Talk:Cohabitation

message: This article is incredibly biased and reads like an anti-cohabitation pamphlet. Corrolation is not causation, yet this article constantly hits on how people in sexual relationships who cohabit have a much higher instance of divorce. Yet it doesn't posit any reasons why, except for the cohabitation itself leading to divorce. I can think of one off the top of my head - people who do not live together in a sexual relationship before marrying are far more likely to be of a religious mindset where marriage is sacred and divorce is frowned upon. People who cohabit most likely view marriage as less sacred, therefore divorce is more common. The article doesnt even remotely touch on this. Reading through the comments, I see over 10 years of similar complaints. If no one objects I will be tagging this article biased pov. Also, why is te talk page tagged with this article of importance to "Latter Day Saints"? All the other tags make sense but that one. I'm seeing a potential reason for the biased tone in that tag.
2601:601:D00:C060:3901:F4D2:E5EE:827B (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely not NPOV

message: The section on opposition to cohabitation is biased in that it shows both sides of the argument as completely equal. I think it should be noted that the majority of research findings within the last ten years support the case for a much higher divorce rate among couples who cohabitated prior to marriage. The line "advocates, in turn, cite research that either disproves these claims or indicates that the statistical differences are due to other factors than the fact of cohabitation itself" makes it seem as though even researchers are torn about the issue, when among academia, supporters of cohabitation as a strength to marriage are among the minority.
20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance in studies

message: According to this, the states with laws against cohabitation are: North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota.
This article really needs NPOVing. It once again has been turned into anti-cohabitation propaganda.
:A Craven County Superior Court judge struck down North Carolina's cohabitation statute today (July 20) on the grounds that it violated Lawrence v. Texas.  I haven't seen the opinion as of yet (there may be a standing to sue issue for the plaintiff, so I wouldn't scratch North Carolina off the list yet), and the Attorney General hasn't as of yet decided whether to appeal to the NC Court of Appeals.  Here are articles from the Raleigh News & Observer and AP.  The law in question is N.C. G.S. § 14-184 (this also would also call N.C. G.S. § 14-186 into question, which deals with similar situations in public hotels) –Pakman044 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which states? 

message: According to the article, cohabitation "is defined as an emotional, physical, and intellectually intimate heterosexual relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction." I have removed the word "heterosexual", since cohabitation is not intrinsically heterosexual: Homosexuals and bisexuals can cohabitate as well, provided the relevant laws allow them to do so. The obstruction to cohabitation in cases where that is not allowed is legal/moral/political. It is related to a specific view on social preferences, and not so much to the concept of cohabitation itself. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. I was wondering about that anyways. Matt Yeager 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with definition 

message: I have placed the OR tag on the top of the article because the article consists of a lot of interpretations, assumptions, projections and expectations. This stems from a major overhaul to this article, performed on December 7th, 2005 (). An anonymous user () added an unwikified textdump to the article. Considering the wording, the textdump is most likely a student's essay or thesis. The easiest way out of this is simply removing all that remains of this textdump. There are two reasons why I believe this is not an option. Firstly, it has been tried by User:Acjelen, which was almost immediately reverted by User:Matt Yeager. Reremoving would only lead to a revert war, which is not in wikipedia's interest. Secondly, the references section provides some credible and reliable sources that should not be overlooked and should be incorporated into the article. Using them properly and encyclopedically would imo add to the article. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this information has not been cited or removed in all this time, I am removing it now. --Gmaxwell 06:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research issues 

message: How does cohabitation differ from domestic partnership? Nurg 11:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cohabitation cf domestic partnership

message: There is a major misunderstanding of Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in this piece.  Jesus is cited as meaning the exact opposite of what he means.  The purpose of Jesus' pointing out the Samaritan woman's marital situation(having 5 husbands and now living with another man) is precisely to point out the extremely unacceptable position she is in.  It is a not a offhand comment on his part that shows no sign of disgust or condemnation!  Anyone who knows anything about  Palestinian historiography knows that poligamy and cohabitation were completely unacceptable in Jewish society.  --Geminatea(0:46 EST July 13,2006)
: I think you mean polyandry, not polygamy. thx1138 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samaritan Woman 

message: Among "Several common reasons that lead couples to decide to live together" not wanting to participate in marriage as the institution considered inacceptable (on the grounds of its historical burden of institutional violence over women, for example) or "just" bad and/or not neccessary, is not mentioned. I am aware of the (justified) absence of an ambition to give a complete description of cohabitation (indicated by the word "include"), but i feel this should not be omitted. Pappil 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Description' 

message: From the Description:  "In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than 1,000 percent from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. A 2000 study found that more than half of newlyweds lived together, at least briefly, before walking down the aisle."
A few comments about this:  
1. The 1,000 percent should be removed -- I think a general rule of thumb is that if the percent is more than 100, then you need to reconsider expressing whatever it is as a percent (and for this case in particular, 4.85 million is 11 times as much as 439,000).
 
