How does cohabitation hurt the chances of a lasting marriage?

[Huiou_Theou]

Man and woman are designed to pair. They will do this with or without permission. … habitation could be looked at as two groups only 1)Natural marriage - they are married but deny this publicly 2) fornication - I know you have a need to deny this however setting aside the moral aspect you will find the Natural Moral Law can not be set aside. Intimacy will develop … Now you have a big problem one loves the other and the other still wants to be free …

Marriage is not immune from these same issues however in marriage both are asked to understand these issues before they develop intimacy. …
These two states are not the same …

I think this was well stated. I would add, that one of the grounds of annulment is that one of the parties to a marriage does not know what is required of them in marriage – or what is total self giving. eg: The liturgy of the hours is beautiful, but it isn’t a requirement for marriage.

Perhaps, in those cases, as in “living together” the difficulty is not so much the situation they are in as the people. But however, to go further – cohabitation and “marriage followed by divorce(s)” are a case of a one way statistic – those who enter the state are the only ones who can break up – and only who have broken up before – are capable of breaking a second time … or fifth time. What is the likelyhood of having one partner fail if they have failed before? ( Which naturally biases the statistic in one direction based on a few really bad apples…)

Take for example a neighbor who works in human services (the financial side of welfare) who went through the “wild” woman stage at college, had a husband – couldn’t stand him, as he loved his cars more than her – and sat in the garage often late at night drinking a beer from his convenience refrigerator – which angered her so much she dumped him.

I have just watched her (non-catholic) go through a remarriage and breakup, and my pained marriage has outlived both her cohabitation and marrage to this second man. He was “jettsetting” still – wanted to know if he was cute at the local bars…

Why then did they get married, isn’t it obvious neither of them was more likely statistically to succeed? (Did they BOTH learn from the first mistake, as it only takes ones to break the partnership?)

A statistic can lead one to interpret how people react to the first mistake, but it won’t answer how mixes of first time and second cohabiters interfere – or on what basis to avoid or choose a partner. Eg: if a person has failed before, are they more or less likely to be trustable, and more importantly than the % is why ???

 

[bengal_fan]

i haven’t read all the posts on here… sorry. i have a theory and i talked about it on another thread so i will just quote myself.

(i must think pretty highly of myself huh?)

my theory on it has to do with the idea of “temporary commitment”.

dating is a temporary commitment. we are “committed” to each other until one of us wants to break up. until then though, we will sort of pretend like we are married. even so far as it is possible to “cheat” on each other. take this idea of commitment being temporary and keep adding things to it that are only supposed to be within marriage: sharing of finances, planning life together, sexual activity, cohabitation. the closer we associate real marriage with these temporary commitments, the less likely we are to understand what the permanent commitment of marriage is supposed to be like and the more likely we are to still view it as temporary. this opens the mind and heart up more and more to the idea of divorce. it goes back to our society’s courting practices.

 

[kwitz]

I think if I were a socialogist, my thesis would have me studying some of these thoughts. I’ve wondered is there any difference between the longevity in marriage between those couples who

a) cohabitate → engage → marry

b) engage -->cohabitate → marry

(and does a “formal, date actually set engagement” change things versus “we’re going to get married, sometime”)

c) engage → marry → cohabitate

I know the research says couple “c” lasts the longest but is there a difference between couples “a” and “b”?

Do these questions make sense? Totally anecdotally, from my friends, those that went into the cohabitation with some sense that we will marry by actually being engaged have lasted longer those who seemed to just fall into marriage at some point after living together.

A second question that I would want to study and understand, what “event” precipitated going from cohabitating to marriage. Why does marriage seem to make sense at some new moment in time when it didn’t at some previous moment.

Kris

 

[hasikelee]

A second question that I would want to study and understand, what “event” precipitated going from cohabitating to marriage. Why does marriage seem to make sense at some new moment in time when it didn’t at some previous moment.

Kris

That is exactly what I ponder over.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think if I were a socialogist, my thesis would have me studying some of these thoughts. I’ve wondered is there any difference between the longevity in marriage between those couples who

a) cohabitate → engage → marry

b) engage -->cohabitate → marry

(and does a “formal, date actually set engagement” change things versus “we’re going to get married, sometime”)

c) engage → marry → cohabitate

I know the research says couple “c” lasts the longest but is there a difference between couples “a” and “b”?

Do these questions make sense? Totally anecdotally, from my friends, those that went into the cohabitation with some sense that we will marry by actually being engaged have lasted longer those who seemed to just fall into marriage at some point after living together.

A second question that I would want to study and understand, what “event” precipitated going from cohabitating to marriage. Why does marriage seem to make sense at some new moment in time when it didn’t at some previous moment.

Kris

Maybe just add an emotional state, and a mental state to your scenarios? Emotionally free or bound? Mentally independent or mental bound?

