Joab,
Yes, I am quite aware of the uniqueness of individual situations – and have been repetitively surprised in real life at the twists individuals go through due to circumstances, deception, and the providence of God.
I need probe no further than the previous answers which I have now, to give what useful insight I have left.
Remembering back to post #17, and the situation described there in conjunction with the last post to me; I have some thoughts which may be use:
I know I already mentioned the difference between the most crude marriage rite outside of the church (ancient seduction which today would be called date rape.) and the other extreme of sacramental marriage with the blessing and joining of Christ which is only granted to those obeying the church law: however, I don’t think I made the point strongly enough with regard to God’s intention.
Adam and Eve had a marriage of lust and domination, and even though married they had to “cover themselves”. This is a mark of the fall which attacks marriage from within – the Graces granted by Jesus to those who struggle are given conditionally and incrementally. It isn’t blind to see by faith, because it may only be faith which grants certain of these incremental graces – not sight.
Marriage in general – marriages, whether initiated with date rape, arranged marriages, or final and complete marriage in a sacramental form – are subject to virtue and vice in degrees. The more free the marriage, (not as in loose, but as in chosen without coercion) the closer they come to perfection which Jesus intended from the beginning – mirroring God who did not create us out of lack, nor because of the “necessity” of love, but of a free choice. (Sounds almost autistic, but God is love – and we are not a necessary emanation of that love…)
Even Judah who because of sexual desire ( lust? ) with his daughter in law actually “marries” her and produces the messianic tribe of Judah fulfills the minimal marriage rite of his time – and to his shame. But none the less, he never had relations with her after that, it was clearly a damaged marriage.
Did his daughter in law take advantage of him in a weak moment – of course, he had just lost his wife and was weak in the flesh. But sometimes the weakness of hurt of another becomes the very attraction which brings the dating person to you – and this degrades (not obliterates) freedom. They are attracted to a hurt which if it evaporates – so does the attraction.
After my first girlfriend (not co-habitator) who left me (not I her) a period of two years elapsed where I thought I was wisely waiting by refusing to date anyone again seriously – in fulfillment of the advice of some MD’s at the time. But emotionally, during and even after those two years — a weakness remained in me. An intense loneliness, if you will – A feeling which a fulfilled God could not exactly have when he chose to create the world, but one which I wonder if there is some kind of corollary to.
It turns out that the loneliness never healed, because it wasn’t only a facet of loosing my girlfriend – it is because I am touch oriented in affection. The years I was alone and with my first room mate – Jason, were extremely trying and lonely. My second room-mate, who is my best (male) friend still – was the kind to wrestle, pop you in the back and run laughing, etc. But even then I didn’t recognize how intensely I craved affection (male “bonding” even) – until I had no room mate at all. Marital Love, I believe in faith, goes even deeper than this.
The craving of the attention of the other can be met in multiple ways, but once in a cohabiting situation – especially if there is no risk of children, but where the sexual ability exists, would – I expect – prove especially challenging.
– The emotions themselves can cause depression, so that the choice made to “stay” with a person may be less free after the co-habitation starts, and staying may cause depression because you can’t share fully. (The same source of depression found in long term dating couples who are too close. Some people can, some cannot do this.)
– Human beings will often re-interpret cause and effect of why they themselves did something in terms of order of events, and not the real cause. In some of the responses, I think you can see that after co-habiting there may always be the temptation to say after marriage : “Well the only reason I REALLY married X was because X was there and I was weak” or even “I married X because we cohabited.” etc. It doesn’t matter that one has made a commitment in their mind at this point, the actions that one does – will be recognized in the future as part of that cause – very few people really “know themselves” entirely, and how much less what was really in the “other” co-habitor’s mind.
– To your comment about the outside world Judging – certainly, I am well aware especially in American culture of the self made man:: “I don’t care what the others think”. We are, however, still meant to be social beings – the very meaning of marriage. But are both co-habitors truly (not theoretically) able to maintain the same unity together without grace against the world? Men and women are in fact different in the way they approach and are affected by the world – although equal, not identical.
– Words don’t break bones, but they do hurt – and to be cliché, “a continual dripping of water wears away the stone”. Also, the bigger problem is that little hurts from outside become extra ammunition when discord happens – and it will. In fights, it appears that the one who wants the union less has the most power. And what better temptation to this argument than the superficial/theoretical independence of co-habitation? By being physically close, one risks stepping on each other’s feet and causing distress before either has the full means to protect each other from outside temptation in that situation.
Two male room mates have nothing psychologically to loose when separating – no one every expected them to marry and have kids. The same is true, with the additional impossibility of a real “divorce” between brothers and sisters – although they can certainly “disown” each other. But to triumph where it does not matter, is to prepare for where it does – to “prepare” on the important ground is to risk damaging it.
Cars may drive the same before and after the test drive, they are interchangeable and exchangeable – humans are not. The marriage itself means something to the couple which changes the dynamic of the relationship – a contract for a car does not change anything about the car, but it will affect how the dealer treats you.
peace.
