If living together means living in the same house, that is perhaps somewhat of a different issue. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong for a man and a woman to live in the same house , if there is nothing immoral taking place. However, the problem arises in that there is still the appearance of immorality and it will be a tremendous temptation for immorality. A couple that is living together is assumed to be sleeping together – that is just the nature of things. Even though living in the same house is not sinful in and of itself.
it is not honoring to God for a couple to live together before marriage.

it is going to be hard to provide causal links between living together before marriage and divorce rates, so I'm not going to try. What I will do is provide link to another interesting study:

http://www.happinessonline.org/BeFaithfulToYourSexualPartner/p17.htm

I read through it all and it provides links between divorce and how it effects children, relatives, and friends of the children of the divorce and how that shapes their future decision - this maybe the closest to a causal relationship for you neferyn

allonym:

it is going to be hard to provide causal links between living together before marriage and divorce rates, so I'm not going to try. What I will do is provide link to another interesting study:

http://www.happinessonline.org/BeFaithfulToYourSexualPartner/p17.htm

I read through it all and it provides links between divorce and how it effects children, relatives, and friends of the children of the divorce and how that shapes their future decision - this maybe the closest to a causal relationship for you neferyn

No it isn't. I know a divorce is bad. Hell, I was the victim of a divorce myself. I am not going to deny the negative effects.

What I am disputing is that living together before marrying has any negative effect on the success rate of a marriage. I have a gut feeling it's rather the opposite, but there are no studies supporting my point of view, so I don't make any bold claims. Saying that living together increases the chance of a failed marriage though is wrong. This has not been established

I suspect that in a conservative environment the people that enter a relationship prior to marrying already have a more casual, relaxed view on what a marriage should be and thus don't think there is anything wrong with breaking up the marriage. Anyway, this is just speculation, just as much as the causal link between living together and divorce rate is speculation.

no what isn't? You are saying that divorce leading to some people having distorted views about relationships with opposite sex leading to bad marriages is not a causal relationship - do you really know what you are talking about? Or are you looking for a direct link like - like getting stabbed in the heart, shot in the head with a 22 gauge shotgun and electrocuted will result in death?

allonym:

no what isn't? You are saying that divorce leading to some people having distorted views about relationships with opposite sex leading to bad marriages is not a causal relationship - do you really know what you are talking about? Or are you looking for a direct link like - like getting stabbed in the heart, shot in the head with a 22 gauge shotgun and electrocuted will result in death?

Actually that's not what I'm saying at all. Your starting point is divorce, mine is living together without being married.
My point:
A: couple lives together before marriage
B: The couple marries
C: the couple divorces
Some people say: A & B = C rate is higher. I say that that is not established
Some others say: C rate equal for both (A & not B) and (A & B) thus (A & B) is not better than (A & not B), I say that you cannot draw that conclusion, because data for A is coming from different couples than the data for C
Forgive me for being so wordy, I don't know the formal logical notations anymore, it been too long ago

that is fine. I can see where you are coming from. However, the studies of which I speak are scientifically sound.

They started with two groups C1 and C2. C1 - divorced couples C2 - couples that are married and then they ask - did you live together before marriage. They find that if a couple were a member of C1, they were more likely to be a member of group A1 - couples that lived together before marriage as opposed to A2 - couples that did not.

However, this is a very bad summary of most of the studies - because they typically study more factors that just these two. Also, the questions are not as simplistic as the one I just posed. But the studies tend to show that couples who live together tend to have higher divorce rates than those that do not. They also give their reasons for this - ie many children of divorce tend to think they should "test" out people before marriage - yet they still harbor the feeling that their marriage will not work out - due to what they experienced before.

So, the question of whether or not to live together before marriage is very complex and a simple yes or no answer is not satisfactory. In one of my previous posts, I copied 10 suggestions for couples considering this step. The suggestions do a good job of covering many of the factors that could lead to unsuccessful marriages (as found in the studies) and would (if used/applied honestly) probably weed out those who could be at risk for something which may not be good for their future relationship.

allonym:

that is fine. I can see where you are coming from. However, the studies of which I speak are scientifically sound.

They started with two groups C1 and C2. C1 - divorced couples C2 - couples that are married and then they ask - did you live together before marriage. They find that if a couple were a member of C1, they were more likely to be a member of group A1 - couples that lived together before marriage as opposed to A2 - couples that did not.

That could indeed give a significant and meaningful correlation if the sampling was done correctly, i.e. if they properly weighed the different group proportional to their representation in the population, if that the sample size was big enough and if they properly controlled for other possible factors that can influence the divorce rate. Anyway, from what you present me, the results may be valuable, but I would need to know a more about how the studies were conducted to understand whether or not they're sound.

As you may or may not know, there's a lot of research done in the Social Sciences where they explicitly ignored these kind of control factors in order to achieve the desired result. Unfortunately, scientific fraud is much easier to do in Social Sciences that in the Exact Sciences. A good example of one of these skewed studies is the infamous Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray

allonym:

However, this is a very bad summary of most of the studies - because they typically study more factors that just these two. Also, the questions are not as simplistic as the one I just posed. But the studies tend to show that couples who live together tend to have higher divorce rates than those that do not. They also give their reasons for this - ie many children of divorce tend to think they should "test" out people before marriage - yet they still harbor the feeling that their marriage will not work out - due to what they experienced before.