The big lie is a woman and man can become cohabitants and not bond

 

[puzzleannie]

cohabitation militates against a strong lasting marriage based on true intimacy, lifelong commitment and deep communication and sharing on every level of life, because it begins the relationship on a purely physical and material plane. It runs the relationship backwards, by initiating the physical unity of marriage before the emotional and spiritual intimacy has been established through a proper courtship, and without the commitment that makes that unity an intentional reality, and accepts the concommitent effects of physical union, namely openness to life.

it also takes all the fun out of married sex, reducing to a utilitarian service to each others passing physical “needs” and desires. the early years of married life (and actually, kiddies, it lasts all throughout a solid marriage) are characterized by the delightfuly learning about each other, learning to please each other, learning what “works”, and if you have already opened the gift and scattered the pieces all over the place, it will be very difficult to every get the mechanism working properly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Maybe just add an emotional state, and a mental state to your scenarios? Emotionally free or bound? Mentally independent or mental bound?

The big lie is a woman and man can become cohabitants and not bond

Hmmm … and the one who is just in it for the free meal ticket? Do they “bond” too? – just not in the same way?

Yes, I think that mentally bound is very important.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Hmmm … and the one who is just in it for the free meal ticket? Do they “bond” too? – just not in the same way?

Yes, I think that mentally bound is very important.

Is that such a bad thing. We love our best friends right irregardless of sexuality? If its not wrong for a male to have a male roommate, couldn’t it be feasible to have a female roommate so long as the couple has the clarity to not be “pretending” to be married.

I am beginning to see the pitfalls to doing so with your betrothed however. Though the intentions my be upstanding the dynamic can skew that intended outcome.

How far should we consider the ramifications for society as far as appearing in scandal? I mean these days even if one has a same sex room-mate that too may be construed as scandalous just as an older person still living with their parents or someone in a dysfunctional marriage is. Someone is always going to judge. How far should we hold ourselves responsible for what others unjustly think?

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

cohabitation militates against a strong lasting marriage based on true intimacy, lifelong commitment and deep communication and sharing on every level of life, because it begins the relationship on a purely physical and material plane. It runs the relationship backwards, by initiating the physical unity of marriage before the emotional and spiritual intimacy has been established through a proper courtship, and without the commitment that makes that unity an intentional reality, and accepts the concommitent effects of physical union, namely openness to life.

it also takes all the fun out of married sex, reducing to a utilitarian service to each others passing physical “needs” and desires. the early years of married life (and actually, kiddies, it lasts all throughout a solid marriage) are characterized by the delightfuly learning about each other, learning to please each other, learning what “works”, and if you have already opened the gift and scattered the pieces all over the place, it will be very difficult to every get the mechanism working properly.

I like that first paragraph and would throw a monkey wrench into the second. Suppose a couple is already chaste in the Lord and further more cannot have children for medical reasons or of age. Though they would want to if they could. The procreative element of a possible marriage would already be impossible in a physical union. How do you think that twists the dynamic of a long lasting marriage?

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

hi Joab, I have studied this subject in my femanism class. The reason why a marriage is more likely to fail in this situation is because no couple (or at least not many) go into a living situation believing it’s permanent no matter what. They go into it thinking of it as a trial and they believe if it doesnt’ work they can just walk out. This kind of thinking carries over to the marriage.

I am beginning to see that even if that commitment to permanence is firm and they do go into cohabitation with all intentions of it being a permanent union, but do so, lets say for financial reasons with full intent of eventually resulting in marriage, within the context of cohabitation there is always going to be an element of doubt that will be aggravated despite the best of intentions.

Peace.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Is that such a bad thing. We love our best friends right irregardless of sexuality? If its not wrong for a male to have a male roommate, couldn’t it be feasible to have a female roommate so long as the couple has the clarity to not be “pretending” to be married.

I am beginning to see the pitfalls to doing so with your betrothed however. Though the intentions my be upstanding the dynamic can skew that intended outcome.

How far should we consider the ramifications for society as far as appearing in scandal? I mean these days even if one has a same sex room-mate that too may be construed as scandalous just as an older person still living with their parents or someone in a dysfunctional marriage is. Someone is always going to judge. How far should we hold ourselves responsible for what others unjustly think?

Peace.

Joab, I have asked you clarifying questions already – but my response was to Texas Roofers generality and mostly in humor. Let me illustrate: It is not true that all humans truly “bond” – many autistic people are not, many people who enter the US as mail order brides are not either. Just because two people live together does not mean they BOTH bond. That is the point of the earlier fornication posts …

My first room-mate was a womanizer – had a catholic girlfriend that he had “deflowered” in highschool. Now, my room mate and I were ‘friends’ – because the University of Portland rules forbid fresmen in the dorms to re-assign.
In spite of texas roofers comments, there was no unity between my roomate and I – especially when I hopped out of bed to find a girl in his bunk.

