See other Health Articles
Title: Study finds few well-being advantages to marriage over cohabitation
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01 ... ges-marriage-cohabitation.html
Published: Jan 24, 2012
Author: ,
Post Date: 2012-01-24 06:18:26 by PSUSA2
Keywords: None
Views: 258
Comments: 25
January 18, 2012 A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. "Marriage has long been an important social institution, but in recent decades western societies have experienced increases in cohabitation, before or instead of marriage, and increases in children born outside of marriage," said Dr Kelly Musick, Associate Professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University's College of Human Ecology. "These changes have blurred the boundaries of marriage, leading to questions about what difference marriage makes in comparison to alternatives." Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time. This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. Dr Musick drew a study sample from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of 6 years. The study focused on key areas of well-being, considering questions on happiness, levels of depression, health, and social ties. The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived. Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time. "We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth" said Musick. "Compared to most industrial countries America continues to value marriage above other family forms," concluded Musick. "However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits." Provided by Wiley (news : web)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
-------------------------------------------------------- Marriage is Dead, Dead, Dead, and the wimmins killed it. Marriage is nothing short of a pre-arranged theft of property, and constitutional rights, nothing more.
When women can earn as much as men, they have no reason to marry.
Don't ya' mean when men are discriminated against with the assistance of white knighting thugs in government to give wimmin unfair advantage, the wimmin get the jobs and the education, and don't need a man or marriage, cuz they got "The Man".
i dont know why married people would be more healthy or happy, unless the perason was unhappy being alone. That may be the norm, but by all means not always the case. Many people enjoy the serenity & peace & quiet, free from obligations.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
Yep. My relatives know better than to ask why I'm not married. If someone were to ask, while they are around, They will kind of cringe and I can see it in their eyes "god damn it don't get him started!". There's nothing wrong with entering into and then honoring obligations, if they are beneficial to both parties. But IMO marriage does not benefit both parties. -------------------------------------------------------- If I was to go to my HS reunion this year, if I gave a damn, which I dont, then I know what I'd find. I'd find a bunch of fat used-up women that were hot back in HS. I'd find some fat wrinkled up stressed out men that fell for the marriage trap and have basically had their lives ruined by it. Both men and women will look 10-20 years older than they should look. Too depressing to contemplate. -------------------------------------------------------- My take on this article is simply that the purpose of marriage is for the sake of property and inheritance rights with respect to the children. In the old days, the only people who could afford to marry were those who owned property and the exclusively very wealthy. It was never meant for the poverty- stricken people. Marriage was an institution reserved for people with money so that they could leave their money and inheritance to their children. Now marriage today has been de-valued by the notion of co-habitation being better for both people. What it really does is de-value the relationship and it is the children who pay dearly for it. In short, don't start a family if you cannot afford to and don't marry a man who will just use you and then dump you without any honorable commitments. And yes, the true purpose of women's liberation movement was to destroy the institution of marriage and family and discourage people from pro-creating! and it sure as hell is working. Talk about population control.
Unmarried women blame all their problems on men. "Men are the cause of all the problems in the world" because I'm not married and don't have a home, husband and children. This article is B.S. Serial killer psychopaths ruin families. Corporate psychopaths ruin societies -- Prof. Robert Hare
That is the states function. But marriage is a fusion of church and state, institutions that I don't give a tinkers damn about. And yes, the true purpose of women's liberation movement was to destroy the institution of marriage and family and discourage people from pro-creating! No, their purpose was to destroy men. They hate men, probably because no man would want them. They will ruin what they can't have for themselves. They are some real vindictive parodies of women. There is nothing wrong with marriage itself, but there is no level playing field. Even things up and most of the problems would fix themselves. As things stand now, a man would have to be a complete idiot to get married. And it looks like some of the old, usual excuses for getting married are being corrected, as this article shows. -------------------------------------------------------- Translation: "You don't approve of me screwing the neighbor?? It's not like we're married...."
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#2. To: PSUSA2 (#0)
#3. To: Lysander_Spooner (#2)
Marriage is Dead, Dead, Dead, and the wimmins killed it.
#4. To: Ada (#3)
#5. To: PSUSA2 (#0)
#6. To: Artisan (#5)
Many people enjoy the serenity & peace & quiet, free from obligations.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#7. To: Lysander_Spooner (#2)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#8. To: PSUSA2 (#0)
#9. To: Ada (#3)
When women can earn as much as men, they have no reason to marry.