This last statement makes me think that these studies are politically motivated: you can never establish a causal chain with that many factors with any degree of certainty. This is just bad science.
Again I have to come up with my same remark. Correlation? Yes, possibly, but only under very strict sampling conditions of the test subjects. A causal link? Not in your (or my) lifetime.

allonym:

So, the question of whether or not to live together before marriage is very complex and a simple yes or no answer is not satisfactory. In one of my previous posts, I copied 10 suggestions for couples considering this step. The suggestions do a good job of covering many of the factors that could lead to unsuccessful marriages (as found in the studies) and would (if used/applied honestly) probably weed out those who could be at risk for something which may not be good for their future relationship.

Yes, and that was very good, hands on advice

A lot of the studies I've read were not politically motivated. In fact, most are done by sociology faculty at american universities. They initially define a specific group they want to study and then survey a small sample at a few schools to get an idea of how to shape their questions for the national survey. And they end up discovering some other interesting connection that adds on to this.

I said they were complex because they are, and for me to go through the studies and show how some links are inferred, causality show, etc. . . is a lot of work . . . for a topic of which my interest is not professional. I didn't mean to imply that there were so many factors involved, that you could not scientifically show causality or strong corellations, just that I've been reading a variety of different studies, and they don't quite address the same problem, but there are lots of similar things that come up.

I don't know if that second paragraph made sense. . .

@ allonym

The last study you linked to is most definitely politically motivated or influenced. I'll come back and make my case later today

cool. . .cuz i'm pretty sure i didn't see any political motivations in it. . . you're making me want to go and reread it again.

@allonym
I won't find the time today. It will have to wait untill tomorrow.

lol, i know how that can be. I await your analysis.

Quick intro first, detailed analysis follows later

* the site happinessonline is maintained by a member of the US religious right
* the study they refer to is produced by the National Marriage Project
* marriage.rutgers.edu is not directly associated with Rutgers University, but is the forefront of the National Marriage Project, an organization closely associated with the religious right and the conservative movement in the US. It is actually sponsored by Richard Mellon Scaife one of the main sponsors of conservative organizations in the US
* the site http://people.bu.edu/charris/marriage.html explicitly denies the causal relations that are put forward in the http://www.happinessonline.org/BeFaithfulToYourSexualPartner/p17.htm study you provided.

More to follow

hmm. . I do agree with the BU website conclusion - that cohabitation is not exactly the problem, but the dis/mis/un value . . .of marriage. They do point our that the studies show that cohabitation can be a marker for this - and I think some of the studies do show this pretty well.

However, given the political links which you have so far show (which I confess - if i didn't imply it before - i didn't bother to look into) I could see a big conflict of interest in the study which may affect the wording of the results. Though, the people who ran the study - specifically the one I cited, they would seem not to be a part of the political jockeying. . but then w/o research, I cannot be sure that a university prof's status as a scientist would necessary be enough for me to assume independence from political taint.

allonym:

hmm. . I do agree with the BU website conclusion - that cohabitation is not exactly the problem, but the this/mis/un value . . .of marriage. They do point our that the studies show that cohabitation can be a marker for this - and I think some of the studies do show this pretty well.

Exactly. It [b]can be [/b]a marker for this. There is no evidence of anything beyond that

allonym:

However, given the political links which you have so far show (which I confess - if i didn't imply it before - i didn't bother to look into) I could see a big conflict of interest in the study which may affect the wording of the results. Though, the people who ran the study - specifically the one I cited, they would seem not to be a part of the political jockeying. . but then w/o research, I cannot be sure that a university prof's status as a scientist would necessary be enough for me to assume independence from political taint.

You bet they're not necessarily independent from political bias. I have first hand negative experience of this fact and it didn't do me any good
The problem is not that much in the studies, although I have some serious problems with their selection protocols, but rather in the implied conclusions, but more on that later

[I think it] is wrong.

But to start with, are they not enjoying sex when they not living together? So if they are, let them go ahead to live together. If it works out well for them they see it. If it doesn't work, they see it.

Are you saying that the main issue with living together is sex?

What man would willingly allow himself to be mothered by a woman about his age if there's no sex in the package?

why, most of the men in this forum, such good, honest, God-fearing men they are!

Wrong

so so wrong,dey'l take each otha 4 granted

i don't understand, who will take each other for granted? What are you saying is wrong?

If you mean when they are living together, they will take each other for granted, wouldn't the same thing happen when they are married?

i c ur point, so i'll just say oops!

Its kinda wrong cos lv kn just blow dem up&they kud do anoda fing.(didy)

Believe me, almost always i think we all know what is right and what is not right....we shouldnt get hung up on that, i think what we need emphasize is what are the consequences of which decision we make, that way we will convince ourselves and not anyone else about if it is right or wrong.

Could you please translate this into clear simple english so the rest of us can understand.. your short hand is very difficult to translate...

Didy:

Its kind of wrong because lv kn just blow dem up&they kud do anoda fing.(didy)

why wont you do it now I.B.?

good qwestion

One can put web cam in each other's house and see what happens no?