2. I think the stats are trying to show that there is a wider acceptance of cohabitation in the United States.  However, saying that the raw number of cohabitating couples is 11 times more in 2000 than in 1960 does not necessarily show this.  For instance, if the total US population is 11 times more in 2000 than in 1960, then really the number of cohabitating couples has remained the same.  I'm not in any way suggesting that this is the case, I'm just illustrating that these raw numbers may suggest one conclusion, but the truth may be completely different.
3. These stats should be footnoted so that if anyone wants more detail, they can get it from the source (for instance, one might be curious as to the methodology for collecting and tabulating the data)
4. The stat that begins with "A 2000 study..." needs to be cited.  I am very suspicious of any stat that starts with "A study from the year...", gives an interesting tidbit, and nothing else.
My inclination is to remove the paragraph completely until those issues are worked out. Thejacobian 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics used in 'Description' 

message: I'm not great at wikis, could someone look at this line?
"In Mexico, 18.7% of couples were cohabiting as of 2020"
Year 2020?
--76.232.1.120 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misprint? 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5840263/Couples-who-live-together-before-marriage-more-likely-to-get-divorced.html
See page 393 of Intimate Relationships by Miller & Perlman
Couples who start living together after they become engaged, and who cohabit for a shorter period of time do not divorce more frequently than do those who marry without living together. Stafford et al 2004.
However, Casual cohabitation seems to lead to less respect for the institution of marriage, less favourable expectations and greater willingness to divorce McGinnis 2003.
These are studies vs popular press surveys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.112.22 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk reference 

message: What exactly is meant by "traditionally" in this opposition paragraph?  The whole reason that common-law marriage exists is because so many people, over so many centuries, joined households without going through a specific religious or legal "now we are married" step.  You just moved in, and announced to your friends that you considered yourself (as good as) married now.  If you were poor, your equally poor neighbors weren't going to turn up their noses at you because you couldn't pay the fees for an official marriage license.  
If we're going to keep this language, we need a good historical source for it.  Otherwise, perhaps we could be a little less vague, and name a particular time and place when cohabiting was always considered poor form.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: While the content of the support section as it stands may be factual, it gives undue weight to a minority view.  The father's and men's rights communities are active on the internet and in particular on sites like WP and forums like Reddit and Digg, but as a general cross-section of the population the truth is that most people are relatively unaware of what these communities believe or who they are.  This isn't a criticism of their beliefs, mind -- lots of people with minority viewpoints, particular as concern civil rights and equality, have been vindicated as society becomes more progressive.  The problem rather is that this is the *only* view given in the support section, and in that context it's not notable.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority of people who support cohabitation (and that would be most young people in the developed world these days) do not do so because of concern about men's rights.  So that's the source of the undue complaint.
The other problem is OR.  The section reads like it was written by a member of the men's rights or father's rights groups, who is detailing what he has found anecdotally to be the case in his own community.  This is an example of a primary source, and WP doesn't use primary sources, we catalog secondary sources.  What the editor who wrote this is saying may well be true about his own community, but per WP policy we try instead to quote what other, third parties (such as journalists or whatever) are saying.  This is essentially like a guy writing an article about his own band.Eniagrom (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight and OR in support section 

message: Is there a reason why there is no mention of how cohabitation restrictions were imposed by the US Federal Government on the Utah Territory with the Edmunds Act and later, similar measures were required as conditions for Utah to become a US State? How about how the cohabitation laws were vigorously enforced there to punish Mormons participating in polygamy while the law was not enforced on non-polygamous relationships? How about the currently legal status of Murphy v. Ramsey () in the United States and the likelihood of it currently being considered constitutional if challenged. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism

message: I think the subsections "Negative effects" and "Positive effects" need to be change to state the facts, i.e. "Increases divorce rates", "Decreases divorce rates". With the current headings it's impossible to tell who the effects are positive or negative for. Are they negative for cohabitators or the religious right? Are they positive for young cohabitators, old cohabitators, etc.
Perhaps a section called "Effects of cohabitation" with subsections on "divorce", "children", "money", and the like would serve the article better. Thoughts?  --Scochran4 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative/Positive effects for whom? 