#10. To: purplerose (#8)
My take on this article is simply that the purpose of marriage is for the sake of property and inheritance rights with respect to the children.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#11. To: PSUSA2 (#0)
For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth
-Alex Kurtagic
#12. To: X-15 (#11)
Marriage doesn't stop cheating. But what starts cheating? Translation: "You don't approve of me screwing the neighbor?? It's not like we're married...."
--------------------------------------------------------
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#13. To: PSUSA2 (#12)
Marriage is one of several social/religious firewalls against cheating. Unless you're Newt Gingrich.
-Alex Kurtagic
#14. To: X-15 (#13)
I'm not exactly what anyone would call a newt fan, but at least he asked his wife if she would agree, right? Open marriages are not new. And, it goes both ways. She could take another man. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just hypocritical if they profess christianity. But for the non-hypocrites, tt's up to them what they do. It's no one elses business, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------------
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#15. To: PSUSA2 (#10)
No, the true purpose of the women's liberation movement was instigated by the Rockefeller Institute for the purpose of: (1) getting women out into the workforce so that they can be also taxed as the men in the workforce (2) to discourage women and men from marrying and pro-creating so that there would be no competition against the elite families (exclusively wealthy class of people). The whole idea of the women's liberation movement was to create a class warfare system to bring about socialism and social welfare as the means to separate the women from the men. The elite do no use social welfare as the means to support their families, which includes social security, etc. Women's liberation movement and the welfare state was created to keep the lower class down and to discourage the low class from pro-creating and being self-sufficient so that they too could live like the upper class system. There is way much more to this than women hating men as you have been led to believe. That is what your history books and liberal teachers have programmed you to believe. But the truth is that women's liberation movement was really about social class struggle. What most people do not realize is that women in the older times had power and property as the men. But does your history or women's studies professor want you to know that? Of course not! No, their purpose was to destroy men. They hate men, probably because no man would want them. They will ruin what they can't have for themselves. They are some real vindictive parodies of women.
#16. To: purplerose (#15)
I agree with that. But, without that hate to feed on, feminism would have died in the cradle, if not in the womb. It's certainly not going to feed on "the elites want us to do do X, so lets do X". What they did was take the natural inborn differences of men and women, and twisted them into some kind of grand conspiracy against women. Well, women (generally speaking) bought into that conspiracy argument. Why did they buy into that? That is an individual decision, not a group decision. Without that hate, silly arguments like "all sex is rape" would not have gained traction. Also, I think one of the reasons for this hate is that being around "men", that are 'white knights' and other wusses, will not put women in a good mood, and will lead to general contempt for men. So part of this is mens fault, for buying into this feminism crap too, thinking that is what real and feminine women want. "Men" do this with ulterior motives, thinking it will get them laid. Then they wonder why it doesn't work like they think it should. But these "men" don't learn and they keep doing it. Seeing this happen makes me cringe. Sometimes I want to grab them by the neck and beat some sense into them.
--------------------------------------------------------
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#17. To: PSUSA2 (#16)
Excellent points well heard here! Especially on the part where the "men" buy into the women's movement.
#18. To: Lysander_Spooner (#4)
For whatever reason if they don't have to marry, they think twice about it. Don't ya' mean when men are discriminated against with the assistance of white knighting thugs in government to give wimmin unfair advantage, the wimmin get the jobs and the education, and don't need a man or marriage, cuz they got "The Man".
#19. To: purplerose (#8)
...in the old days the state was not a party to the marriage commitment...it was between a man, a woman and GOD...the ceremony was overseen by a pastor and family or witnesses. We STILL have common law marriages in the Commonwealth of Virginia...and they are recognized as legitimate. It was not until after the war of Northern aggression, when inter-racial marriage was illegal, did the state get involved...you had to go to the state and get permission, or a license, to marry a person of another race. Our forefathers would have been appalled at having to go to the government to get permission (a license) to marry. The state has NO business in the business of marriage... In the old days,
#20. To: PSUSA2 (#7)
I just had to post this!
#21. To: Freedomsnotfree (#19)
hear hear!!
#22. To: christine (#20)
I miss him and George. They don't make them like that anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#23. To: Freedomsnotfree (#19)
I definitely agree that the state should not be involved with the issue of marriage. But then, how was property and inheritance protected?
#24. To: Ada (#18)
More men are thinking twice about it, and many like me reject the 'institution' outright. if they don't have to marry, they think twice about it.
#25. To: purplerose (#23)
Wills
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest