Originally Posted by NLBwell
Yes, the studies have shown that living together is far less stable and not nearly as good for children as marriages.
Of course there are many exceptions, just as there are many exceptions to children of single parents not doing as well. Overall, however, the chances of the children of couples living together of being happy and successful is significantly lower than the children of married couples.
It is around 50% for all marriages and around 33% for first marriages. So something like 2/3 of people are successful at marriage. People who aren't successful at first marriages tend not to be so successful at second (and third, and 4th) marriages.
Yep, I'm aware of the studies. It's been a while since I've delved into this subject in depth. Are there recent studies that remove more of the variables in regards to using the definition of living together as being viable for commitment? Isn't that what marriage is about, making that lifelong commitment to each other? I wouldn't say that moving in with someone and in many cases having a child with someone ends up being a decision made with that same intent.
I'd be more interested in seeing studies comparing married couples to non married couples that have fully expressed their lifelong commitment towards one another.
Now, before assuming that I'm saying marriage isn't the way to go. Consider that I've been happily married for a decade, my parents for 37yrs, my grandparents at 66 and 69 respectively.
I'm more interested in seeing if married couples are more stable compared to a 'living together' couple due to the positive effects of declaring a life long vow or if it is simply the fear of negative ramifications that keep more married couples in place. I was curious how TMF defined marriage. Is it the ceremony, the vows, the legal obligation? Can one be removed and not the other? If you only study compared to non-legally obligated couples who have had their own wedding, does the comparison from married to non-married change?