What are your views on cohabitating?

Jolie77

Jolie77

New Member
Premium Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
8,727
Reaction score
9
I am pretty sure this issue has been discussed somewhere on AllDeaf but it doesn't hurt to bring this one up again and perhaps bring into a fresh perspective on this issue.

Now, In this era, a lot of people are cohabiting more than in any of these past decades. According to this article, it is said that cohabitation does not actually make the grounds for a divorce.

Some might argue that it is best not to cohabit due to their moral values or whatever it is but others might argue that cohabitation actually reduces the tensions of being able to live together.

What's your give on this?

Discuss! :)
 
fine by me. this is probably a good idea in a complex, modern society like USA. It does reduce tension, frustration and improve the future relationship.
 
Some older widowed couples who find new mates cohabit so their social security benefit does not decrease as it would if they married.
 
I agree with the other posters that cohabitation is on the rise for financial reasons. In addition, I think the attitude toward living together has changed a great deal. People no longer feel the need to have their relationship sanctioned by a legal or religious ceremony, and are accepting that a relationship that is successful and that both parties are satisfied with is fine just as it is. A piece of paper does not serve to make a relationship better or worse.

With so many women entering the workforce at the professional level, they no longer need to have legal recourse through marraige for financial support. There was a time in our history, when the majority of women did not work outside the home, that a legal marraige was necessary to guarantee that, if something happened to her spouse, she would be able to retain the marital property such as house, cars, etc, and to receive Survivor's Benefits or retirement funds that her husband had worked for. This is no longer the case. Women are not as dependent upon men for financial support as they were in the past. I think that has gone a long ways in changing societal attitudes toward marriage. Additionally, with the change in need for financial support, we have seen a relaxing in the attitudes towards having children outside of marraige.

Likewise, attitudes toward cohabitation have become more tolerant as society in general has grown more accepting of same sex relationships.
 
I don't know if I could morally do that. That is very interesting subject though. I honestly not think about it much, I don't really know what material advantages, but like I say, I won't go there if it doesn't feel morally right to me.
 
I am cool with it. I would do it. No biggie to me.
 
jillio said:
I agree with the other posters that cohabitation is on the rise for financial reasons. In addition, I think the attitude toward living together has changed a great deal. People no longer feel the need to have their relationship sanctioned by a legal or religious ceremony, and are accepting that a relationship that is successful and that both parties are satisfied with is fine just as it is. A piece of paper does not serve to make a relationship better or worse.

With so many women entering the workforce at the professional level, they no longer need to have legal recourse through marraige for financial support. There was a time in our history, when the majority of women did not work outside the home, that a legal marraige was necessary to guarantee that, if something happened to her spouse, she would be able to retain the marital property such as house, cars, etc, and to receive Survivor's Benefits or retirement funds that her husband had worked for. This is no longer the case. Women are not as dependent upon men for financial support as they were in the past. I think that has gone a long ways in changing societal attitudes toward marriage. Additionally, with the change in need for financial support, we have seen a relaxing in the attitudes towards having children outside of marraige.

Likewise, attitudes toward cohabitation have become more tolerant as society in general has grown more accepting of same sex relationships.
Click to expand...

Well Said! :)

Also, in addition, cohabitation is another way of learning each other's quirks, tendency, likes, dislikes and all that. Sure, they may be able to learn about this before they live together but it is not shown it's "true" colors until after they move in together.

I've done cohabitation and well, needless to say, my parents didn't like the idea of me doing it but they couldn't say anything about it because they did it theirselves as well. You're right, finances is one of the main reason for cohabitation but on the other hand, cohabitation should be left between the couple rather than anyone else meddling into their business. If I were to do cohabitation again, I would because like you said, it is becoming accepted in the society.
 
mmmm i am not sure what is cohabitation....... i am confused... opps help me! i am drowning! lol just kidding.. but tell me.. mmmm
 
HorseRace said:
mmmm i am not sure what is cohabitation....... i am confused... opps help me! i am drowning! lol just kidding.. but tell me.. mmmm
Click to expand...

Cohabitation means a couple who lives together before they are married. Some couple would rather live together for as long as they live w/o getting married.
 
I'd come across an article (or speech) that'd explained that cohabitation before marriage did not necessarily lead to higher divorce rates. Apparently, the survey that was done at the time (decades ago) did not cover a broad range of circumstances with a pre-set moral focus. A modern survey uncovered that cohabitation before marriage was found to lead to longer and successful marriages.

Of course, you tweak a survey in any way, you get the answer you want and, of course, I can't link the information to this posting. Anybody come across this new survey, too?
 
jillio said:
I agree with the other posters that cohabitation is on the rise for financial reasons. In addition, I think the attitude toward living together has changed a great deal. People no longer feel the need to have their relationship sanctioned by a legal or religious ceremony, and are accepting that a relationship that is successful and that both parties are satisfied with is fine just as it is. A piece of paper does not serve to make a relationship better or worse.

