Impact of Cohabitation on Marriage in Australian Society - Literature review Example

The Impact of Cohabitation in Australian Society Name Institution Professor Course Date Introduction Even though marriages start with cohabitation, cohabitation has become widespread. In the contemporary world, cohabitation is less linked to marriage. The rate of cohabitations resulting in marriage has declined not only in Australia, but also around the world. Notably, non-marital cohabitation has become a common portion of the life course among the young people. Attitudes against cohabitation have given way to its approval especially among the young people in Australia. With respect to Australian population context, marriages rates are declining while the rates of cohabitation are increasing. Drawing on the available literature and situational analysis of cohabitation in Australia and worldwide, the focus of this paper is on the impact of cohabitation on marriage. The paper provides an overview and critique of the trend toward cohabitation against rates of marriage in Australia. It also offers an analysis of social, legal and economic issues linked to cohabitation and a discussion on whether marriage has become a redundant social and legal contract. An Overview and Critique of the Trend toward Cohabitation versus Marriage Rates in Australian Society in Recent Decades The practice of cohabitation has grown a great deal. Cohabitation is rampant in society today. As of 2002, over fifty percent of women aged between 19 and 44 cohabited for a greater portion of their lives. While the rate of cohabitation has increased, the rate of marriage has declined. The rate of marriage per year has dropped by almost a half since 1970s. A primary reason for the decline in the rates of marriage is the rise of cohabitation. Devoid of cohabitation, a higher percentage of people in Australia would be married. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics, the rate of marriage fell from 6.9 percent marriages per 1, 000 persons in 1990 to 5.4 percent in 2010. The decline is the rates of marriage are a reflection of the changing populace structure in Australia. Between 2009 and 2010, eleven percent of Australians above eighteen years of age lived in a de facto relationship while fifty-three percent in a formalised marriage. However, in last twenty years cohabitation before formalised marriage has risen. In 1990s, half of all formalised marriage started with cohabitation. According to Noller and Karantzas (2012), cohabitating couples as a percentage of all couple households has augmented from two percent in 1970 to sixteen percent in 2006 in Australia. For instance, in 2009, one-third of all births were to cohabiting couples. While people marry at some point in life, paths to the formation of the union have changed drastically. In modern times, most people who get married have lived together before formalising their marriage. As a result, cohabitation is not an overture to marriage. With the increased rise in cohabitation in Australia, the rates of marriage are no longer a practical substitute for union formation. Cohabitation now seems to be broadly tolerated and accepted by the general population and law in Australia. An Assessment Of Any Economic, Social And/ Or Legal Issues Associated With Choosing To Co-Habitate (And Having Children) In A De-Facto Relationship, As Opposed To A Formalized Marriage. Although some people contend that cohabitation is a modern means of getting married in a less expensive way, cohabitation does not provide stable marriages and satisfaction. The high cost of weddings and financial instability are some of the reasons why people choose to cohabitate. Financial stability and acquisition of certain assets are considered prerequisites to marriage. As a result, the combination of intricacies in attaining financial stability, asset acquisition and the perfect middle-class lifestyle has influenced the rise in long-term cohabitation and decline in formal marriage. Cohabitation does not necessarily have to be an impermanent arrangement (Schlapa, 2007). The issue of cohabitation is not only economic, cultural and social, but also political, theological and constitutional ( Phiri, 2009).People who cohabitate accumulate reduced wealth compared to married couples. In addition, children born in cohabitating relationships experience emotional problems compared to children of married couples. Compared to married couples, cohabiting couples do not show high levels of happiness and wellbeing. While married couples have to seek religious or legal permission to disband their unions, cohabiting couples do not need to seek permissions from religious or legal institutions. In addition, cohabitation is not endorsed by state laws and individuals in this form of relationship do not need certain legal obligations and rights. However, cohabiting couples face legal issues linked to child support and child inheritance. Marriage as an Unnecessary Legal And Social Contract Australian Society A social contract is an implied agreement between two or more people to cooperate for social gains while a legal contract is an agreement between two or more people which obliges them to do or not do something. Legal contract holds legal consequences while social contract holds social upshots. The reduced rates of marriages, increased divorce rates, increasing single parents challenges the importance of marriage in Australia. Marriage in Australian society has become an unnecessary legal and social contract because it has been replaced by cohabitation. In addition, the increasing rate of divorce has rendered ineffective the legal contract linked to marriage (Strong & Cohen, 