DrugsJoin now to read essay DrugsIntroductionA major social trend of the last three decades is the decline in marriage and the rise in cohabitation. Over the last twenty years, the number of marriages has fallen considerably, while there has been a growth in the number of couples living together without marrying. In 1993 the number of marriages in the UK fell to its lowest level for 50 years and one in five unmarried men and women were cohabiting. The stigma attached to cohabiting in the 1990s is far less than it was two or three decades ago.
Consequently, many couples are content to live together. Some regard their relationship as a ātrial marriageā, while others reject the institution of marriage and never plan to marry. Cohabitation has become socially acceptable although it is contrary to the most fundamental teachings of the Christian faith. This acceptance by society is, perhaps, best shown by the way language has changed – the term āpartnerā is now in common usage. Contemporary society seldom distinguishes between cohabiting partners and married couples.
Trends in cohabitationPremarital cohabitationThe trend in premarital cohabitation shows that in the mid-1960s around 5% of single women lived with their future husband before marriage. By the 1990s about 70% were cohabiting prior to marriage. In the case of women marrying a second time in the 1990s, about 90% will cohabit before their second marriage.
Prevalence of cohabitationPrevalence refers to the proportion of people in society cohabiting at a particular point in time. The proportion of single women cohabiting in 1979 was 7.5%, and this had more than trebled to 23% by 1993. Divorced men have the highest rates of cohabitation – in 1993 over 40% were in such a relationship. Taking all unmarried people together, over one in five were cohabiting in 1993 compared to one in seven in the mid-1980s.
The duration of cohabitationThe General Household Survey provides information on the length of cohabitation. Of course, the durations measured in this way are incomplete, for it is not known at the time of interview how long each current spell of cohabitation will last. Nevertheless, the calculated durations do give an indication of trends. At the time they were interviewed, 34% of cohabiting single women had been in their relationship for less than 18 months. The average length of cohabitation for single women increased from 19 months in 1986 to 29 months in 1993.
Debate in the Church of EnglandThe rise in the prevalence of cohabitation has led to a major debate in the Church of England and a report commissioned by the Synod entitled Something to Celebrate gives guarded approval to cohabitation. According to the report, some cohabiting relationships are marriages in all but name and so the label āliving in sinā is no longer appropriate. The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, expressed disappointment that the report did not maintain a clear focus on the biblical ideals embodied in family life and society. The Archbishop stated, āthe wisdom and truth of the Christian tradition (is) that a married man and woman and their children should be the basic building block of family life. Cohabitation is not, and cannot be, marriage in all but name Those who choose to cohabit on the grounds that their relationship is a private matter and nothing to do with the wider society are, frankly, deluding themselves. Marriage, not cohabitation, is the institution
The Archbishop of Canterbury stated, in his report, a husband and wife are not married in name and marriage is not as an institution. If, for example, you cohabit with a couple who cannot get a divorce, then you are not married in their name.
However, your life does not end when you are married in a particular way. You are free to continue cohabiting without needing to provide family support, or at least in some degree to. This free choice makes a meaningful marriage so strong and meaningful that it makes men and women realize they have value, rather than value alone and you.
The Pope has indicated he would like to take a closer look at the issue of marriage in his own papacy and in a particular section of his encyclical (Clement de Paul) on the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters of the Church, which he wrote earlier this year. Cardinal George Pell added:
“In my view, while marriage in particular is not an institution, cohabitings are. To choose to cohabit is, in my view, the very definition of marriage. It’s very important to distinguish between one who is a “marriage partner” and one who is an “employee/employee’ in one circumstance where there is social class or gender. By the same token, both should be seen as such in their interactions with a host of important people, not mere ‘marriage partners.’ ”
This is why Cardinal Pell and other clerics have urged the European Council for Human Rights to call upon Member States to consider a “legislation” which it has referred to as the European Council on the Family. The Council considers the Council’s proposals on the family to be “fair, objective and binding on the Commission.”
