Hello all,

We had Group A's debate yesterday and it was awesome. Today is for Group B.

Topic: Cohabitation: A Recipe for Successful Marriage.

Contestant 3 - Arguing For

Contestant 4 - Against

Debaters are expected to follow all the debating guidelines and rules.

- 8 - 8.30 - Debaters post their argument

- 8.30 - 9.30 - Rebuttals

- 9.30 - 10.30 - Judges and audience participation.

Debaters should please note that they don't have to post all their rebuttals all at once. They can freestyle like any NL thread.

Audience are not allowed to post until the rebuttal time is over.

Thanks.

Group A debate:

https://www.nairaland.com/1527899/marriage-life-time-commitment-live

The debaters can please post their argument.

COHABITATION: RECIPE FOR A SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE.

Good evening judges, coordinators, my co-debater, and to you, the audience. I am contestant 4 (lerrie john) , surprisingly here again, contesting against the notion that says cohabitation is a recipe for successful marriage.
Every boy and girl dreams of meeting their princesses or prince charming, falling in love , and getting married. They do not dream of meetings their soul mates, falling in love, cohabiting, before getting married. Cohabitation has no role to play in fairy tales. That aside, let's see what reality and statistics say.
Cohabitation is an arrangement where two unmarried people live together like husband and wife to test their compatibility before the actual marriage. In other words, the cohabiting couple enjoy some benefits of marriage such as sharing of homes, responding to some matrimonial duties, engaging in intimate sexual relationship, sharing of economic resources, and sometimes having children.
If marriage is a binding commitment between a man and a woman to come together as husband and wife, and it's fundamentals are fidelity, physical, emotional and economical interdependence, cohabitation cannot be a recipe/prelude for a successful marriage because it violates the institute of marriage as it lacks those fundamentals: commitment, interdependence and fidelity.
Couples who cohabit do not have any family, social, nor legal obligations to one another and can therefore live their relationship in a relaxed manner, knowing they could walk out at any given moment if they choose to, as opposed to couples who are married. Research has indeed shown that people who cohabit have characteristics that lead them to cohabit in the first place and make them poor marriage material. Deciding to get married requires faith and a good dose of self esteem, as the outcome of marriage is unknown; when people who cohabit arrive at marriage, they tend to see it as a cage that limits them from achieving their dreams; thus the unsatisfied feeling in marital life which leads to divorce.
Another reason cohabiting will not guarantee marital stability is the reason behind the choice. Many individuals who choose this route, especially the men, do so because in their opinion they gain some marital benefits but at the same time are not obliged to be faithful nor accountable to their partners. Maintaining individual independence is the hidden agenda. When such a relationship leads to marriage (which is supposed to be a selfless and interdependent commitment between a man and woman), it is not surprising to see the marriage dissolve as both partners continue to live their marriage through the perspective of the insecurity, lack of pooling of resources, low commitment level, and even lack of fidelity of their prior cohabitation.
Another problem with cohabitation prior to marriage, like it or not, is it's easier to get in than to get out once you start playing house—you move in because it makes sense, you can spend more time together, besides, you save on rent. The moment you live together family and friends expect you tie the knot soon. Each time your mother calls, she is saying “When are you guys getting married?” Even when there are problems in the relationship you both think, why not! It’s good enough, we’ve invested a lot of time into this relationship, I don’t want to start all over again, it isn’t that bad. You accommodate, you go with the flow, you worry about how much you have invested emotionally and financially and breaking up would be like a mini divorce. Things, important things, get swept under the rug and down the road it all catches up with you and if you can't stand the pressure it leads to divorce yet again.
One other disadvantage of cohabiting before marriage is that it makes a couple less effective at conflict resolution than those who did not cohabit. Fear of upsetting an uncommitted relationship or the lack of need to protect a temporary relationship can lead cohabiting couples into poor patterns of conflict resolution which they then carry into marriage. It could also create high expectations about marriage in the sense that a couple might think they have seen it all and can handle anything. But when during marriage, challenges arise, those challenges are seen as defects of the marriage institution and thus, divorce comes knocking at the door again.
Lastly, couples who cohabit are more likely to be less religious or not religious at all. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have stances of opposition to cohabitation. These religious groups agree that cohabitation before marriage is a violation of their moral beliefs. Marriage though a social institution, has religion as a backbone to guide couples morally in their judgements and approach to marital life and no religion approves of divorce. Where in a religious relationship divorce would hardly be an option because of moral beliefs, cohabiting couples lack this moral restriction and would willingly embrace divorce when challenges arise during marriage.
In conclusion, thirty years of research has shown that cohabitation is not an effective "trial marriage," if such a thing exists. It does not provide divorce insurance. Couples will be better off on life's measures of success and happiness (e.g., emotional health, physical health, and personal wealth) if they married before living together. A good marriage is determined by how a couple handles it's challenging moments and overcome them together, and not by avoiding issues for fear of upsetting a balance because sooner or later that balance will be upset. My advice to unmarried couples: cohabitation for whatever reason does more harm than good to marital life and should be absolutely avoided. In this case unfortunately, the adage, prevention (cohabitation) is better than cure (marriage), is futile.


REFERENCES

Jeffry H. Larson, Ph.D., LMFT, CFLE, is a professor of Marriage and Family Therapy at Brigham Young University and author of Should We Stay Together? A Scientifically Proven Method for Evaluating Your Relationship and Improving its Chances for LongTerm Success (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000).
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/marriage-preparation/cohabiting.cfm

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6642#Why.

What Makes It Fall Apart? The Determinants of the Dissolution of Marriages and Common-Law Unions in Canada
By: France-Pascale Ménard.
McGill Sociological Review, Volume 2, April 2011, pp. 59-76

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, the term cohabit means: To live together, especially as husband and wife without being married to one another.¹

Despite the fact that society today is a lot more progressive than how it was a couple of decades ago, many people still hold fast the belief that cohabitation is wrong. While I can and do respect their moral and religious objections to living together pre-marriage, I firmly believe that couples who cohabit pre-marriage are much more likely to stay together for the long haul, thereby proving that cohabitation is indeed a recipe for a successful marriage.

Good Evening Judges, co-debaters, and viewers. Based on the above premises, I, contestant 3, will therefore be supporting the argument that cohabitation is a recipe for a successful marriage for the following reasons:

Eliminating the surprise factor: We all know, that even couples who spend their every waking moment together, don't know the ins and outs of living with each other. Say for example, bathroom practices, cleaning routines, and personal habits are just some of the factors which while seemingly insignificant, can and do add up after marriage. Getting used to each others' idiosyncrasies - and more importantly, deciding whether you can live with them – is very important to a lasting marriage.