2013). Marriage has become less widespread. Although daily interactions amid cohabiting couples are similar to those of married couples, people in the modern society do not require the law to dictate how they live together. Cohabiting couples hold good reasons for staying together and not getting married. They have diverse intentions and expectations. In current Australian society, family is not defined by marriage and marriage is not the prerequisite for developing a family. As a result, marriage is an unsubstantial legal and social fiction. Impact of Cohabitation on Marriage Marriage is a social institution that has conventionally controlled adult life and families. In the history of humankind, marriage was the socially recognised means of organising families. However, in recent times people hold scores of optional means of regulating and organising families that have somehow rendered marriage redundant (Strong & Cohen, 2013). Non-marital cohabitation besides childless couples, single parents families, living alone are some of the novel means of organising family and adult life. Cohabitation in Australia has taken over marriage. . Cohabitation or de facto marriage entails unmarried heterosexual couples living together in a close relationship. The rise in cohabiting couples has been dramatic. The augmented popularity of cohabitation is because of augmenting numbers of cohabiting couples as well as individuals willing to be identified with de facto marriages. Cohabitation has been an increasing phenomenon in Australia in recent decades. The rate of persons marrying in Australia has been diminishing since the 1970s. The rise in de facto relationships is linked to the decline in marriage rates. In recent times young people are leaving their parental homes and become independent before getting married. These people become sexually active and establish houses in marriage-like relationships. This implies that marriage is not preferred by young people in Australia because these people are postponing marriage in favour of cohabitation. Not only has cohabitation prior to marriage risen, the rise in divorce has further increased cohabitation after broken marriages. Between 1982 and 2006, the rates of cohabiting couples in Australia rose to 14.9 percent from 4.7 percent. The increasing rate of cohabitation has become the norm instead of marriage (Strong & Cohen, 2013). More than seventy-five percent of couples live together before marriage in modern times compared to only sixteen percent in 1976. According to Halford (2011), in most western nations, cohabitating heterosexual couples are increasing and a substantial minority of all couple households. For instance, in the U.S, cohabiting couples make up eight percent of all couple households. The rate of cohabitation has augmented in the last thirty years in most Western nations. For instance, cohabiting couples has increased from two percent in 1970 to sixteen percent in 2006 in Australia (Halford, 2011). The increasing trend of cohabitation has been a great source of concern for some prominent social scientists, social policy analysts and religious leaders who have made public pronouncements regarding the significance of marriage. A major issue for scores of these commentators is that marriage is an acceptable social institution entailing a firm commitment to a partner. The commitment is usually founded on powerfully held religious and social values. Comparatively, cohabitation is devoid of religious and social underpinnings of marriage; the level of lasting commitment to cohabitation is usually not clear. Cohabitation has been wrongly viewed as superior or equal to marriage an aspect that has made marriage unnecessary. However, while marriage is commonly accepted as a commitment intended to be enduring, cohabiting couples differ greatly in their last commitment to the relationship. About half of couples who have began cohabiting indicated that they think they are probably going to marry their partners, a quarter of these couples are not sure if they will marry their partners and the remaining quarter think that they will not marry their partners ( Halford, 2011). Most often cohabitation is a transitional arrangement for couples that lead to separation or marriage. Across many Western countries, over eighty percent of cohabiting couples separate or marry within five years. Cohabitation is the most common way for couples in Western nations to start a committed relationship. Most of the married couples in Australia, approximately 85 percent, cohabited before marrying (Halford, 2011). According to Heard (2012), people choose cohabitation for pragmatic reasons rather than romantic reasons. Economic security is a major driver of cohabitation decisions. Cohabitation is viewed as a logical response to reduced male wage. Young people between the age of 20 and 29 cohabitate because they consider 20s to be a period of autonomy and freedom. Religion is powerfully linked with relationship formation. As a result, cohabitation is highest among unreligious people. On the contrary, the largest religious groups that are Catholic and Anglican, in Australia hold the highest rates of cohabitation to individuals who report religious association. The lowest cohabitation rates in Australian is religious peopled affiliated to Islam. Apparently, parents and families shape behaviours and attitudes surrounding cohabitation and formation of relationships. Parental divorce increases cohabitation because people who have experienced parental divorce are more probably to cohabit compared to those who have never experienced divorce (Strong & Cohen, 2013). The increasing rates of divorce have rendered marriage an unnecessary legal or