Cohabitation

[TheRealJuliane]

I think the assumption these days is not necessarily that sexual relations are going on, unless you are of a certain generation. Maybe I am wrong about that. Regardless, I can understand how such rumors or speculation could harm a community of close knit and/or immature people, but I don’t really see how it would affect a modern church in our society. The whole idea of scandal seems quaint and outdated to me.

Maybe we should call it “influencing others to sin.”

It is strange that you think people DO NOT assume a couple shacking up are having sex. I think society assumes exactly that. In fact I think it is taken for granted, since there is little societal prohibition of premarital sex or of shacking up.

Quaint? I think not.

 

[Nec5]

It is strange that you think people DO NOT assume a couple shacking up are having sex. I think society assumes exactly that. In fact I think it is taken for granted, since there is little societal prohibition of premarital sex or of shacking up.

Here in the DC area, it is assumed that couples that are dating are having sex. It’s the new normal.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Because society has told them that it is the normal thing to do, and because it feels good - and that is all that matters, right, that we ffeeeeeelllll good.

They want the benefits of marriage without the true commitment. Sin is easy; doing what God wants us to is harder.

Society tells people shacking up is just fine. It’s not. It screws up your future.

These two pretty much sum up the thoughts that I have on the subject. Cohabitation gives you the chance to get out of something if you do not like what is going on, there is no committment. If your significant other upsets you, you just walk away (then again some people feel that way about marriage as well). But this is their way to live like they are married without all the “rules” of being married.

It is so hard for them to see the damage that they are causing by this, but trying to convice them (most times) is like trying to tell a tree to walk.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

These two pretty much sum up the thoughts that I have on the subject. Cohabitation gives you the chance to get out of something if you do not like what is going on, there is no committment. If your significant other upsets you, you just walk away (then again some people feel that way about marriage as well). But this is their way to live like they are married without all the “rules” of being married.

It is so hard for them to see the damage that they are causing by this, but trying to convice them (most times) is like trying to tell a tree to walk.

I’ve got to say I know a lot of cohabiting couples and none of them have that attitude. Most think that since they are already completely committed why bother with a wedding/marriage/the paperwork. While I’m sure that there are lots of casual couples out there I think that the attitude of commitment is more common.

 

[He_Man]

I frankly don’t understand why a woman would want to cohabitate, unless her goal was to never marry (which it typically isn’t). I know too many couples (yes, more anecdotes as are popular on these boards) that had couples living together because the girl was hopeful for a proposal, and the guy liked the perks without the commitment. And in most of the cases, they ended in breakup, or divorce. Statistics 9not anecdotes bear this out.

From a guy’s point of view, it makes sense (in a primitive, unholy way). You get sex, companionship, financial help, and a trial run, plus someone is washing your undies. You also get an open door with no legal restrictions when you don’t like it. A number of my male buddies from college have been cohabitating for years, and have said they see no need to marry any time soon. Too bad for them - I know the benefits of marriage outweigh the risks. I see that every time my wife and beautiful baby girl greet me at the door after work.

To give away all the perks of marriage to someone without requiring any of the risk seems to present a great deal to a guy. Makes no sense to me.

/dude

 

[He_Man]

I’ve got to say I know a lot of cohabiting couples and none of them have that attitude. Most think that since they are already completely committed why bother with a wedding/marriage/the paperwork. While I’m sure that there are lots of casual couples out there I think that the attitude of commitment is more common.

Statistics would disagree with you. Either way, as I’ve said before, statistics are somewhat irrelevant to right and wrong. They can help us feel better about a decision from a human perspective, but do not dictate right or wrong. God has done that. His morality and teachings aren’t based on numbers.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why do people cohabitate together? Is there less taxes?

not necessarily it depends on whether they are both working, their relative incomes, their exemptions and deductions.

People live together without benefit of marriage because they want the goods of marriage: sex, companionship etc. without making any long-term commitment or having any of the burdens and duties of marriage. They voluntarily choose to live in a state of mortal sin because they value their relationship with this other person, including the sexual privileges, higher than they rate their relationship with God. The joke is by living with that person without marriage they actually devalue that relationship, too, because of the lack of commitment in the sight of God, the Church, and the community.

That is the reason objectively but obviously not everyone thinks out the decision in those terms, or is even aware of the real reasons and results of their choices. So you can’t go up to somebody and say “you are sinning” because they live that way, because you have no way of knowing if they had the knowledge and free will consent that makes them guilty of sin. Whether or not they know the implications, the fact remains they are separated from Christ, his Church and the sacraments through that choice. It is the worst thing that can happen to a Catholic, even worse than death.