Avenue for relieving undue stress: Yes, getting married on its own is stressful enough, but add to that the pressure of moving and becoming acquainted with a new environment and all the nuances associated with settling in is well and truly enough to make one snap. It’s a common occurrence to see couples who’ve waited until after marriage to live together, and this in itself has taken a toll on many marriages. Marriage should be a time of bliss, not a time of angst. Living together first can help ensure it is by preparing intending couples of what is to come.

Encourages authentic discussion of life goals: Saying you want kids in the future is one thing, but figuring out your collective financial situation and ideas for how and where you'll raise children is quite another. A lot of couples make assumptions but the fact remains that many of these people don't know what it’s really like, to share expenses and plan for the future until they've done it. Projecting or better still, extemporizing on such serious topics doesn't come close to the real thing. Couples who disagree about how this should be done benefit from getting it all out in the open, ironing their differences before making that all-important life commitment to one another. Cohabitating first, affords this opportunity².

As was common a few decades ago, cohabitation, a once a loathed practice, before marriage, has become a more common and more acceptable trend among couples. I sincerely believe that living together first has the power to help a couple decide if marriage is right for them by eliminating the potential for divorce and ultimately paving the way for a lasting marriage down the line.

Financial Benefits: Moving in together can often be with motivation to make a monetary saving. Two single people living alone pay two separate sets of bills, rent or mortgage and general living costs. Living with a partner you are enjoying a relationship with can be an attractive prospect when the impact it would have on monthly expenses is considered. Usually one partner would move into the home of the other partner. This could mean just one rent payment or mortgage payment a month, or if both partners own their own properties, one could rent out their property thus formulating another source of income. Individuals may also be able to save money that they spent during dating, on fuel and phone bills.

Opportunity to learn about your spouse’s attitude towards responsibility: As well as the general living habits of your partner, cohabitation can allow you an insight into your partner’s sense of responsibility. If two people have totally different views and attitudes towards the level of responsibility one should uphold in general day-to-day life, this can have a significant bearing of the success of the relationship. For example, if one partner who is meticulous about paying household bills on time, he or she may have trouble comprehending or accepting a relaxed attitude from their partner. Cohabitation thus provides spouses with the chance to realize these differences and make a decision on whether or not they can live with these before marriage.

Freedom to easily leave: Having grown to know the person you are in a relationship with, you come to realize whether or not this is the long term relationship that you want to continue in, and more importantly, if it’s right for you. Cohabiting couples have the freedom to leave at any point without the rigmarole or stress of a messy divorce.

An excellent compatibility testing tool: Cohabiting with a partner pre-marriage provides a sneak peek into what your life of wedded bliss will look like (or not). You’ll both be able to observe what the other does in the privacy of his/her own home, learn about each other’s quirks, practice keeping the romance alive while juggling a busy life, and see how well you’re able to get back to compatibility when there are challenges.

It is important to state at this point that cohabitation is different from dating. It should be looked upon as the next step or ‘advancement’ of dating. When cohabiting, you learn to share a lot of things, you become more aware of your partner’s shortcomings, their faults and annoying habits. If the differences are too much for reconciliation, acceptance or overcoming, then it’s a whole lot easier to split up as opposed to when the dotted lines of a legally binding and contractual document have been signed.

Finally, I am of the opinion that many couples, out of respect for the institution of marriage decide to cohabite before taking the plunge. It’s not uncommon to hear forward-thinking cohabitating partners utter words as: “I never want to get divorced, so it’s important to me to make sure we can really work together before going through with a wedding.” ⁴ “Working things out” should happen before you vow to spend the rest of your life with someone, and what better way to do it than through cohabitation?

REFERENCES

^1. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Eight Edition, Edited by R.E. Allen ISBN 0-19-861243-5 (thumb index) , Oxford University Press, New York, Reprinted 2013.

^2. http://www.cohabitation-agreement.co.uk/article8.html

^3. Laura Sauer, A Mother's Perspective: Living Together Before Marriage is a Must, Yahoo Contributor Network, 2nd April, 2012.

^4. Francesca Di meglio, About.com – People, Relationships And Newly weds: Should You Live Together Before Marriage?

We can start with the rebuttals now.

Thanks.

[

b]Eliminating the surprise factor:[/b] We all know, that even couples who spend their every waking moment together, don't know the ins and outs of living with each other. Say for example, bathroom practices, cleaning routines, and personal habits are just some of the factors which while seemingly insignificant, can and do add up after marriage. Getting used to each others' idiosyncrasies - and more importantly, deciding whether you can live with them – is very important to a lasting marriage.

I think Couples have enough time to get used to their partners personal habits during courtship. This opportunity arises during vacations or passing weekends together. Is the above said time not enough for anyone to decide wether or not they can live with their partner's idiosyncrasies? After all, months , years or a lifetime is never enough to know someone completely.

Encourages authentic discussion of life goals: Saying you want kids in the future is one thing, but figuring out your collective financial situation and ideas for how and where you'll raise children is quite another. A lot of couples make assumptions but the fact remains that many of these people don't know what it’s really like, to share expenses and plan for the future until they've done it. Projecting or better still, extemporizing on such serious topics doesn't come close to the real thing. Couples who disagree about how this should be done benefit from getting it all out in the open, ironing their differences before making that all-important life commitment to one another. Cohabitating first, affords this opportunity².

I don't see how cohabiting improves communication levels in a relationship. The topics you mentioned can be well discussed without the need for cohabiting. Any communication problems left unresolved before or during courtship will still carry onto marital life. Problems may seem to have been resolved but if a couple lack good communications they will always clash even after marriage.

Financial Benefits: Moving in together can often be with motivation to make a monetary saving. Two single people living alone pay two separate sets of bills, rent or mortgage and general living costs. Living with a partner you are enjoying a relationship with can be an attractive prospect when the impact it would have on monthly expenses is considered. Usually one partner would move into the home of the other partner. This could mean just one rent payment or mortgage payment a month, or if both partners own their own properties, one could rent out their property thus formulating another source of income. Individuals may also be able to save money that they spent during dating, on fuel and phone bills.

Have you considered what the outcome could be if these two decide to not get married? Who would get kicked out after investing financially? How would they divide their acquisitions? And what if they decide to stay together after investing so much just for the wrong reasons? It seems like a divorce case to me, marriage or not.

[

b]Freedom to easily leave:[/b] Having grown to know the person you are in a relationship with, you come to realize whether or not this is the long term relationship that you want to continue in, and more importantly, if it’s right for you. Cohabiting couples have the freedom to leave at any point without the rigmarole or stress of a messy divorce.

The point you have just mentioned is the reason why cohabiters would divorce even after marriage because it is in their character. They are people afraid of commitment and have little faith in the marriage institution. Divorce (freedom) is the only way out whenever marital life becomes difficult.

Finally, I am of the opinion that many couples, out of respect for the institution of marriage decide to cohabite before taking the plunge. It’s not uncommon to hear forward-thinking cohabitating partners utter words as: “I never want to get divorced, so it’s important to me to make sure we can really work together before going through with a wedding.” ⁴ “Working things out” should happen before you vow to spend the rest of your life with someone, and what better way to do it than through cohabitation?

