Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds to me that you're equating marriage with prostitution with this statement.
I have been married and I have lived "in sin" and neither is a guarantee that things will work out. But, there is no way I could live with someone and not have sex, nor would I want to.
Nah, not equating, just saying that pretty much all human relationships involve some kind of mutually beneficial give-and-take. Even sexual relationships.
Just seems to me that "living in sin" confers lots of the disadvantages of marriage (you're "off the market" as long as the cohabiting lasts, you're probably handling most of the domestic duties, etc) with virtually none of the bennies (starting your family, planning for the long-term future, legal privileges and rights, formal social recognition, etc.)
It's like letting a home buyer move into a house rent-free without closing the deal at the bank first.
I know young girls believe in true love, and that's why they do it, but man, talk about latching onto a raw deal!
Rather than cohabit, I think it makes more sense to stay "on the market" till a real suitor comes along, and make him ante up the responsibilities before you indefinitely surrender your freedoms.
JMO, though; three years of cohabiting and then abruptly realizing no marriage proposal was on the horizon really does color my view on this. He didn't understand why I was so mad about wasting three years of my prime husband-hunting years on him. "Hadn't we had a good time??"
Men!
The clock ticks more slowly for them.
And that is why BEFORE you live together (prior to marriage), you SHOULD discuss where this live-in-together situation is REALLY for. If it is really for the goal of marriage, by all means, I would say go for it (hey, I'm one of the examples ).
BUT, if the live-in-together situation is for the purpose of not wanting to bunk w/ anyone else but each other (ehm, ehm, for "that" purpose ) -- as in, for the purpose of being able to "do it" whereever you please in the house, or for the purpose of sharing bills (so that you don't have to foot the bills that you would have to pay if living alone), or for the purpose of moving out of your folks' house (this, I've seen more in women than men), then, in my personal opinion, DO NOT go for it!
Living together prior to marriage is about a higher level of commitment, not for the "convenience" of living together w/ someone you are dating.
In regards to what you said above about the disadvantages of living together:
"(you're "off the market" as long as the cohabiting lasts, you're probably handling most of the domestic duties, etc) with virtually none of the bennies (starting your family, planning for the long-term future, legal privileges and rights, formal social recognition, etc.)"
I can tell you that some states (like mine) can protect unmarried live-in couples just as much as much as wedded couples; plus, with the power of attorney, you can pursue your rights even further. As far as who does the domestic duties, again, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WAAAAAAAAAAAAY before you two move in.
Remember, different strokes are for different folks. Just because a marriage works for many couples do not mean it would work for others, and vice versa.
Before the mid-1960's, and still in many religious households (or for children of religious parents), it was not and is not permitted for man and woman to live together prior to marriage -- even if the exact purpose of living together is to determine whether marriage is going to work.
I have a couple of questions about this "cohabitation" thing.
First, where is the Biblical rule (book, chapter, verse) that prohibits it?
Second, for anyone who has done it, do you think you could have done without it?
Let's just assume for right now that it is possible to live together before marriage without having sex.
Any thoughts?
I'm a very practical person and the idea of promising to spend my life with someone without knowing how it would be to live with them sounds like a pretty big gamble. Most of my family is very traditional and Catholic and they have not approved of my decision, but they accept it and I accept their disapproval, fortunately they don't live near me so it's not too uncomfortable, however I can still tell in their voices that they do not think we are doing the "right" thing and I know that they are praying that I marry soon and then seek forgiveness pronto.
well let me give you my opinion and it is just that only mine.
For one having read alot of different posts on this forum there certainly is alot of different views and some of them are fundamentalist.
But my opinion is the moment a person starts letting someone else define the bible to them it becomes slanted in truth.It becomes what that person wants you to believe not necessarily what truth is.
In my opinion to gain the untainted truth is to read it and gain from it what you get which is true wisdom and a personal love with God,not what someone else says because people have bias and agendas and use the bible to promote them.That's why I rarely listen to people who post in the religious section.
I think sex between consenting adults is not so much as sin,not a sin that will put you in damnation,some people might think so not me.All I can say is be true to yourself and don't worry what others think,it is none of their business.
Before the 60's?lol there was plenty of fornication going on they just covered it up more back then.They just had a tight control on damage control social wise.
Thumbs up! And don't forget, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, before religious missionaries took over all over the world, it was actually pretty common to live together AND have children w/o marriage.
Before the mid-1960's, and still in many religious households (or for children of religious parents), it was not and is not permitted for man and woman to live together prior to marriage -- even if the exact purpose of living together is to determine whether marriage is going to work.
I have a couple of questions about this "cohabitation" thing.
First, where is the Biblical rule (book, chapter, verse) that prohibits it?
Second, for anyone who has done it, do you think you could have done without it?
Let's just assume for right now that it is possible to live together before marriage without having sex.
Any thoughts?
As a Catholic, I am opposed to pre-marital cohabitation and view it is a mortal sin. As far as I know, this prohibition is based on....