social contract. More so, attitudes towards cohabitation have become greatly permissive because of the proliferation of stepfamilies, single parenthood and divorce. Cohabitation is highest among Australians with English-speaking backgrounds. In Australia, cohabitation is under Family Law Act jurisdiction where children are involved. Given the wide recognition and acceptance of cohabitation, marriage is no longer the sacred long-lasting institution. According to Popenoe (2009), within three decades in most developed nations, the practice of cohabitation has changed from being commonly eschewed and illegal practice to a practice viewed as a normal part of life. Since 1970s, the number of couples living together outside marriage has risen to more than one thousand percent. Popenoe (2009) confirms that cohabitation has instigated fewer marriages. Although there are other reasons for the decline in marriage, the rise of cohabitation is the major cause of the decline in marriage in Australia. It must be understood that cohabitation is not akin to marriage because cohabiting partners hold a weaker sense of couple identity, lower level of interpersonal devotion and less willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the other partner (Thornton & Yu, 2008). According to Knox and Schacht (2015), cohabitation holds characteristics common in marriage such as division of labour, sexual exclusivity and polled economic resources. However, cohabitation alters partner’s mindset regarding marriage an aspect that makes marriage less likely or less successful if it happens. In addition, cohabitation increases divorce acceptance. The single most essential factor that has triggered social transformation linked to cohabitation is the rise of women in the workforce. An important change in the division of labor among the two genders has promoted an augmented participation of females in the labor force. The change has lowered the necessity and economic advantages of marriage. The lowered benefits of marriage have made cohabitation more appealing (Thornton & Yu, 2008). The decline in the anticipated economic benefits has made women and men more reluctant to enter matrimonial unions. Cohabitants capitalise on the advantages of shared household expenses in devoid of economic dangers linked to marriage (Baker & Elizabeth, 2013). The decline in marriage and rise of cohabitation is closely linked to the deterioration of the male gender in the labor market. Apparently, marriage timing corresponds to males’ capacity to build independent households; reduction in men’s earning power provisionally put them out of the matrimony market. Besides, economic explanations, shifts in social norms of individualism also explain an augment in cohabitation. Cohabitation in the modern Australian society has developed because of social norms and personal goals. People choose to cohabitate because of the need not to disrupt attainment of personal goals. Being Baker (2013) asserts that since 1970s marriage rates have declined while cohabitation has increased for both same-sex and different-sex couples. As a result, governments have reformed their rules to offer novel rights for permanent cohabitants and children born outside marriage. Conclusion Families are the backbone of society, facilitating human interaction, promoting generational renewal and connecting people to the broader society. Relationships are related to wellbeing, with families having a major role to play in socialisation and moulding society. Changing blueprints in cohabitation and divorce over decades have instigated disparities in the family structure. Cohabitation or de facto marriage entails unmarried heterosexual couples living together in a close relationship. Cohabitation has grown into a new form of family in comparison to conventional marriage. Cohabiting is greatly replacing marriage in the modern society. In Australia, young people in their 20s are no longer marrying. The decline in marriage since 1970s linked to the growing rates of cohabitation. Cohabitation in Australia now seems to be broadly tolerated and accepts by the law and society. People choose to cohabitate because of economic security and social benefits linked to cohabitation. Although cohabitation was initially viewed as prelude to marriage, it has overtaken marriage because most cohabiting couples do not formalise their marriage. Cohabitation is an alternative to marriage in Australian society References Baker, M., & Elizabeth, V.(2013). Tying the knot: The impact of formalization after long- term cohabitation. Journal of Family Studies, 19 (3), 254-266. Halford, W.(2011). Marriage and relationship education: What works and how to provide it. Australia: Guilford Press. Knox, D., & Schacht, C.(2015). Choices in relationships: An introduction to marriage and the family. UK: Cengage Learning. Noller, P., & Feeney, J.(2013). Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes. USA: Psychology Press. Noller, P., & Karantzas, G.(2012). The Wiley-blackwell handbook of couples and family relationships. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Phiri, G.(2009). Social-cultural anthropology: Communication with the African society. UK: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Popene, D.(2009). Cohabitation, marriage, and child wellbeing: A cross-national perspective. Social Science and Public Policy, 46 (2), 429-436. Schlapa, C.(2007). The impact of cohabitation on women and children. UK: GRIN Verlag Strong, B., & Cohen, T.(2013). The marriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in changing society. UK: Cengage Learning. Thornton, A., & Yu, J.(2008). Marriage and cohabitation. USA: University of Chicago. Read More