The most important means for preparing for marriage is by frequenting a premarital class. For the religious, each religious group organises premarital classes and counselling for couples who have let their intention to marry known. For the atheist, there are premarital sessions organised by psychologists and marriage counsellors. These sessions will prepare and educate young couples on what to expect and how to live together after marriage. Cohabitation will do nothing but harm in the long run as it doesn't educate you based on facts or life experiences of others.

Efe, we are waiting for you please.

Hello Lerrie John,

Here are my questions based on excerpts of your text:

Every boy and girl dreams of meeting their princesses or prince charming, falling in love , and getting married. They do not dream of meetings their soul mates, falling in love, cohabiting, before getting married. Cohabitation has no role to play in fairy tales.

Question 1: Marriage, I'm sure you'll agree, is a serious business undertaken by adults, hopefully for life - and not a childish fairytale notion gleaned from bedtime story books. How then can you dispute the fact that cohabitation has no role to play in marriage, when marriage, like any other venture in life, needs adequate physical, mental and emotional preparation for? If as an individual you take the time and effort to prepare for an upcoming, all-important examination, or much sought-after interview, how much more then for marriage? How can you dispute the fact that cohabitation between couples intending to marry (and not some wide-eyed child listening to their favourite bedtime story), prepares the ground for a successful marriage?

Cohabitation is about real-life, ordinary people, sincerely wanting to make a go of marriage, and not some prepubescent boy or girl 'dreaming' of meeting their fairytale prince charming or princess in a lone castle.

If marriage is a binding commitment between a man and a woman to come together as husband and wife, and it's fundamentals are fidelity, physical, emotional and economical interdependence, cohabitation cannot be a recipe/prelude for a successful marriage because it violates the institute of marriage as it lacks those fundamentals: commitment, interdependence and fidelity.

Question 2: Yes, marriage is indeed a binding, and meant to be life-long commitment between a man and woman coming together as man and wife. Note the key phrase in that statement of yours come together meaning two become one. But what does two becoming one mean to you? Does it not mean a physical and emotional union of thoughts, ideas and perceptions / general outlook to life? Does it not entail sharing everything life throws at them, be it good or bad, or better still, for-better-for-worse? How else can you demonstrate a commitment to these ethos if not via cohabitation - which ultimately tests the 'seriousness' of the intending couple?

A couple living together are less likely to fall into the trap of infidelity knowing that they have easy access to each other, which sadly isn't the case for couples in say - long distance relationships spanning across different states, countries or even continents. Yes, marriage is about physical, emotional and economical interdependence but how can a couple intending to marry, tell if they have those qualities if not by living together and facing understanding how the other copes with the real life challenges posed by the nuances of everyday living?


Couples who cohabit do not have any family, social, nor legal obligations to one another and can therefore live their relationship in a relaxed manner, knowing they could walk out at any given moment if they choose to, as opposed to couples who are married. Research has indeed shown that people who cohabit have characteristics that lead them to cohabit in the first place and make them poor marriage material. Deciding to get married requires faith and a good dose of self esteem, as the outcome of marriage is unknown; when people who cohabit arrive at marriage, they tend to see it as a cage that limits them from achieving their dreams; thus the unsatisfied feeling in marital life which leads to divorce.

Question 3: Seeing as you mention research has proven the points you listed above, I would be interested in knowing where you got the statistics support this statement?

That aside, the decision to cohabit is not one taken lightly and is best taken by those with the aim of, understanding each other better before marriage and not for the sake of fun. The underlying reason is to help decide the couples involved on whether they truly want to become their spouses life partner or not. Before living together, the couple(s) involved should have very set / definite goals of what they expect. So say for example, a couple intending to marry live together to help outline what their agenda or purpose is. For example, they might decide to live together for a year and if it’s been a happy, fulfilling experience for them both, then they can both decide to take the next step which is marriage. So, as long as there are set goals (like all things in life) in the pipeline of what the overall purpose and intended achievements are, cohabitation is okay as long as it’s got a clearly defined purpose, which for the sake of this argument, is not just marriage, but lasting marriage – till the couple’s last days on earth. So how then can you claim that cohabiting couples are more prone to divorce when they obviously take more time, effort and preparation in laying the ground work? Is your claim not akin to saying that one who prepares for their all-important end of year examination are more likely to fail, than those who don't make any preparations whatsoever?


When people who cohabit arrive at marriage, they tend to see it as a cage that limits them from achieving their dreams; thus the unsatisfied feeling in marital life which leads to divorce.

Question 4: Do you not think your statement here about cohabiting couples seeing themselves as 'caged' contradicts with your earlier statement (see bolded bit of your second excerpt) about non-comittment and ease to walk out of the relationship whenever they so wish? How can you be caged in a relationship, and yet free to walk out when you please? Kindly clarify what you mean.


One other disadvantage of cohabiting before marriage is that it makes a couple less effective at conflict resolution than those who did not cohabit. Fear of upsetting an uncommitted relationship or the lack of need to protect a temporary relationship can lead cohabiting couples into poor patterns of conflict resolution which they then carry into marriage. It could also create high expectations about marriage in the sense that a couple might think they have seen it all and can handle anything. But when during marriage, challenges arise, those challenges are seen as defects of the marriage institution and thus, divorce comes knocking at the door again.

I disagree with this statement of yours. The underlying essence of cohabitation is for couples to understand each other better. Understanding each other better entails working through their differences, laying all cards (literally) on the table and letting the other see and understand their different perspectives to life. This is where a purpose of cohabiting in the first place comes to play.

Question 5: How then can you work through your differences if you don't face them straight-up from the onset? Do you not think marriage is postponing the inevitable, (i.e: important issues such as finance, home management, family planning, career prospects after the kids arrive) which incidentally, will not go away, but will present themselves in full force after they've signed the dotted lines? When it's too late to back out?

Thanks,
Efe.

Lerrie John:
[

I think Couples have enough time to get used to their partners personal habits during courtship. This opportunity arises during vacations or passing weekends together. Is the above said time not enough for anyone to decide wether or not they can live with their partner's idiosyncrasies? After all, months , years or a lifetime is never enough to know someone completely.

There is only so much you can find out about a person on an outing such as having a meal together or going on vacation. A partner intent on keeping their darker or let's say, unhygenic aspect of their lives will do so easily for the short time they spend together. Take for example, if you have a phobia for hairs, how then will you be able to tell whilst on a date that your partner or intended spouse is one who is prone to living the bathroom sink full of shaven (or worse still, pubic) hairs? Or one who sees nothing wrong with leaving the toilet without washing his or her hands once they've concluded their 'business' in there?

But when you live with such a person, it will be hard to hide such tendencies from their intended spouse.