With so many women entering the workforce at the professional level, they no longer need to have legal recourse through marraige for financial support. There was a time in our history, when the majority of women did not work outside the home, that a legal marraige was necessary to guarantee that, if something happened to her spouse, she would be able to retain the marital property such as house, cars, etc, and to receive Survivor's Benefits or retirement funds that her husband had worked for. This is no longer the case. Women are not as dependent upon men for financial support as they were in the past. I think that has gone a long ways in changing societal attitudes toward marriage. Additionally, with the change in need for financial support, we have seen a relaxing in the attitudes towards having children outside of marraige.

Likewise, attitudes toward cohabitation have become more tolerant as society in general has grown more accepting of same sex relationships.
Click to expand...

A question.... if one is in a hospital in serious condition, who get to make decisions? Does the hospital still require that it must be a wife/husband and not a common law wife/husband? Ditto for the funeral.
 
I'll tell you this, I have cohabitated in 3 relationships thus far, definitely beats messy divorces and allows for a clean break if necessary! I'm currently on my third relationship as we are testing the water, and its been smooth sailing so far, with of course the occasional storm (what relationship is really true bliss?). But true, although usually for financial reasons (Damn Bush Administration Economic Policies), there's also a price to be paid as to how far you've crossed your perceived morals.

--First, it is cheaper for two to live together. However, whatever monetary or other savings are realized from making the choice to living together is also the price at which one will compromise, lose or sell out one's moral standards, virginity, and purity.

--Second, economical advantages don't in themselves determine whether something is morally right or wrong.

--Third, the majority of cohabitants do eventually break up and economics are obviously not an overwhelming impediment then, so why allow it to become a controlling factor from the start. The moral questions ought to be, "What is my virginity worth" and "Will I save myself for my lifelong spouse?"

It's kind of like giving someone a million dollars and later finding out you gave it to the wrong person, but now she's gone and so is your money. Gone for good. You don't have it anymore. And the person who should have had it will now never get it. So it boils down to if you follow what society expects of you - or not. So many have chosen a lifestyle by their instincts, rather than upholding morals today.
 
Buffalo said:
A question.... if one is in a hospital in serious condition, who get to make decisions? Does the hospital still require that it must be a wife/husband and not a common law wife/husband? Ditto for the funeral.
Click to expand...

If you want your unmarried partner to be able to make end of life decisions or medical decisions for you, you need to execute a power of attorney that gives them the right to do that. Also, a living will spelling out your wishes is helpful, too.

Decisions such as these when the person is considered unable to make their own decisions legally fall to the next of kin. That can be overridden by a medical power of attorney.

For instance, when my brother died, he was married, but for several reasons, did not want his wife making medical decisions for him. I had the medical power of attorney to make those decisions.
 
I don't believe in shacking up or having kids when the parents aren't married to each other. Unfortunately, the children are bastards, since the parents are gutless to marry, hence they're called shackrats. Unfortunately, women are applauded for having children out of wedlock and no (biological) father is around.

Sure glad that at my age, I am still a virgin and waiting for the right woman. If she doesn't come along, as a Christian, then I accept that it's not God's will for me to marry or have children.
 
shel90 said:
I am cool with it. I would do it. No biggie to me.
Click to expand...


Ditto. 11 years now.....no rush. Even our families are fine with it. The children are our wedding rings.....:aw:

Regarding power of atty, my ex had it for a few days when he had to deal with the car insurance when I was laid up in the hosptial after a near fatal accident. If I was unable to sign that, Mom would have been in town pronto.
 
pek1 said:
I don't believe in shacking up or having kids when the parents aren't married to each other. Unfortunately, the children are bastards, since the parents are gutless to marry, hence they're called shackrats. Unfortunately, women are applauded for having children out of wedlock and no (biological) father is around.

Sure glad that at my age, I am still a virgin and waiting for the right woman. If she doesn't come along, as a Christian, then I accept that it's not God's will for me to marry or have children.
Click to expand...

Women are applauded for taking up their responsibility for raising their kids when the father is around. It is hard on them and they deserve the applause.

I have never heard of women getting applause for getting pregnant when not married..just for making a lot of sacrifices to give their kids a good life. :dunno:
 
pek1 said:
I don't believe in shacking up or having kids when the parents aren't married to each other. Unfortunately, the children are bastards, since the parents are gutless to marry, hence they're called shackrats. Unfortunately, women are applauded for having children out of wedlock and no (biological) father is around.

Sure glad that at my age, I am still a virgin and waiting for the right woman. If she doesn't come along, as a Christian, then I accept that it's not God's will for me to marry or have children.
Click to expand...

By calling children who are conceived out of wedlock as "bastards", you've clearly shown your ignorance.

Yet more proof that religions are full of hypocrites and people who judge.

Co-habitation is not a big deal in our society. It helps couples to gauge whether or not they are truly interested in staying together. There's less risk in it because you could be dating someone and living separately. If you decide to marry that person, there's more risk that you'll find things that you don't like about them because you've never actually lived with them.

And again, people who call children born out of wedlock "bastards", are bastards themselves.

Keep "saving yourself for the right person" because I doubt anyone's going to come along.
 
Back
Top