Since this secular society today assumes everyone who is planning to eventually marry will live together for a time first, even Catholic couples do so, often sadly even at the urging of parents who should know better. It is very sad because embarking on that level of intimacy before the sacrament of marriage short-circuits the very process that leads to true intimacy. That is why the divorce rate has zoomed (or one big reason why). So many couples because of premature sexual relations, even though they later marry, missed out on critical steps in the growth of true intimacy. In later years the think, feel or know the relationship was always primarily about sex and if that diminishes for some reason, they think the whole marriage is dead. Or they feel they have been used for sex, and when that is no longer the same intensity as it is in young couples, or even if it is not possible for a time due to illness, separation etc. they feel there is nothing else holding them together. Tragic.

I Is it a sin to cohabilitate but live as brother and sister? The church seems to ask couples to “live as brother and sister” all the time.

the commonly accepted meaning and connotation of “cohabitation” in this society is two unmarried persons of the opposite sex living together in the same household who are sexually intimate, even though there may also be other practical reasons for the arrangement, so even to ask this is disingenuous.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Statistics would disagree with you. Either way, as I’ve said before, statistics are somewhat irrelevant to right and wrong. They can help us feel better about a decision from a human perspective, but do not dictate right or wrong. God has done that. His morality and teachings aren’t based on numbers.

:yup::clapping:

In fact, just the opposite.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

Matthew 7:13

 

[iloveangels]

I know at one time there was what they call a marriage penalty, but not any more, even a married couple can file seperately I think, so I don’t think taxes is a reason.

People are afraid of commitment I think. they might find “greener pastures”.

I think this is the real reason in most cases.

 

[iloveangels]

I’ve got to say I know a lot of cohabiting couples and none of them have that attitude. Most think that since they are already completely committed why bother with a wedding/marriage/the paperwork. While I’m sure that there are lots of casual couples out there I think that the attitude of commitment is more common.

That’s what they say, but that’s not what statistics say.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That’s what they say, but that’s not what statistics say.

Let’s be honest though, marriage doesn’t have the best statistics backing it up either.

I think it comes down to people. If two people are going to commit they can do it just as well without a marriage certificate. If they won’t, a marriage won’t change that. Now granted, in our society more people still choose to marry when they commit, but that is changing. I think that with so many long-term cohabiting couples and such a high divorce rate we’ll soon be to the point where married or not will be a very bad indicator of dedication and commitment in a relationship. (If it isn’t already.)

 

[iloveangels]

Let’s be honest though, marriage doesn’t have the best statistics backing it up either.

I think it comes down to people. If two people are going to commit they can do it just as well without a marriage certificate. If they won’t, a marriage won’t change that. Now granted, in our society more people still choose to marry when they commit, but that is changing. I think that with so many long-term cohabiting couples and such a high divorce rate we’ll soon be to the point where married or not will be a very bad indicator of dedication and commitment in a relationship. (If it isn’t already.)

That’s actually not true. There are even fewer couples living together after 30 or 40 years than there are couples with 30-40 year old marriages.

Although, they’re both low numbers, some of which is caused by the casual attitude toward marriage in the common culture. Which has everything to do with living around.

 

[manualman]

I’ve got to say I know a lot of cohabiting couples and none of them have that attitude. Most think that since they are already completely committed why bother with a wedding/marriage/the paperwork. While I’m sure that there are lots of casual couples out there I think that the attitude of commitment is more common.

Even on a secular basis, is it REALLY that much bother to visit the courthouse and be married by a judge? What is it, 4 hours, some writing and $50 in fees? Yeah, that’s way too much burden for fully committed couples to accomplish.

Sorry, but you are kidding yourself, but as you note, so are vast numbers of Americans these days. It’s not the ‘bother’ of the wedding process, it is the committment.

It all comes back to the root problem at the heart of ALL of the modern worlds sexual degeneration: marriage, sexual intimacy and babies aren’t separate subjects. They are different facets of ONE subject, human sexual intimacy. When people attempt to aprehend them ala carte, they only bring misery and disaster on themselves and society. In some cases it takes longer than in others, but sawing off the branch you are sitting on never ends well. You can’t break the moral law any more than you can break the laws of gravity, you only hurt yourself and others in the process of trying.

 

[iloveangels]

Even on a secular basis, is it REALLY that much bother to visit the courthouse and be married by a judge? What is it, 4 hours, some writing and $50 in fees? Yeah, that’s way too much burden for fully committed couples to accomplish.

Sorry, but you are kidding yourself, but as you note, so are vast numbers of Americans these days. It’s not the ‘bother’ of the wedding process, it is the committment.