Lerrie John: I don't see how cohabiting improves communication levels in a relationship. The topics you mentioned can be well discussed without the need for cohabiting. Any communication problems left unresolved before or during courtship will still carry onto marital life. Problems may seem to have been resolved but if a couple lack good communications they will always clash even after marriage.

There is only so much you can discuss with a person but when you cohabiting, you get the opportunity to practice what you preach so to speak. Furthermore, when cohabiting, the couples involved feel more inclined, more committed to act out their preparatory plans for the future. Say for example, they intend on purchasing a car - living together, they actually feel more committed to open up a joint account as opposed to when they live separately.

Lerrie John: Have you considered what the outcome could be if these two decide to not get married? Who would get kicked out after investing financially? How would they divide their acquisitions? And what if they decide to stay together after investing so much just for the wrong reasons? It seems like a divorce case to me, marriage or not.

Yes I have, and fortunately, there are appropriate checks and balances in place.

Like all things in life, cohabiting is not without it's risks and fortunately, there are checks and balances in place to ensure that people wishing to cohabit, have that opportunity to protect their financial interests - which is no different to couples signing pre-nuptials. There is a raft of agencies and specialized bodies designed to protect the rights of cohabiting couples in the case it doesn't work out. Here is a sample of what one of such agencies offers:

SAMPLE COHABITATION AGREEMENT

The following is a sample cohabitation agreement for you and your sweetie to peruse to get ideas of what types of issues may arise once your coats are sharing the same closet.

COHABITATION AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, is made by and between [names of people] (hereafter referred to by name or as "parties".
WHEREAS, the parties live together at [home address], commencing on [date began living together];
and, WHEREAS, they desire to affix their respective rights and liabilities that may result from this joint residency;
and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to keep all real and personal property acquired heretofore by each of them separate;
and, WHEREAS, they each have had an opportunity to consult with separate counsel of their own choice if they so desired;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That each party waives any claim to maintenance, alimony, or 'palimony' or other claim for support resulting from said joint residency.
2. That when they reside together, by such action in no way are they to be considered to be in a meretricious relationship, or as married by the common law, or otherwise shall they occupy the status of being married.
3. All property affixed on Schedule A, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property, shall remain the sole property of [person A].
4. All property affixed on Schedule B, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property, shall remain the sole property of [person B].
5. Each party shall maintain separate banking accounts, and neither party shall have the right to the proceeds of or access to the same.
6. Each party will continue to use his or her own separate debit and credit cards, and neither party will be liable to third parties or responsible for making payment for any purchases or debts incurred by the other party.
7. That should they purchase assets in joint names, such assets shall be considered as held in tenancy in common. Each party shall contribute from their own resources and income one-half of the upkeep, taxes, and other fees or charges on such property. In the event that one party shall fail to pay as agreed, and the other party contributes in excess of one-half, this excess contribution shall be chargeable to the proceeds if any upon resale of the property, and such excess contribution shall bear interest at the legal rate of interest then in effect.
8. The parties hereto waive any claim against the estate of the other party, save and except:
Any promissory notes executed by one party to the other;
Any excess contribution to jointly acquired assets;
Any judgment entered against one party in the favor of the other;
provided however, that should either party voluntarily and freely make a devise or other bequest to the other in their will, the recipient shall be entitled to the same.
This relationship was neither created by nor premised upon the promise of a devise or bequest from their estate.
9. Other than debts validly contracted for services or materials or otherwise related to joint property of the parties, if any, neither party shall have the right to obligate, act for, contract for or represent the other party.
10. Other than property purchased in the parties' joint names, each party waives any claim to assets acquired by the other party before, during or after this period of co-habitation. Such property includes but is not limited to business ownership or any interest in a business or business assets.
11. The parties shall apportion the necessary and jointly agreed living expenses as follows:
The parties shall each contribute 50% of the necessary and jointly agreed living expenses. While living together at 6000 24th Avenue NW, Apt. 103, Seattle, Washington 98107, commencing on November 1, 2002, the specific necessary and jointly agreed living expenses apply as listed on Schedule C.
In addition, both parties' names shall appear on all leases for property on which both parties reside together.
12. This Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or in writing, and may only be modified in a separate writing signed by both parties. This Agreement is in force when signed below.
13. No relaxation of the terms of this agreement or indulgence which one party may grant the other, will in any way operate as an estoppel against the former party, or be deemed to be a waiver of his or her rights or in any way limit, alter or prejudice those rights.
14. In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be illegal or unenforceable in any respect under the law of any state by a court of competent jurisdiction, such unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the remainder of the contract shall still be upheld.

Date: ________________
[Person A typed name and signature] _________________
Date: ________________
[Person B typed name and signature]_________________

State of ______________

County of ____________

On _____________, 200___ before me came [person A] and [person B], known to me to be the individuals described hereinabove and who executed the foregoing Cohabitation Agreement, and duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same.

_______________________
Notary Public

Schedule A

All of [person A's] separate property, including but not limited to the following list, shall remain [person A's] separate property, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property.

http://voices.yahoo.com/considering-living-together-establish-rules-using-473364.html?cat=41

Lerrie John: The point you have just mentioned is the reason why cohabiters would divorce even after marriage because it is in their character. They are people afraid of commitment and have little faith in the marriage institution. Divorce (freedom) is the only way out whenever marital life becomes difficult.

No, the point I made, which you reference here is further proof of commitment and seriousness on the part of the cohabiting couple. They enter into cohabitation with their eyes wide open, wanting to make sure it works and that the other person is the right one for them. These people, highly tuned adults need to be absolutely sure that the person they intend to spend the next forty, fifty, sixty or even seventy years of their life with, is the right one. There is no certainty in life - but they can very well make sure that they do as much as they possible can to study their spouse. Like all things in life, it's a game of chance, but the possibilities of failure are drastically reduced.

If at the end of the day, they can't reconcile their differences, then yes, rather than drag the unworkable on, they're better off parting ways. Afterall, do you not agree that a broken engagement (how ever painful it might be), is a lot better then a broken marriage?

Question 1: Marriage, I'm sure you'll agree, is a serious business undertaken by adults, hopefully for life - and not a childish fairytale notion gleaned from bedtime story books. How then can you dispute the fact that cohabitation has no role to play in marriage, when marriage, like any other venture in life, needs adequate physical, mental and emotional preparation for? If as an individual you take the time and effort to prepare for an upcoming, all-important examination, or much sought-after interview, how much more then for marriage? How can you dispute the fact that cohabitation between couples intending to marry (and not some wide-eyed child listening to their favourite bedtime story), prepares the ground for a successful marriage?

Cohabitation is about real-life, ordinary people, sincerely wanting to make a go of marriage, and not some prepubescent boy or girl 'dreaming' of meeting their fairytale prince charming or princess in a lone castle.