The Pope has also urged his Christian ministers to consider the issue of cohabitation for its purpose in his encyclical (Clement de Paul):
“I do hope that in the future you will adopt the necessary proposals to put a stop to the coercive practice of cohabitation and to remove an unnecessary stigma to Christian institutions. Although there may appear to be conflicting views on the issue, there are no serious problems that need to be considered. The proposal of the European Council on the Family is an important one and can be taken to bring about change.”
What do you think? Did Benedict or his predecessors actually talk about it? Leave your comments below.
The Archbishop of Canterbury stated, in his report, a husband and wife are not married in name and marriage is not as an institution. If, for example, you cohabit with a couple who cannot get a divorce, then you are not married in their name.
However, your life does not end when you are married in a particular way. You are free to continue cohabiting without needing to provide family support, or at least in some degree to. This free choice makes a meaningful marriage so strong and meaningful that it makes men and women realize they have value, rather than value alone and you.
The Pope has indicated he would like to take a closer look at the issue of marriage in his own papacy and in a particular section of his encyclical (Clement de Paul) on the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters of the Church, which he wrote earlier this year. Cardinal George Pell added:
“In my view, while marriage in particular is not an institution, cohabitings are. To choose to cohabit is, in my view, the very definition of marriage. It’s very important to distinguish between one who is a “marriage partner” and one who is an “employee/employee’ in one circumstance where there is social class or gender. By the same token, both should be seen as such in their interactions with a host of important people, not mere ‘marriage partners.’ ”
This is why Cardinal Pell and other clerics have urged the European Council for Human Rights to call upon Member States to consider a “legislation” which it has referred to as the European Council on the Family. The Council considers the Council’s proposals on the family to be “fair, objective and binding on the Commission.”
The Pope has also urged his Christian ministers to consider the issue of cohabitation for its purpose in his encyclical (Clement de Paul):
“I do hope that in the future you will adopt the necessary proposals to put a stop to the coercive practice of cohabitation and to remove an unnecessary stigma to Christian institutions. Although there may appear to be conflicting views on the issue, there are no serious problems that need to be considered. The proposal of the European Council on the Family is an important one and can be taken to bring about change.”
What do you think? Did Benedict or his predecessors actually talk about it? Leave your comments below.
The Archbishop of Canterbury stated, in his report, a husband and wife are not married in name and marriage is not as an institution. If, for example, you cohabit with a couple who cannot get a divorce, then you are not married in their name.
However, your life does not end when you are married in a particular way. You are free to continue cohabiting without needing to provide family support, or at least in some degree to. This free choice makes a meaningful marriage so strong and meaningful that it makes men and women realize they have value, rather than value alone and you.
The Pope has indicated he would like to take a closer look at the issue of marriage in his own papacy and in a particular section of his encyclical (Clement de Paul) on the Marriage of Brothers and Sisters of the Church, which he wrote earlier this year. Cardinal George Pell added:
“In my view, while marriage in particular is not an institution, cohabitings are. To choose to cohabit is, in my view, the very definition of marriage. It’s very important to distinguish between one who is a “marriage partner” and one who is an “employee/employee’ in one circumstance where there is social class or gender. By the same token, both should be seen as such in their interactions with a host of important people, not mere ‘marriage partners.’ ”
This is why Cardinal Pell and other clerics have urged the European Council for Human Rights to call upon Member States to consider a “legislation” which it has referred to as the European Council on the Family. The Council considers the Council’s proposals on the family to be “fair, objective and binding on the Commission.”
The Pope has also urged his Christian ministers to consider the issue of cohabitation for its purpose in his encyclical (Clement de Paul):
“I do hope that in the future you will adopt the necessary proposals to put a stop to the coercive practice of cohabitation and to remove an unnecessary stigma to Christian institutions. Although there may appear to be conflicting views on the issue, there are no serious problems that need to be considered. The proposal of the European Council on the Family is an important one and can be taken to bring about change.”
What do you think? Did Benedict or his predecessors actually talk about it? Leave your comments below.