It all comes back to the root problem at the heart of ALL of the modern worlds sexual degeneration: marriage, sexual intimacy and babies aren’t separate subjects. They are different facets of ONE subject, human sexual intimacy. When people attempt to aprehend them ala carte, they only bring misery and disaster on themselves and society. In some cases it takes longer than in others, but sawing off the branch you are sitting on never ends well. You can’t break the moral law any more than you can break the laws of gravity, you only hurt yourself and others in the process of trying.

Yup, it’s the splitting the parts of human sexual intimacy up like they were items on a menu that’s the problem. This is absolutely correct.
People aren’t constructed that way whether they want to pretend they are or not.

 

[Khalid]

Even on a secular basis, is it REALLY that much bother to visit the courthouse and be married by a judge? What is it, 4 hours, some writing and $50 in fees? Yeah, that’s way too much burden for fully committed couples to accomplish.

Sorry, but you are kidding yourself, but as you note, so are vast numbers of Americans these days. It’s not the ‘bother’ of the wedding process, it is the committment.

Even if it was free and could be done online, and the marriage was guaranteed to last forever, it can cause financial ruin for a sizable segment of the population - the poor, especially those in which one or both partners do not have a job, and are dependent on any form of governmental assistance (it is almost equally applicable if incomes are minimum-wage and both partners do have a job). For the middle-class and above, I agree with your reasoning: for the poor, I do not.

It’s not the bother of the wedding process. Much of the time, it is secularization of society, not outright fear of commitment: I agree with the atheists in this thread at least in part, that American society at large sees no difference between long-term cohabitation or common-law marriage and actual marriage. Much of the time it is fear of the consequences of commitment. Much of the time, it is an inability to shoulder the burdensome financial changes, which are regressive (i.e. more onerous to the poor and less to the rich, like a fixed tax) to the utmost degree.

As I’ve said, I believe the correct response is to remain celibate, not to co-habitate, at least sexually. I also agree, in part, with the posters who have said that it is possible to co-habitate in the sense of sharing a habitation or domicile, without being sexually active. As I mentioned in an above post, I have done this in an apartment, which was essentially divided in to two domiciles with a shared bathroom and kitchen - no different than many colleges (although, I do believe it is incorrect and immoral for colleges to have co-sexual domiciles and bathrooms, when even the “real world” acknowledges, even in a McDonalds, that bathrooms shall not be co-sexual), and remained celibate. Giving scandal or not giving scandal, it is better than even one person being homeless.

 

[CopyKat]

What a rude and presumptuous thing to say. I already have the ring, and a firm wedding date. Thanks though.

Best of luck on your marriage.

I fully stand behind what I said. I’m sorry you found it rude, but quite frankly, you’re an atheist and you are on this catholic website participating in catholic discussions about catholic morality and faith values that we hold dear.

I’m really happy for you that you get the feel-good from coming home and cooking in the same kitchen and sleeping in the same bed. That’s sweet.

AND WRONG.

PERIOD.

It’s not MY judgement or presumption. IT’S CATHOLIC TEACHING. You’re about to marry a Catholic and you’re playing a role in leading his soul to hell.

But you probably don’t care. I’m sure this website is really entertaining for you.

God bless and good luck to you.

 

[CopyKat]

And by the way, telling the truth IS true charity.

 

[Nec5]

And by the way, telling the truth IS true charity.

Amen to that.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It’s not MY judgement or presumption. IT’S CATHOLIC TEACHING. You’re about to marry a Catholic and you’re playing a role in leading his soul to hell.

But you probably don’t care. I’m sure this website is really entertaining for you.

God bless and good luck to you.

Have you told my fiance that he’s Catholic? I think he’d be surprised to find that out.

If I believed in hell I would care. But I love him, listen to him, and respect him. So me saying “I know that you don’t believe in god, and I don’t either, but since you were raised Catholic and they think this is a sin, we can’t do it” would be a slap in the face to him, and show that I didn’t care at all about who he is.

 

[CopyKat]

Have you told my fiance that he’s Catholic? I think he’d be surprised to find that out.

If I believed in hell I would care. But I love him, listen to him, and respect him. So me saying “I know that you don’t believe in god, and I don’t either, but since you were raised Catholic and they think this is a sin, we can’t do it” would be a slap in the face to him, and show that I didn’t care at all about who he is.

Have I told him? Well, on Nov 22, '11, 8:15 am, you told US that he “hasn’t officially left the church”… and FYI… Catholics just don’t “officially” become uncatholic.

You’re about to marry this guy…and the very fact that you’re still active on this site leads one to believe that there’s a part of you that realizes that this whole “catholic” thing isn’t something that one sheds when one feels like it.

And for THAT… I commend you. You’re going to need all the knowlege you can get, and I will say a prayer that something will rub off on you and bring to to the fullness of the faith.

God bless you, I will pray for both you and your fiance.