If marriage is a binding commitment between a man and a woman to come together as husband and wife, and it's fundamentals are fidelity, physical, emotional and economical interdependence, cohabitation cannot be a recipe/prelude for a successful marriage because it violates the institute of marriage as it lacks those fundamentals: commitment, interdependence and fidelity.

The fairy tale reference in my essay was to lighten the mood while making clear how humans evolve from children to adults, from adults to couples. My introduction also went further and stated[b] "That aside, let's see what reality and statistics say."
[/b] and so I presented the rest of my essay against why cohabitation is not a recipe for marriage.
Marriage indeed needs serious preparation as it is a big risk one takes when they decide to settle down. It is a risk and therefore no preparation whatsoever ( cohabiting, books, counselling) can prepare you for it, until you walk in.
Whether or not it lasts a longtime is determined by how balanced each individual is. How they cope with living together, decision making, challenging periods etc. If an individual has trust issues for example, cohabiting or marriage won't help resolve or change the feeling as insecurities will always prevail whenever marital problems arise. So you see, much of how much a marriage lasts depends on the individuals emotional, religious and moral beliefs.

Question 2: Yes, marriage is indeed a binding, and meant to be life-long commitment between a man and woman coming together as man and wife. Note the key phrase in that statement of yours come together meaning two become one. But what does two becoming one mean to you? Does it not mean a physical and emotional union of thoughts, ideas and perceptions / general outlook to life? Does it not entail sharing everything life throws at them, be it good or bad, or better still, for-better-for-worse? How else can you demonstrate a commitment to these ethos if not via cohabitation - which ultimately tests the 'seriousness' of the intending couple?

How can cohabitation be a lifelong commitment if no vows were taken? "Two becoming one" to me means I seize to exist as a sole individual the moment I take my marital vows. It no longer is ME nor YOU, it becomes US and OURS. Cohabitation is just a man and a woman living under one roof while having a sexual relationship. Like you said one of the advantages of cohabiting is freedom to walk out. In marriage, you can't just walk out of the commitment because you feel unsatisfied. cohabitation cannot be a recipe/prelude for a successful marriage because it violates the institute of marriage as it lacks those fundamentals: commitment, interdependence and fidelity.

A couple living together are less likely to fall into the trap of infidelity knowing that they have easy access to each other, which sadly isn't the case for couples in say - long distance relationships spanning across different states, countries or even continents. Yes, marriage is about physical, emotional and economical interdependence but how can a couple intending to marry, tell if they have those qualities if not by living together and facing understanding how the other copes with the real life challenges posed by the nuances of everyday living?

A boyfriend and girlfriend may decide to live together mostly for intimacy and financial difficulties. Living with the opposite sex when in a relationship does not make you their husband nor wife (commitment). When people live together issues based on differences in character and upbringing arise, when such things happen it's easier to fall into temptations. That girl or boy that has been asking you out becomes more attractive, you are not married to the person you are dating and so free to give other suitors a chance ( infidelity). Since the cohabiters are not married they do not necessarily have to take decisions concerning their personal lives together ( independence). After living like these for months, even years, a couple finds it extremely hard to give up their absolute independence and fall into their marital roles as that foundation has already being shattered.



[colo

r=#000099]Couples who cohabit do not have any family, social, nor legal obligations to one another and can therefore live their relationship in a relaxed manner, knowing they could walk out at any given moment if they choose to, as opposed to couples who are married. Research has indeed shown that people who cohabit have characteristics that lead them to cohabit in the first place and make them poor marriage material. Deciding to get married requires faith and a good dose of self esteem, as the outcome of marriage is unknown; when people who cohabit arrive at marriage, they tend to see it as a cage that limits them from achieving their dreams; thus the unsatisfied feeling in marital life which leads to divorce.[/color]

[

b]Question 3:[/b]Seeing as you mention research has proven the points you listed above, I would be interested in knowing where you got the statistics support this statement?

I hope the links below provide more light on why cohabitation isn't helpful. One of the listed is a research done in the nigerian society by a professor of university of Ibadan.
http://nobleworld.biz/images/Ogunsola_AN3.pdf
http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6642#Why




[

color=#000099]When people who cohabit arrive at marriage, they tend to see it as a cage that limits them from achieving their dreams; thus the unsatisfied feeling in marital life which leads to divorce.[/color]

Question 4: Do you not think your statement here about cohabiting couples seeing themselves as 'caged' contradicts with your earlier statement (see bolded bit of your second excerpt) about non-comittment and ease to walk out of the relationship whenever they so wish? How can you be caged in a relationship, and yet free to walk out when you please? Kindly clarify what you mean.

Why do u feel the need to walk out of any given situation? Because the pressure is too much. Cohabitation creates high expectations about marriage in the sense that a couple might think they have seen it all and can handle anything. The way a man and woman live and perceive each other is different when married. Cohabiting I insist yet again isn't marriage.

One other disadvantage of cohabiting before marriage is that it makes a couple less effective at conflict resolution than those who did not cohabit. Fear of upsetting an uncommitted relationship or the lack of need to protect a temporary relationship can lead cohabiting couples into poor patterns of conflict resolution which they then carry into marriage. It could also create high expectations about marriage in the sense that a couple might think they have seen it all and can handle anything. But when during marriage, challenges arise, those challenges are seen as defects of the marriage institution and thus, divorce comes knocking at the door again.

I disagree with this statement of yours. The underlying essence of cohabitation is for couples to understand each other better. Understanding each other better entails working through their differences, laying all cards (literally) on the table and letting the other see and understand their different perspectives to life. This is where a purpose of cohabiting in the first place comes to play.

I have answered that question earlier. Cohabitation is not the only means of understanding. Besides if you didn't understand while dating, you won't understand while living together.

[

b]Question 5:[/b] How then can you work through your differences if you don't face them straight-up from the onset? Do you not think marriage is postponing the inevitable, (i.e: important issues such as finance, home management, family planning, career prospects after the kids arrive) which incidentally, will not go away, but will present themselves in full force after they've signed the dotted lines? When it's too late to back out?

Like you said, marriage isn't something you take lightly. That's why there is a period of courtship. It is the time you employ to know your partner better and discuss issues about finance, family planning, career, home management etc.
The most important means for preparing for marriage is by frequenting a premarital class. For the religious, each religious group organises premarital classes and counselling for couples who have let their intention to marry known. For the atheist, there are premarital sessions organised by psychologists and marriage counsellors. These sessions will prepare and educate young couples on what to expect and how to live together after marriage

I hope I have succeeded in answering your questions satisfactorily.

Lerrie John:

The most important means for preparing for marriage is by frequenting a premarital class. For the religious, each religious group organises premarital classes and counselling for couples who have let their intention to marry known. For the atheist, there are premarital sessions organised by psychologists and marriage counsellors. These sessions will prepare and educate young couples on what to expect and how to live together after marriage. Cohabitation will do nothing but harm in the long run as it doesn't educate you based on facts or life experiences of others.