message: This template might be better positioned at the top of the page, so other users are made aware that the article needs work. Then it might be more likely that citations are added. PurpleMousey (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the template would be more appropriate in the area where the sources are needed.  I am removing the template, as the article seems to be tolerably well sourced (not great, but I have seen lots worse).  Of course it can be added back where needed.  Zodon (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional citations template 

message: Deleted. Entire section was cited by an editorial, opinion article on the New York Times. Section included non-objectively nor without sufficient data to conclude that females "think" are the basis of a cohabitation to an implied opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.51.210 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: we don't blank out large sections of sourced text because one editor disagrees. read the WP:NPOV rules closely. it require INCLUSION of "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"  If an editor knows of countervailing evidence then please ADD it so readers can see all sides. Rjensen (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likelihood of Split 

message: Removed this section: the psychpage source is very POV and has no peer reviewed source for the following claims that have been text dumped in:
On the whole, couples who cohabit are more likely to have a poorer financial picture because one partner is less likely to support the other partner financially. Statistically speaking, people who cohabit tend to live a shorter life because their partner are less likely to remind them about doctor's appointments or speak up about unhealthy behaviors or risks. Also unmarried men and women are more likely to commit a crime compared to married men and women. 
(ref) Cohabitating and Domestic Partnership." PsychPage | …perspectives on psychology in daily life. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cohabitation.html
If anyone has verifiable reliable sources for these claims, please add them with correctly cited references. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV psychpage source 

message: A lot of this page has inaccurate, POV, out of date figures, and conjecture and speculation from columns and opinion articles, lacking good sources. I've edited some sections to remove POV text and replace it with discussion of modern peer-reviewed research findings, more should be integrated from good quality sources such as these:
*http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html
*http://www.unmarried.org/briefingkit.html
*http://www.unmarried.org/experts.html
-- Aronzak (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better quality unbiased sources 

message: This seems very POV, bordering on offensive. the cite:
Murrow, Carrie; Lin Shi (2010). "The Influence of Cohabitation Purposes on Relationship Quality: An Examination in Dimensions". The American Journal of Family Therapy 38: 397–412. doi:10.1080/01/01926187.2010.513916.
Gives a bad DOI link and I think it should be removed as a source. If someone can find a link to the article with a working DOI they can add it back in later.
Cohabitation can be an alternative to marriage in situations where marriage is not able to happen for financial or other reasons, such as  same-sex, some interracial or interreligious marriages. Other reasons might include cohabitation as a way for polygamists or polyamorists to avoid breaking the law, a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some two-income married couples (in the United States), negative effects on pension payments (among older people), or seeing no need to marry. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV sections 

message: The two statement under the "Reasons for Cohabitation" section contradict each other: "More than two-thirds of married couples in the US say that they lived together before getting married" and this sentence a few paragraphs down: "Today sixty percent of all marriages are preceded by a period of cohabitation"Reza789 (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in Statements

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cohabitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.aidsportal.org/news_details.aspx?ID=4236
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801084310/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cohabitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLIII/457/457-39.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216175439/http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000405.htm to http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_01_000405.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121175822/http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632 to http://www.eyeontheun.org/voices.asp?p=632
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210230745/http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court?_s=PM%3ALAW to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-25/justice/grossman.oldlaws_1_criminal-ban-fornication-virginia-court?_s=PM%3ALAW
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091547/http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa_46_Castro%20Mart%C3%ADn%20et%20al.pdf to http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa_46_Castro%20Mart%C3%ADn%20et%20al.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cohabitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617080614/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/births-marriages-deaths-quarterly/ve-2012-q4-tableq1.pdf to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/births-marriages-deaths-quarterly/ve-2012-q4-tableq1.pdf
*Added  tag to http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp?lang=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: North American and European countries on the other hand, are expressly enumerated and have better coverage. I would like to make the Asian section similar in that regard. I can expand the part on the Philippines, as I am most familiar with that country and its laws. I encourage others to do the same with other Asian countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverarvi (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Asia reduced to a handful of bulletpoints? 

message: Programs like TANF, SNAP, and Section 8 provide a financial disincentive to marriage.  Why would this not be mentioned? Patrickferguson (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Disincentive 

message: There needs to be more facts carrying this article. It seems to be lacking information, only noting the negative factors of cohabitation. There seems to be a lot of one-sided 'facts'. For example, children are more negatively affected with cohabitating parents than a single parent. There could be a lot of other factors mentioned. The same can be said for why cohabitation leads to higher divorce.Tmjimenez (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbiased Sections 

message: — Assignment last updated by Emmalou72 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023