In spite of being against the rules, which I asked the RA to enforce not by getting him in trouble or expelled as this is a catholic school wich “on the books” forbids females in male rooms and vice versa after midnight (at least they used to) – the RA went to the priest which basically could have resulted in an expulsion.

Now, like you, this priest had pity – he recognized that the girl I met in my room-mates bed when jumping out of my bunk in my underwear (not the same deflowered catholic from highschool – but a different one) was depressed – and that Jason was “Helping her” by giving her comfort all night long. The RA got in trouble in-stead of my room-mate — which was overkill, because all I asked was that someone knock on the door to give warning so she knew when to go back to her own room as a courtesy at night. I wasn’t out for blood.

Now, did this room-mate Bond with her – which is texas roofer’s point – was she really his best friend or vice versa?

Let me tell you the outcome (besides my swallowing my pride over Fr. Mike’s decision – since getting through college was more important than teaching morals to my room-mate. I bought pajamas rather than be laughed at by the next girl in his bed. )

At the end of the year IBM corporation decided to sue the University of Portland – or at least they sent the letter of intent to sue – because my room-mate work studied for them, and they got wind of him using their equipment which he was to sell, as bait to bring women to my dorm room. Now, it was either expell him – or be sured for breach of contract… Good bye, Jason.

On the way out, he asked my opinion – should he stay with the original deflowered catholic girlfriend or choose the present one…

Apparently he hadn’t truly “bonded” to either of them.

There definitely was no unity between I and him.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I am wondering if there is any correlation that has been observed in patterns of fidelity in co-habitation?

This is just anecdotal, but I have noted a number of folks who co-habitate have suffered with issues of infidelity. During my “unCatholic years” I co-habitated but was not faithful.

There may be no exact correlation… but if anyone has any studies, that would be interesting to look into.

 

[puzzleannie]

What if they already committed to getting married before entering into cohabitation for practical reasons?

Peace.

if they do not get married before they move in together, they are NOT committed to marriage because they have just blown off what it means to be married and are making up their own rules as they go along.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

if they do not get married before they move in together, they are NOT committed to marriage because they have just blown off what it means to be married and are making up their own rules as they go along.

Could you explain the meaning of marriage, then?

The idea of commitment and exclusivity is what makes a natural marriage.
Eg: Those married outside the sacramental celebration of marriage.

Adam & Eve, Noah and his 1 wife, and many others simply moved in together and began having relations as the marriage ceremony itself. There was no witnessed marriage.

There is a difference between “marriage” and the sacramental celebration.
I would agree that those who do what Jesus Christ has forbidden through the church – are not committed to the law of Christ, and they will fail to receive the blessing offered only to those who obey his teaching – but I think it goes too far to say in every case the “commitment to marriage is lacking”, unless perhaps I misunderstood you, and you meant something slightly different than what it seems was written, for there are marriages according to ceremonies out side the church.

Civilly, often such unions are called common law marriages, and the state courts recognize them in many places even with no formal marriage certificate. Estates become entangled over such issues – so in the civil arena, this comittment is sometimes supplied by the State.

 

[jmcrae]

Could you explain the meaning of marriage, then?

The idea of commitment and exclusivity is what makes a natural marriage.

The commitment is understood to be a public commitment. For example, in China, people are married before a government official, and the record of marriage is recorded publicly.

In certain parts of Africa, the wedding takes place with the entire village present. No written record is kept, but the story of the wedding is made into a song that is sung, to keep the memory of the wedding alive.

Adam & Eve, Noah and his 1 wife, and many others simply moved in together and began having relations as the marriage ceremony itself. There was no witnessed marriage.

Adam and Eve had the entire population of the world present at their wedding, and it really could not be helped that it was so small. Noah and his wife were most likely married in some kind of public ceremony, even though we don’t see it recorded in Scripture.

Civilly, often such unions are called common law marriages, and the state courts recognize them in many places even with no formal marriage certificate. Estates become entangled over such issues – so in the civil arena, this comittment is sometimes supplied by the State.

This may or may not reflect the reality of the relationship, though. Room mates of the opposite sex can be considered “married” common-law, under certain circumstances. I think it would be really awkward, if you had an opposite sex room mate, and something happened to him, and all of his estate went to you automatically. It would take quite a bit of red tape to get it to the rightful heirs, especially if you were not inclined to give it up.

 

[Joab_Anias]

if they do not get married before they move in together, they are NOT committed to marriage because they have just blown off what it means to be married and are making up their own rules as they go along.

I agree its a traditional Church rule which serves to protect us. Have you any reference to how that rule would be supported by theology and scripture.

Peace.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Adam and Eve had the entire population of the world present at their wedding, and it really could not be helped that it was so small.