Yes, premarital classes can be useful for intending couples, but like all things in life, it's not the be-all-and-end-all. Even for the most devout Catholics, when their marriages do not work out - especially when a spouse's life is at risk (physical abuse), the church does grant special dispensation for annulment of the marriage. Mind you, before getting married in the first place, they too would have been required to attend marriage classes too. So how does this differ from instances where cohabiting doesn't work? Does it not prove, if anything at all, that there are no absolute certainties in life? Furthermore, the links below give some insight under which the conditions for annulment of a marriage can take place within the catholic church:

http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1002.asp

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-annulment.html

The Catholic Church does not say that a couple should always stay in a failed marriage. Yes, we strongly encourage people to try to reconcile things, especially if children are involved.

But sometimes it is necessary to separate for serious reasons, and even seek civil divorce. This is especially true in cases where one spouse is abusing another.

Now if this couple had lived together for say a year or two, do you not think it would have been much easier for the spouse to identify their other half's tendency to violence? How long can one pretend for? Cohabitation reduces that likelihood as it's a lot harder to pretend to someone you live with, as opposed to someone you only see on sporadic dates, visits or the odd vacation (which ultimately, the other person / abuser, would have had enough time to prep themselves for).

Anyone with questions for the debaters can ask it.

The judges may not be able to participate much due to the sad news.

If there is however no questions, the debate remains open till tomorrow for judges' audiences' participation.

Thanks.

Cohabitation ( enjoying the benefits of marital life) when not actually married is not a guarantee that ones relationship will endure , the same way getting married without cohabiting is not a guarantee either. Problems will always arise, new characters will be discovered. What guarantees marital longevity and stability is the ability to overcome together as a couple the trying moments.

@ Lerrie and Efe,

Kindly indicate once you are satisfied with your opponent's responses to your queries.

Thanks.

I must compliment you Efe on an essay well presented. You did a good job. I have no more questions for you.

No question. The contestants covered all grounds pretty well.

Well done and good night folks.

I see Coogar peeping. Any questions for the debaters?

Lerrie John: I must compliment you Efe on an essay well presented. You did a good job. I have no more questions for you.

Very well then...if Efe has no futher questions, we may bring the debate to a close.

Well done guys!

Lerrie John: The fairy tale reference in my essay was to lighten the mood while making clear how humans evolve from children to adults, from adults to couples. My introduction also went further and stated "That aside, let's see what reality and statistics say." and so I presented the rest of my essay against why cohabitation is not a recipe for marriage. Marriage indeed needs serious preparation as it is a big risk one takes when they decide to settle down. It is a risk and therefore no preparation whatsoever ( cohabiting, books, counselling) can prepare you for it, until you walk in.

Whether or not it lasts a longtime is determined by how balanced each individual is. How they cope with living together, decision making, challenging periods etc. If an individual has trust issues for example, cohabiting or marriage won't help resolve or change the feeling as insecurities will always prevail whenever marital problems arise. So you see, much of how much a marriage lasts depends on the individuals emotional, religious and moral beliefs.

I find the highlighted bit of your statement above contradictory. How can you in one breath say marriage is a risk that requires serious preparation, and yet in the same breath, say no preparation whatsoever can prepare you for it? What exactly is your stand here? Because quite frankly, both statements of yours nullify themselves, meaning you're sitting on the fence??

As per the second part of your statement, you're simply giving credence to cohabiting. Couples with issues that can't be resolved via cohabitation are made to see the light or rather, the facts in crystal-clear terms. The flaws of their partners are laid bare to them and the onus on them, from that point onwards, is to make that informed decision, based on what's come to light, on whether or not they wish to go ahead with the union. Basically, the ball's in their court and IF they decide that their differences are too much to reconcile with, then they have that option of walking out and leaving the union. There's nothing worse than hanging on to a union that's doomed to fail from the start. Marriage aferall is not by-fire-by-force and taking the bold step to walk out before going any further or tying the knot should be applauded and not seen as a failure on the part of the couple in question.

Lerrie John: How can cohabitation be a lifelong commitment if no vows were taken? "Two becoming one" to me means I seize to exist as a sole individual the moment I take my marital vows. It no longer is ME nor YOU, it becomes US and OURS. Cohabitation is just a man and a woman living under one roof while having a sexual relationship. Like you said one of the advantages of cohabiting is freedom to walk out. In marriage, you can't just walk out of the commitment because you feel unsatisfied. cohabitation cannot be a recipe/prelude for a successful marriage because it violates the institute of marriage as it lacks those fundamentals: commitment, interdependence and fidelity.

I never claimed that cohabitation is a lifelong commitment. I said it's a preclude to marriage where the couple in question intending to marry, get to find out if they are compatable (or for want of a better expression - test driving the course). Cohabitation gives you that opportunity to look through the glass (so to speak) by not just talking the talk but living it out. It prepares you for marriage because you know exactly what you're getting into, and not some assumption based on what your partner carefully allows you to see about them or not.

Lerrie John: A boyfriend and girlfriend may decide to live together mostly for intimacy and financial difficulties. Living with the opposite sex when in a relationship does not make you their husband nor wife (commitment). When people live together issues based on differences in character and upbringing arise, when such things happen it's easier to fall into temptations. That girl or boy that has been asking you out becomes more attractive, you are not married to the person you are dating and so free to give other suitors a chance ( infidelity). Since the cohabiters are not married they do not necessarily have to take decisions concerning their personal lives together ( independence). After living like these for months, even years, a couple finds it extremely hard to give up their absolute independence and fall into their marital roles as that foundation has already being shattered.

I disagree.

First of all, the couple intending to get married aren't boys and girls, but men and women.

Secondly, cohabiting is not dating but an advancement of dating. The couple in question have plans to get married. They've made that conscious choice. Why then would they decide, having made that choice, to continue seeing other people or suitors? It makes no sense! Furthermore, there should be a purpose for cohabitating. So say for example, a couple intending to marry live together to help outline what their agenda or purpose is. For example, they might decide to live together for a year and if it’s been a happy, fulfilling experience for them both, then they can both decide to take the next step which is marriage. So, as long as there are set goals (like all things in life) in the pipeline of what the overall purpose and intended achievements are, cohabitation is okay as long as it’s got a clearly defined purpose, which for the sake of this argument, is not just marriage, but lasting marriage – till the couple’s last days on earth.

Lerrie John: Why do u feel the need to walk out of any given situation? Because the pressure is too much. Cohabitation creates high expectations about marriage in the sense that a couple might think they have seen it all and can handle anything. The way a man and woman live and perceive each other is different when married. Cohabiting I insist yet again isn't marriage.

Quite the opposite.

