Interestingly, Warren argues against cohabitation because of the "conditional commitment of live-in relationships." However, many individuals prefer the conditions of cohabitation to the restrictions of a relationship that stifles individual freedom and independence. For same-sex couples, cohabitation is the only option in all but a handful of states. Social stability in Warren's point-of-view is linked to the systematic oppression of women and homosexuals. The way Warren interprets statistics in "The Cohabitation Epidemic" is spurious. For instance, Warren fails to acknowledge the sociological changes that have led to the growing rates of cohabitation and the reduced rates of marriage. Warren does not refer to divorce statistics, and Warren does not treat cohabitation as an end in itself but only as a means to the end of marriage. Marriage and cohabitation are two different but related conditions. Marriage is a traditional social contract, whereas cohabitation is a lifestyle choice. Neither is morally superior to the other, and both offer potential benefits. Promoting marriage may not lead to more successful relationships, only more traditional ones. "In the end, the evidence suggests that the benefits of marriage promotion would be marginal," (Cherlin).

Warren also assumes that cohabitation before...

Cohabitation may be correlated with divorce but other variables such as level of education, religion, and other factors may be related to the divorce rates. Based on Warren's biased assumptions and questionable interpretation of statistical data, cohabitation is not an epidemic whatsoever but rather, a reflection of changing social values and norms.