I also think that if a person is not the type that will divorce easily and they know it that they can learn from these statistics. IF they are personally involved with and getting serious about someone who insists on them living together before marriage, and IF they are thinking about doing that simply to 'appease' their would-be spouse and going against their own personal desires and/or wishes etc., that they should re-look at those statistics possibly re-evaluate the person they are thinking about getting serious with in the first place. Because those statistics make it look more likely that their would-be boyfriend/girlfriend is not the type that will likely be able to commit for a lifetime anyway, so why bother living with them, just break up now.

...
It would appear that divorce rates in the USA are lower among atheists and agnostics than among believers; and, amongst Christians, born-again Christians divorce more than others!
....

The percentage of couples getting married in the first place makes those two sets of couples like comparing apples to oranges.

MORE of the religious couples will get married when they get together, thus measuring their group as a whole. Whereas, the atheists and agnostics are far, far less likely to ever get married in the first place, thus measuring ONLY the very strongest couples of the atheist and agnostic group (the vast majority of those couples are more likely not getting married at all and break up without being measured in that sort of survey, keeping their marriage numbers artificially inflated). A better comparison would be to measure how many significant others have been in a person's past before the survey. Such as, how many people have you lived with as a significant other, outside of marriage or in it?

Matthew 19:10 "The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Sums it up, really.

What sums it up is that Jesus expects a person to be celibate outside of marriage.

After being told that they should never get a divorce...
Matthew 19:
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

But Jesus then said...

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

So you if you're not married, then you make yourself a eunuch by 'choice' of not having a sexual partner. But I don't think most people in this forum are ready for that, thus, they need to learn how to make their marriages work and survive and prosper.

What sums it up is that Jesus expects a person to be celibate outside of marriage. It is actually impossible to not be celibate outside of marriage. Celibacy means not being married.

snip

Very true. I was with a girl who I had been with for almost 4 years. I never lived with her and I really did like her. The one issue is she would not cut the umbilical cord. I had to beg, borrow, or steal to get any time with her, the resulting fight to get time with her left me iritated and not myself when I finally got time with her. Oh well, I am happy I didn't take the jump as it would have been a huge mistake.

It is actually impossible to not be celibate outside of marriage. Celibacy means not being married.

AND not having sexual relations.... 1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

I lived with my fiance for two years before we got married. I learned all his little ways, I knew all his little annoying habits and learned that they weren't all that bad, so when he proposed, I knew that our relationship was a strong one, and we knew each other well enough to take the next big leap. For me, it was the best thing I ever did, but I do understand how other people would consider it a bad thing...

There isn't one "best fit" answer for everyone.

If you're extraverted and laid back, you can probably live nicely with darn near anyone who isn't excessively uptight. You may not need to live together first.

If you're an introvert, a neat freak, an only child, have always had your own room and plenty of personal space, or just need tons of quiet time for some reason, it makes more sense to "try on" ANY new roommate - sexual or otherwise - to avoid ending up in a long-term living situation with someone who makes you feel "invaded" and ends up bringing you more grief than joy. (Trust me, I could write a book on this. Truly.)

Figure out what your own needs are, respect them, and do whatever it takes keep your stress level as low as possible. Your partner will thank you for it.

I disagree. I think marriage is about finding the best person for you and then making yourself the best person for them. You shouldn't sacrifice yourself if the person isn't worth it in the first place.
oooo good answer! so very correct!

After reading and posting in the sex before marriage oriented post I'm wondering what people think about living with a partner before marriage? I know some people might have religious beliefs against it but, if you can, it would be nice if you support your position (for or against) with your basic reasoning.

My opinion on the matter is that it is basically foolish to marry anyone without living with them for a time first. My reasoning for this is that if you plan to spend your entire life with someone you should know them extremely well first. I'm positive this would help to lower divorce rates as many people run off an get married during the honeymood period of a relationship without really knowing what they are getting into.
Statistically, people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. Since this is a statistical average obviously you will be able to find examples that are exceptions. It is also statistically true that chaste people are less likely to divorce. It is thought that it works out this way because people who marry traditionally are mentally not as prone to go against the tradition of staying married. And chaste people have nothing to compare to so whatever thier mate is like is the best they've had. Again, statistics don't apply to the individual but to the odds of something happening.

too many people use low standards when deciding to live with someone. its not like you are getting MARRIED! then over time they get comfortable and end up getting married to someone who isnt really right but "its time to settle down" or "mom and dad are pressuring us" or "she's pregnant".

if its really someone you think you want to marry, you can avoid disaster by finding out that you cant stand living with them or that they arent right for you after all. a good number of people get married and find out right away that it was a big mistake. in theory this could be avoided if they lived together a while AND had the strength to walk away when it turned out they didnt really click.

No, it's not neccessary. I've been in relationships where I spent so much time with them that it was obvious what things would be like if I lived with them. It just depends on the relationship you have with the person. If you both are being 'real' and spending quite a bit of time together, you get to know them and their quirks. It's about closeness.

But yeah if you know them from 'jack' and are thinking of marrying them.. . get to know them!

Statistically, people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. Since this is a statistical average obviously you will be able to find examples that are exceptions. It is also statistically true that chaste people are less likely to divorce. It is thought that it works out this way because people who marry traditionally are mentally not as prone to go against the tradition of staying married. And chaste people have nothing to compare to so whatever thier mate is like is the best they've had. Again, statistics don't apply to the individual but to the odds of something happening.
You are making statistics say what you want them to say.

Why I could say that statistically, the kind of people that divorce are more likely to live with someone before marying them than marrying before finding a place to live together. It's the same statistic, it's just presented differently.

There is no direct correlation between living together before marriage and divorce rate. If there's a link between these two states of affairs, it's an indirect one at best (eg. the people who are likely to get a divorce are the same as the people who are more likely to live with someone before getting married.) Meaning: it's a behavioral trait that has nothing to do with either the fact that someone lives together or the fact that someone is married.

No, it's not neccessary. I've been in relationships where I spent so much time with them that it was obvious what things would be like if I lived with them. It just depends on the relationship you have with the person. If you both are being 'real' and spending quite a bit of time together, you get to know them and their quirks. It's about closeness.

But yeah if you know them from 'jack' and are thinking of marrying them.. . get to know them!

Agreed. The woman I asked to be a substitute mom at my wedding had told me she thought I should live with the guy for at least two years before getting married. Her point was that I should be sure I knew what I was getting into, and knew how he lived.

I didn't do it, but I hope I took her point anyway. I DID know how he lived, and his annoying habits and things, at least. I knew becuase I'd been good friends with his roommate (who had also been interested in me at the same time as my husband was) and also with his mom. His roommate let me know how he'd be when he was left enitrely to himself... his mom let me know how he would expect a home to be when it was "normal" for him. It's really about having a "normal" that meshes with the other person's "normal" to make a "normal" together.

The percentage of couples getting married in the first place makes those two sets of couples like comparing apples to oranges.

MORE of the religious couples will get married when they get together, thus measuring their group as a whole. Whereas, the atheists and agnostics are far, far less likely to ever get married in the first place,
Do you have any statistical evidence for this? It doesn't tally with my experience. In my experience, most people (religious or non-religious) who spend a significant portion of their adult lives in cohabiting relationships end up marriying at least once.

"Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital

Dissolution Among Women

Jay Teachman1

Using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships (premarital sex and premarital cohabitation) and subsequent marital dissolution. I extend previous research by considering relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation. I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of marital disruption.

However, women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship have an increased risk of marital dissolution. These results suggest that neither premarital sex nor premarital cohabitation by itself indicate either preexisting characteristics or subsequent relationship environments that weaken marriages. Indeed, the findings are consistent with the notion that premarital sex and cohabitation limited to one's future spouse has become part of the normal courtship process for marriage."
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111%2Fj.1741-3737.2003.00444.x

With a link to the full article. (That costs 26.00 but hey... we're all rich here, right?)

Edit: Found a PDF: http://www.ncfr.org/pdf/PRESS%20RELEAS2.pdf

Do you have any statistical evidence for this? It doesn't tally with my experience. In my experience, most people (religious or non-religious) who spend a significant portion of their adult lives in cohabiting relationships end up marriying at least once.

Agree. As I understand it, the percentages of marriage among cohabiting relationships and of divorce among marriages are practically the same between religious and non-religious people. Also, I believe the percentages of things like abuse are fairly similar between religious and non-religious, even if somewhat different between married and cohabiting. From a religious standpoint, it shouldn't be, but perhaps the religious standpoint is just deluding itself so as not to have to address any deeper issues in the topic.