Cohabiting gives the couple the chance to make absolutely sure that they are right for each other. If during cohabition they discover they aren't, what do you expect them to do? Slug it out for the rest of their lives? Does that not defeat the purpose of cohabiting? Yes, cohabiting does and should create high expectations of marriage because it's the reason they get into it in the first place - with the goal of marriage and not on some joyride. They are hoping to get married in the future, so of course, it stands to reason that it should be taken seriously. Or are you advocating that the couple don't take themselves seriously and wait until they're wedding day before they do?

Lerrie John: I have answered that question earlier. Cohabitation is not the only means of understanding. Besides if you didn't understand while dating, you won't understand while living together.

An like I've mentioned before, cohabitation is not dating. It's more than that.

Lerrie John: Like you said, marriage isn't something you take lightly. That's why there is a period of courtship. It is the time you employ to know your partner better and discuss issues about finance, family planning, career, home management etc.
The most important means for preparing for marriage is by frequenting a premarital class. For the religious, each religious group organises premarital classes and counselling for couples who have let their intention to marry known. For the atheist, there are premarital sessions organised by psychologists and marriage counsellors. These sessions will prepare and educate young couples on what to expect and how to live together after marriage

I hope I have succeeded in answering your questions satisfactorily.

I think I've already addressed this point of yours about pre-marital marriage classes and their weakness. Like all things in life, there are no absolutes, no one-size-fits all. There are known cases of couples who've attended marriage classes but yet their marriage fails - even in the catholic church.

The remaining points you've given simply butress the case for cohabitation being a very good recipe for successful marriages.

Thank you.

Tgirl4real: @ Lerrie and Efe,

Kindly indicate once you are satisfied with your opponent's responses to your queries.

Thanks.

Yep, I think I'm done now

Lerrie John: I must compliment you Efe on an essay well presented. You did a good job. I have no more questions for you.

And I you too.

It's been interesting having this debate with you, Lerrie.

Cheers,
Efe.

Tgirl4real: I see Coogar peeping. Any questions for the debaters?

Yes, the abuse one. This topic generates a lot of heat - although not much light from what I can see - on the Family section. Threads of 100+ pages are not uncommon.

One thing that is startlingly clear is that violent abuse is suffered in co-habitation arrangements. This fact, allied with studies which clearly demonstrate that proper marriage is still the safest place for women and children, make it is logical to infer that women suffer more abuse in "co-habs". Also interesting is that they seem to find it as difficult to leave abusive situations as properly married victims. And lastly, the insinuation that co-habiting would flush put potential abusers seems odd, when most of the the self-identified victims of abuse swear blind that it was well hidden until marriage.

Could the debaters please address this please. Especially the "for cohab" proponent.

Thanks
TV

Well done ladies!!

Efemena_xy:

SAMPLE COHABITATION AGREEMENT

The following is a sample cohabitation agreement for you and your sweetie to peruse to get ideas of what types of issues may arise once your coats are sharing the same closet.

COHABITATION AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, is made by and between [names of people] (hereafter referred to by name or as "parties".
WHEREAS, the parties live together at [home address], commencing on [date began living together];
and, WHEREAS, they desire to affix their respective rights and liabilities that may result from this joint residency;
and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to keep all real and personal property acquired heretofore by each of them separate;
and, WHEREAS, they each have had an opportunity to consult with separate counsel of their own choice if they so desired;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. That each party waives any claim to maintenance, alimony, or 'palimony' or other claim for support resulting from said joint residency.
2. That when they reside together, by such action in no way are they to be considered to be in a meretricious relationship, or as married by the common law, or otherwise shall they occupy the status of being married.
3. All property affixed on Schedule A, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property, shall remain the sole property of [person A].
4. All property affixed on Schedule B, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property, shall remain the sole property of [person B].
5. Each party shall maintain separate banking accounts, and neither party shall have the right to the proceeds of or access to the same.
6. Each party will continue to use his or her own separate debit and credit cards, and neither party will be liable to third parties or responsible for making payment for any purchases or debts incurred by the other party.
7. That should they purchase assets in joint names, such assets shall be considered as held in tenancy in common. Each party shall contribute from their own resources and income one-half of the upkeep, taxes, and other fees or charges on such property. In the event that one party shall fail to pay as agreed, and the other party contributes in excess of one-half, this excess contribution shall be chargeable to the proceeds if any upon resale of the property, and such excess contribution shall bear interest at the legal rate of interest then in effect.
8. The parties hereto waive any claim against the estate of the other party, save and except:
Any promissory notes executed by one party to the other;
Any excess contribution to jointly acquired assets;
Any judgment entered against one party in the favor of the other;
provided however, that should either party voluntarily and freely make a devise or other bequest to the other in their will, the recipient shall be entitled to the same.
This relationship was neither created by nor premised upon the promise of a devise or bequest from their estate.
9. Other than debts validly contracted for services or materials or otherwise related to joint property of the parties, if any, neither party shall have the right to obligate, act for, contract for or represent the other party.
10. Other than property purchased in the parties' joint names, each party waives any claim to assets acquired by the other party before, during or after this period of co-habitation. Such property includes but is not limited to business ownership or any interest in a business or business assets.
11. The parties shall apportion the necessary and jointly agreed living expenses as follows:
The parties shall each contribute 50% of the necessary and jointly agreed living expenses. While living together at 6000 24th Avenue NW, Apt. 103, Seattle, Washington 98107, commencing on November 1, 2002, the specific necessary and jointly agreed living expenses apply as listed on Schedule C.
In addition, both parties' names shall appear on all leases for property on which both parties reside together.
12. This Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or in writing, and may only be modified in a separate writing signed by both parties. This Agreement is in force when signed below.
13. No relaxation of the terms of this agreement or indulgence which one party may grant the other, will in any way operate as an estoppel against the former party, or be deemed to be a waiver of his or her rights or in any way limit, alter or prejudice those rights.
14. In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be illegal or unenforceable in any respect under the law of any state by a court of competent jurisdiction, such unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and the remainder of the contract shall still be upheld.

Date: ________________
[Person A typed name and signature] _________________
Date: ________________
[Person B typed name and signature]_________________

State of ______________

County of ____________

On _____________, 200___ before me came [person A] and [person B], known to me to be the individuals described hereinabove and who executed the foregoing Cohabitation Agreement, and duly acknowledged to me that they executed the same.

_______________________
Notary Public

Schedule A

All of [person A's] separate property, including but not limited to the following list, shall remain [person A's] separate property, including any profits, dividends or interest income inuring from said property.

http://voices.yahoo.com/considering-living-together-establish-rules-using-473364.html?cat=41

What are the stat on how many couples actually sign this agreement before co-habitation?

How would you respond to someone who says....If I going to sign this, might as well sign a prenuptial agreement and get married.

Are there case studies or researches showing couples are more receptive to this kind of agreement than they are a pre-nup? I ask because I am wondering why this puts co-habitation at an advantage over marriage.

Wouldn't you agree that as long as there has been a combination of assets & liabilities the same problems one faces when getting divorced are no different from those faced by those who decide to live together?

