Finding
Legitimacy in an Immoral World
‘Marriage should be
honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the
adulterer and all the sexually immoral.’ --Hebrews 13:4
DE FACTO: Existence without
legal or ecclesiastical recognition or sanction.
DE JURE: Existence by right
according to law.
Last
month we looked at the ever-rising phenomena of de facto relationships, also
known as cohabitation. We will explore this topic some more.
Just because something is
commonplace and permitted by society does not make it healthy and right. After
all, cigarette smoking is legal but it can cost your thousands of dollars a
year and have a detrimental effect on your health. Gambling also is legal and
look at the trail of trouble and sorrow it leaves.
Some claim that a de facto
relationship helps prepare a couple for marriage and prevents divorce. Does it?
Research suggests otherwise: couples that live in a de facto relationship
before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples that wait until
marriage. One statistic said that of couples who were married twenty years or
more, 56% of those who lived as a de facto couple before marriage ended up in
divorce, while 29% of those who never cohabited before marriage ended up in
divorce. According to the Jubilee Report on cohabitation: ‘The idea that
first cohabitations that lead to marriage do not result in an increased rate of
divorce is not reflected by this data set: prior cohabitation with a spouse
is associated with 60 per cent higher risk of divorce (emphasis mine).
Another
study concluded that 75% of married couples were still together when their
child turned 16; only 7% of de facto couples can make the same claim. That’s a
ten-fold increased for the married couples. In Britain, the direct annual cost
of family breakdown is GBP 41.7 billion. The Daily Mail Online, ‘Married
Parents Ten Times More Likely to Stay Together,’ Sarah Harris (February
2010).[ii]
Why Are Those Who Live Together
Before Marriage More Likely to Divorce?
Why is this the case? Why do
couples who live in a de facto relationship have a greater chance of divorce?
It is like the analogy of a building during an earthquake. If the building has
deep, strong foundations, then it will withstand the tremors. However, if the
building has weak foundations, the first shake will bring it down. Life-long
relationships have good foundations: Godly commitment, mutual love and respect,
morality and strength. These things will help the relationship weather any
storm. Unfortunately, the de facto relationship does not have these things and
so even when one eventually marries, due to the poor moral and commitment
foundations, it will be vulnerable to collapse, even with the slightest of
shaking.
Others say that single
parents enter into a de facto partnership so that the children can have a
father figure in the home. While it is indeed possible for non-biological
fathers to show love and kindness to (step) children, there is an alarming
trend of the adverse effects de facto relationships have on youngsters.
In his article, "De
Facto Danger" (Melbourne Herald Sun, April 6, 1998, page 19), Paul
Gray says "Our ongoing willingness to pretend that de facto fathering is
just as good as traditional fathering (the biological father living in a stable
relationship with the mother) is having horrific consequences." Gray quotes former human rights commissioner
Brian Burdekin as saying de facto living arrangements have increased the child
sex abuse rate by 600 per cent. A NSW Child Protection Council reports says
suspected killers in de facto relationships was 6 1/2 times higher than in the
population at large. The sad and sensational cases of Jesse Winning (14 months)
and Daniel Valerio (age 2), who were murdered by their mother's de facto
partners, only highlights this alarming trend. ‘Traditional fathering, within
the stable, two-parent family, is clearly the best way to protect and raise
children. For that, the evidence is overwhelming,’ remarks Gray.
If the person is uncommitted
to their de facto partner, why would they be caring and committed to the
children of that partner?
Above all, there is a far
more serious implication about de facto relationships that have a long-term
effect. Any sexual activity within these relationships clearly falls into the
category of fornication and/or adultery. Apart from the temporal disadvantages
of these acts, like venereal disease and unwanted pregnancies, are the eternal
consequences. On this matter, God's Word is very clear. Hebrews 13:4 affirms
this. Read also Ephesians 5:3-5; I Timothy 1:9-10; Revelation 21:8; 22:15. The
implications couldn’t be plainer
Study after study confirms
the following conclusions:
1.
De
facto or cohabitation relations lead to a markedly increased risk of divorce
compared to those who have never married.
2.
De
facto increases the risk of domestic violence against women and men, and also
violence against children;
3.
Lower
levels of happiness and satisfaction;
4.
De
facto relations have serious spiritual consequences.
Having observed the world for
all these years, it is impossible to ascribe any benefits whatsoever to
cohabitation. Consider the bedrock motivation behind many de facto
relationships: a lack of making a genuine, long-term commitment; fear of
failure; wanting to reap the benefits and pleasures without taking the
responsibilities and commitment those benefits require; exhibiting and
enhancing weak character. Of course, these attitudes of de facto-ism are not
just in relationships; they can also occur in business, politics, the church,
and more.
To be continued
FACTS
ABOUT COHABITATION[i]
•
Over half of all first
marriages are proceeded by cohabitation (University of Wisconsin document)
•
Cohabitation doesn't reduce the
likelihood of divorce--in fact it leads to a higher divorce risk. One study
showed 46% higher risk (1992 Journal of Marriage and Family).
•
No positive contribution of
cohabitation to marriage has ever been found, not even sexual compatibility, as
usually suggest (1993 Journal of Marriage and Family)
•
Cohabitants tend not be as
committed as married couples, or prepared to work on their differences (1995
Journal of Family issues)
•
Particularly problematic is the
area of serial cohabitation. It generates a greater willingness to dissolve
later relationships. (1993 Journal of Family Issues)
•
About 60% of cohabitation ends
in marriage (1989 National Study of Cohabitation
•
In general, cohabiting
relationships tend to be less satisfactory than marriage relationship-s, with
cohabiting couples reporting lower levels of happiness, sexual exclusivity and
sexual satisfaction, as well as poorer relationships with parents (Bumpass,
Sweet & Cherlin's 1991 study)
•
After five years, only 10% of
cohabiting couples are together. They do not tend to permanency (Bumpass &
Sweet's 1989 study)
•
Married couples have substantial
benefits over the unmarried in terms of labour force productivity, physical and
mental health, general happiness and longevity (1994 American Journal of
Sociology)
•
Annual rates of depression
among cohabiting couples is more than three times the married rate. (1990
Psychiatric Disorders in America)
•
Physical and sexual abuse of a
spouse is much higher. One study showed evidence of being twice as high (1991
Journal of marriage and family)
•
Abuse is 20 times higher for
children with cohabiting, but biological parents, but 33 times greater if the
parent was cohabiting with a non-parenting male partner (1993 Family Education
trust: London).
•
The 1996 poverty rate was 6%
with married parents, but 31 % with cohabiting parents (1996 Journal of Marriage
and the Family).
--taken from Leadership NOW! January 2000, page 12.
Comments
Post a Comment