But none the less, there were no other witnesses.

Noah and his wife were most likely married in some kind of public ceremony, even though we don’t see it recorded in Scripture.

Only noah, his wife, and sons, and their wives who were involved in the sin immediately aftter the ark were saved. Only Noah was considered truly justified by faith. The sinfulness, esp: sexual promiscuity and the involvement of devils of a sort is the reason for the death of the entire rest of the world at that time.

Now, why should I believe that if they were breaking every other God given rule, that they were keeping the marriage law as intended by God?

This may or may not reflect the reality of the relationship, though. Room mates of the opposite sex can be considered “married” common-law, under certain circumstances. I think it would be really awkward, if you had an opposite sex room mate, and something happened to him, and all of his estate went to you automatically. It would take quite a bit of red tape to get it to the rightful heirs, especially if you were not inclined to give it up.

Yes … exactly, wasn’t Rock Hudson or someone like that involved in just such a no-commit relationship which publicly ended up decided in court for his live-in?

The problem is that you are referencing the public witnessing aspect of the marriage ceremony without reference to what it would be for. I would presume it would be to prevent adultury, the sin against the one whom “owns” the other spouse who is abused by an outsider.

In the case of Adam and Eve, only the gorillas and stuff around could do that… and a marriage ceremony wouldn’t have helped stop THEM from raping A/E, or killing them, or …

Now, in what way would a marriage ceremony have aided Noah? The witnesses were all to be executed – and Noah was suffering insults for 120 years (or perhaps only 12 if the Egyptian accounting of 10 years = 1 solar year) while the ark was built – I tend to think his sons were in a might makes right to keep a wife, rather than contract situation. If not for God protecting them … who knows.

So, although I superficially agree that there is a public aspect to marriage – the question “why” is still a valuable tool here.

My college prof, in theo 400x pointed out that to the jews the sexual act itself was the marriage ceremony – ergo: you wanted your guests so drunk they couldn’t pull any pranks once you took the woman inside the tent…
eventually this became a marriage ceremony – but that is also why there are recorded rapes where the woman’s hand is only to be “purchased” after the fact in the OT. Was it not the rape of dinah … etc.

So, since this public rule is unwritten, what is its purpose in a public sense?
Is it not known when two people cohabitate for more than a year – are their neighbors blind?

Again, in terms of the sacramental grace – yes, no doubt, it must be witnessed according to law, or else God will not join those whom his church has forbidden to join. But what of those outside the visible church law?

It it the commitment – or is it the witness – and more importantly for what reason.

 

[jmcrae]

So, although I superficially agree that there is a public aspect to marriage – the question “why” is still a valuable tool here.

I think I’m going to come off really old-fashioned, here, but isn’t it so that the children can know their heritage?

My college prof, in theo 400x pointed out that to the jews the sexual act itself was the marriage ceremony – ergo: you wanted your guests so drunk they couldn’t pull any pranks once you took the woman inside the tent…
eventually this became a marriage ceremony – but that is also why there are recorded rapes where the woman’s hand is only to be “purchased” after the fact in the OT. Was it not the rape of dinah … etc.

Which was avenged by her brothers, you may recall. Obviously, they didn’t consider this kind of behaviour to be normative. Indeed, after the fact, when Jacob Israel saw all the dead bodies and asked them why, they said, “Shall our sister be treated like a harlot?” Obviously, the buying of women for marriage was considered a form of prostitution (as well it should be).

Is it not known when two people cohabitate for more than a year – are their neighbors blind?

No. Indeed, they gossip all the day long about that situation. “Is he ever going to make an honest woman of her?” “Why won’t she marry him - is she waiting for a better man to come along?” Etc.

Again, in terms of the sacramental grace – yes, no doubt, it must be witnessed according to law, or else God will not join those whom his church has forbidden to join. But what of those outside the visible church law?

They have their own laws. Just because they don’t have Church law doesn’t mean that they are completely lawless. The Church recognizes those who marry according to their own laws, and considers these to be valid marriages (and Sacramental, if both parties are baptized).

It it the commitment – or is it the witness – and more importantly for what reason.

As I said above, for the most old-fashioned reason of all - so that the children can know their heritage. The public joining of two clans or two tribes through the marriage of their children provides a richness of history for the children that the living-together of two individuals without regard for family ties really can’t provide.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think I’m going to come off really old-fashioned, here, but isn’t it so that the children can know their heritage?

Well, Adam and Eve are old fashioned, and their children know their history without public witnesses – so does noah’s children. Only they and their mom and dad were around to start the tradition…

Which was avenged by her brothers, you may recall. Obviously, they

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Exodu 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exodu 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Surely dinah wasn’t really a prostitute or a harlot was she?

Not that this law was in effect at the time… but something like it was.