1) Two people of the opposite sex, romantically involved and living together as if they were married couples, are likely to be committing the sin of fornication (an old-fashioned word for pre-marital sex)
2) Even if they do not intend to have sex before marriage, they are exposing themselves to a serious moral risk of doing so, and thereby sinning;
3) And even then, if they have superhuman resolve and are somehow unlikely to fall into such a sin, they are causing scandal to others who see them living as if they were a married couple, likely to be fornicating.
Now, as for bible verses, I do not know of any that attack the issue directly. I may be wrong, but I believe that marriages were typically conducted quite early in Biblical times, so cohabitation was not much of an issue, at least not compared to today when it is not rare for 15 or even 20 years to elapse between one's initial romantic relationships and marriage. However, support for what I wrote above can be found in Matthew 15:19 "For from the heart come evil intentions: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, slander" or
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? or in Corinthians 6:9 "Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,
thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." ("sexually immoral" is often translated as "fornicators"). Scandal is forbidden by our lord in Luke 17:1-2 "He said to his disciples, 'Causes of falling are sure to come, but alas for the one through whom they occur!
It would be better for such a person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round the neck than to be the downfall of a single one of these little ones. (Source: Luke - Chapter 17 - Bible - Catholic Online )
As a Catholic, I am opposed to pre-marital cohabitation and view it is a mortal sin. As far as I know, this prohibition is based on....
1) Two people of the opposite sex, romantically involved and living together as if they were married couples, are likely to be committing the sin of fornication (an old-fashioned word for pre-marital sex)
2) Even if they do not intend to have sex before marriage, they are exposing themselves to a serious moral risk of doing so, and thereby sinning;
3) And even then, if they have superhuman resolve and are somehow unlikely to fall into such a sin, they are causing scandal to others who see them living as if they were a married couple, likely to be fornicating.
Now, as for bible verses, I do not know of any that attack the issue directly. I may be wrong, but I believe that marriages were typically conducted quite early in Biblical times, so cohabitation was not much of an issue, at least not compared to today when it is not rare for 15 or even 20 years to elapse between one's initial romantic relationships and marriage. However, support for what I wrote above can be found in Matthew 15:19 "For from the heart come evil intentions: murder, adultery, fornication, theft, perjury, slander" or
Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? or in Corinthians 6:9 "Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,
thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." ("sexually immoral" is often translated as "fornicators"). Scandal is forbidden by our lord in Luke 17:1-2 "He said to his disciples, 'Causes of falling are sure to come, but alas for the one through whom they occur!
It would be better for such a person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round the neck than to be the downfall of a single one of these little ones. (Source: Luke - Chapter 17 - Bible - Catholic Online )
Actually, the living arrangement that you've called "living in sin" has been in effect WAY before your religion started to take over other parts of Earth. Just because people DO NOT follow your religion or your way of "living situation" does not mean that they're any less than you are.
(Geez, when are we going to have much LESS of these neurotic bible-thumper BS'?)
Funny thing is the divorce rate is higher now than it was in the 1960's, prior to people living together. How do we explain that?
Why is divorce rate higher now than in the 60's? Lots of things have changed since the 60's. First of all, WOMEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT gave women now the bravery to get out of toxic marriages ("why stay w/ a husband that physically abuses you?").
Two, the courts now protect women more than the courts did from back in the 60's, with such things as child support, "half of everything", and alimony. With that cloak of protection, more women now are "for" divorces.
Third, well, obviously, you've seen ACTORS and STARS getting married so soon, and then divorcing later (it's like marriages are now considered as lightly as "dating" by these folks), and many many many people who look up and adore these "people", unfortunately, follow their footsteps.
I'm sure there's many more reasons why, but living together is not what makes divorce rate go up.
As I'm not at all religious, I don't believe it's "living in sin". I think it's just living.
I've never been in a serious relationship, so all I can say is, why bother to move in? The dynamic between most men and women seems to have some bizarre effect on both. The point being, if you're moving in together you clearly expect the relationship to go somewhere, and to go there in good time.
So just say "We're going to get married in X amount of time, or otherwise why are we moving in together?"
As I'm not at all religious, I don't believe it's "living in sin". I think it's just living.
I've never been in a serious relationship, so all I can say is, why bother to move in? The dynamic between most men and women seems to have some bizarre effect on both. The point being, if you're moving in together you clearly expect the relationship to go somewhere, and to go there in good time.
So just say "We're going to get married in X amount of time, or otherwise why are we moving in together?"
Very true, you're right, why bother moving in (and pay all those moving expenses, etc. etc.)? But, you have no idea of how many people just go right move in, w/ the woman "thinking" it's going somewhere, whereas the guy is "just living in the moment"... .sad thing, I tell you!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He didn't understand why I was so mad about wasting three years of my prime husband-hunting years on him. "Hadn't we had a good time??" 
). 
) -- as in, for the purpose of being able to "do it" whereever you please in the house, or for the purpose of sharing bills (so that you don't have to foot the bills that you would have to pay if living alone), or for the purpose of moving out of your folks' house (this, I've seen more in women than men), then, in my personal opinion, DO NOT go for it! 