Another thing, regards marriage vows, which simple put are love & cherish, through all situations, for always (although Sisi-Kill seems to think that vows are being kept if they simply stay together?)

In a co-hab arrangement how do the serious things that life can throw at you play out. Say for example, one falls seriously sick with the prognosis uncertain. Marriage vows are clear, you stay and support. What is the likelihood - compared to marriage - that a "co-habee" would stay and support in such a situation?

Even simpler things like long-term job loss. With a contract/agreement in place or even that financial independence due to the lack of commitment, would the feeling of "carrying the other" or contract violation not come into play and generate resentment?

Thanks
TV

TV01:

Yes, the abuse one. This topic generates a lot of heat - although not much light from what I can see - on the Family section. Threads of 100+ pages are not uncommon.

One thing that is startlingly clear is that violent abuse is suffered in co-habitation arrangements. This fact, allied with studies which clearly demonstrate that proper marriage is still the safest place for women and children, make it is logical to infer that women suffer more abuse in "co-habs". Also interesting is that they seem to find it as difficult to leave abusive situations as properly married victims. And lastly, the insinuation that co-habiting would flush put potential abusers seems odd, when most of the the self-identified victims of abuse swear blind that it was well hidden until marriage.

Could the debaters please address this please. Especially the "for cohab" proponent.

Thanks
TV

Thank you TV01.

Being in a marital relationship (i.e being married) does not eliminate occurrences of violence / abuse on partners, better termed as domestic abuse. There are quite high figures of this happening even in the western world. Take the UK for example: the following excerpt from the charity organisation CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse) states:

Key statistics on the prevalence of domestic abuse

Current estimates of domestic abuse (DA):

~ In 2010/2011, an average of 2 women a week were killed by a male and/or former partner: this constituted around one-third of all female homicide victims (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2012). This finding is consistent with previous years (Department of Health, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Povey, 2004, 2005).

~ Approximately 100,000 individuals are currently (2011/2012) at high risk of serious harm or murder as a result of DA (CAADA, 2012).
In 2010/2011, domestic violence accounted for 18% of all violent incidents reported in England and Wales (Chaplin, Flatley, & Smith, 2011) .
7% of women and 5% of men reported DA in 2010/ 2011. This is equivalent to approximately 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims of DA (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2011) .

~ In 2010/2011, repeat victimisation accounted for 73% of all incidents of domestic violence, 44 % were victimised more than once and 24% of victims had been victimised three times or more (Chaplin et al., 2011).

~ Approximately 130,000 children are currently (2011/ 2012) living with DA (CAADA, 2012).

http://www.caada.org.uk/policy/statistics.html

Now I think it would be interesting to see your statistical figures that show that the occurence of abuse between co-habs is higher than that for married couples. You also mention that marriage provides a safe environment from abuse for children, while the last point of my excerpt refutes that claim of yours.

Finally, it's much harder to hide a trait from a partner when living together as opposed to living apart - moreso if the relationship is a long distance one. The same analogy applies to partners with an abusive tendency. Based on these facts, I therefore stand my ground that cohabitation helps the couple cohabiting to discover much more about their other half and quicker too.

Thanks.
Efe.

TV01: Another thing, regards marriage vows, which simple put are love & cherish, through all situations, for always (although Sisi-Kill seems to think that vows are being kept if they simply stay together?)

In a co-hab arrangement how do the serious things that life can throw at you play out. Say for example, one falls seriously sick with the prognosis uncertain. Marriage vows are clear, you stay and support. What is the likelihood - compared to marriage - that a "co-habee" would stay and support in such a situation?

Even simpler things like long-term job loss. With a contract/agreement in place or even that financial independence due to the lack of commitment, would the feeling of "carrying the other" or contract violation not come into play and generate resentment?

Thanks
TV

Lol....Please explain.

Okay do you mean I think as long as they are together the love and cherish part is being kept? If so then yes...I actually do believe that those two are of the few things that should be a given in a relationship because that's is the foundation for whatever it is they chose to do with themselves - Marriage or co-habitation.

If that isn't there....then I'm at a loss on what they are doing. Why are they still in it?!!

Efemena_xy:
Being in a marital relationship (i.e being married) does not eliminate occurrences of violence / abuse on partners, better termed as domestic abuse. There are quite high figures of this happening even in the western world. Take the UK for example: the following excerpt from the charity organisation CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse) states:

Key statistics on the prevalence of domestic abuse

Current estimates of domestic abuse (DA):

~ In 2010/2011, an average of 2 women a week were killed by a male and/or former partner: this constituted around one-third of all female homicide victims (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2012). This finding is consistent with previous years (Department of Health, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Povey, 2004, 2005).

~ Approximately 100,000 individuals are currently (2011/2012) at high risk of serious harm or murder as a result of DA (CAADA, 2012).
In 2010/2011, domestic violence accounted for 18% of all violent incidents reported in England and Wales (Chaplin, Flatley, & Smith, 2011) .
7% of women and 5% of men reported DA in 2010/ 2011. This is equivalent to approximately 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims of DA (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2011) .

~ In 2010/2011, repeat victimisation accounted for 73% of all incidents of domestic violence, 44 % were victimised more than once and 24% of victims had been victimised three times or more (Chaplin et al., 2011).

~ Approximately 130,000 children are currently (2011/ 2012) living with DA (CAADA, 2012).

http://www.caada.org.uk/policy/statistics.html

Now I think it would be interesting to see your statistical figures that show that the occurence of abuse between co-habs is higher than that for married couples. You also mention that marriage provides a safe environment from abuse for children, while the last point of my excerpt refutes that claim of yours.

Finally, it's much harder to hide a trait from a partner when living together as opposed to living apart - moreso if the relationship is a long distance one. The same analogy applies to partners with an abusive tendency. Based on these facts, I therefore stand my ground that cohabitation helps the couple cohabiting to discover much more about their other half and quicker too.

Thanks.
Efe.

1. I did not claim that abuse does not happen in marriage
2. Domestic abuse clearly covers any type of domestic arrangement and for the UK will probably include SSC as well. Your excerpt shows nothing specific. Domestic does not = marital, it = living together.
3. I showed in yesterdays SF a link showing that women and children are safer in marriage.
4. I did not say that marriage keeps women and children safe. Just that it is safer than any other type of domestic arrangement.
5. Threads on the section show clearly that non-marrieds relationship and especially co-habitees suffer abuse. And studies showing marriage to men is the lowest conflict relationship for women, make it easy to infer that co-habbing is more abusive on the whole. Co-habbing doesn't flush out abuse, it seems to precipitate it's onset.
6. It is also clear from our Family section threads that victims of abuse in co-hab r/ships do not find it any easier to disengage - even without children!

Long excerpt and conclusions that didn't address the questions

TV

^{All, could the unspoken inference be that men simply value live-ins less than wives?}