Cohabitation not that different than dating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAdvocate197

Guest
Cohabitation is frowned upon for a variety of reasons, most notably because of the fornication; another reason is because of the argument that you shouldn’t “test drive” someone like a car, spending time with them in close proximity under the same room to see if you would really be compatible. Among other things, you’re creating a mentality that trains one’s self to just leave when you are not happy, a mentality that would not translate well in marriage.

But aren’t we doing something similar with dating? You spend time with them, you’re trying them out for a while to see whether or not they are compatible with you, and if you decide they are not, you can—and even should—leave.

I only bring this up because this is how a friend responded to my argument that you should not just test drive people. He saw living together as just like dating, only better, because you get an even better picture of your compatibility. Said dating is just another form of test driving, anyway. How do I respond to him.
 
Sure, dating is “test driving” to an extent which is not harmful. We “test drive” people all the time, whether we know it or not, by gauging our interactions with them and deciding whether or not we want to foster a relationship with this person. In its proper context, however, dating should only allow people to share their personalities, likes/dislikes, emotions, etc, but should not at all involve the physical aspect. This is the difference with cohabitation, as even if the couples are having pre-marital relations (which is very likely), you are engaging with someone on such a deep physical and emotional aspect. I know I mentioned emotional connections in dating, but the difference to which you are involved with a person’s emotions in dating vs. living with them is immense. Cohabitation presents the false view that a couple can share the intimate experiences of marriage outside of that bond, something which chaste dating should not.
 
TheAdvocate197 said:
Cohabitation is frowned upon for a variety of reasons, most notably because of the fornication; another reason is because of the argument that you shouldn’t “test drive” someone like a car, spending time with them in close proximity under the same room to see if you would really be compatible. Among other things, you’re creating a mentality that trains one’s self to just leave when you are not happy, a mentality that would not translate well in marriage.

But aren’t we doing something similar with dating? You spend time with them, you’re trying them out for a while to see whether or not they are compatible with you, and if you decide they are not, you can—and even should—leave.

I only bring this up because this is how a friend responded to my argument that you should not just test drive people. He saw living together as just like dating, only better, because you get an even better picture of your compatibility. Said dating is just another form of test driving, anyway. How do I respond to him.
Click to expand...
A car is test driven and it is an object to be controlled and used. This is not the description of socializing in order to develop a dignified relationship with another person.
 
Advocate,
The best preparation for marriage is to stay pure. Rushing into sexual relations is putting the cart before the horse. Dating is a time to get to know how your other thinks and feels about many things. Child rearing for one. There are bound to be conflicting ideas that need discussion not for agreement but for understanding.

Living together multiplies the temptation to have sex which tends to cut off discussion of important issues! In it not a formula that has a high success rate.

My wife and I are planning our 55 wedding anniversary. We did not have premarital relations!
 
Last edited:
By co habitating, you are putting yourself in the temptation of sin. If you are dating and you keep appprpriate boundaries, it is OK. If you are dating and spend a lot of time alone, it is the temptation of sin as well

Also, if I couple were to live together chastely it is scandla because it gives the appearance of having relations
 
TheAdvocate197 said:
How do I respond to him.
Click to expand...
There are somethings it is morally acceptable to test drive, and some things that are not. Those acts that by their nature include a commitment for life cannot be test driven. Sexual acts are ordered to the unity and building of a family. One does not test drive this. Conversation is something that can be tested, as can most areas of compatibility.

I guess if society viewed cohabitation as a form of betrothal, where couples were chaste as a norm (perhaps with extended family), it would be different. Then a different type of compatibility could be tested. This, however, is not cohabitation today.
 
The cool thing about the Church, she has been around for 2,000 years and speaks to us in real language. From the Catechism:

2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, “the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim.” Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2391.htm

Want a secular resource??

 
Last edited:
The secular resource you provided is excellent, thank you. It is too bad, though, that it is 17 years old. I wonder if anything more recent is out there. But with today’s (lack of) ethical standards…doubtful.
 
Cohabitating does not really provide “trial” for marriage. Marriage is based in part on trust, and a long term commitment, none of which is tested out in cohabitating.

A year of one night stands does not equal to a year, or even a week, of the personal commitment of a marriage.

What cohabitating does is warp your view of what marriage actually is, so if there is a wedding, you now have to unlearn
your training (that marriage is a series of one night stands). Many are unable to unlearn that “training”. So it is worse than useless. It won’t divert you from a bad marriage, and creates little flaws in a good marriage that may, or may not, develop into serious cracks.
 
Last edited:
TheAdvocate197 said:
Cohabitation is frowned upon for a variety of reasons,
Click to expand...
Cohabitation before marriage is never morally permissible. However, cohabitation ONLY means living together AND having sex.

Absent a sexual relationship, “living together” is neither encouraged nor forbidden by the church. Merely living together could be a near occasion of sin, but it is not sin itself.

“Test driving” each other sexually before marriage is what is morally in appropriate, whether it be in the context of dating or cohabiting.
 
TheAdvocate197 said:
He saw living together as just like dating, only better, because you get an even better picture of your compatibility.
Click to expand...
This is the popular wisdom, but people who live together first are more likely to get divorced , so it’s not as great a way to get to know somebody as you might think.
 
runningdude said:
Absent a sexual relationship, “living together” is neither encouraged nor forbidden by the church. Merely living together could be a near occasion of sin, but it is not sin itself.
Click to expand...
I disagree. At the very minimum it is the sin of scandal. Their younger relatives and friends who look up to them are influenced by this sin against charity.

I’m not sure what you mean by a “sexual relationship” here. Perhaps you mean physically expressed sexual relationship?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
I disagree. At the very minimum it is the sin of scandal.
Click to expand...
Living in the same building is simply not inherently sinful. There could be circumstances that make the arrangement scandalous; there are also ways to offset any scandal.
commenter said:
I’m not sure what you mean by a “sexual relationship” here. Perhaps you mean physically expressed sexual relationship?
Click to expand...
I think I am plenty clear.
 
Cohabitation should never occur between two unmarried men and women. It causes scandal. Always has. Dating without living together is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top