Living together before marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter KCT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

Sadly my husband and I did everything wrong before we were married. We got an apartment together a couple of months before marriage and I was at college but came home on weekends so we did cohabitated on the weekends:(

Now the kids thing never heard of:confused: My husband and I agreed not to have a Christmas tree until we had kids.😃 👍

I will be very strong on this with my own children. NO LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE MARRIAGE. Most of those people are the ones who get divorced.😦
 
KCT said:
I was talking to someone today who said the norm is to live together until you’re ready to have kids, then get married. That’s what her son and future dil are doing.

Have you heard of this? I hadn’t until now. —KCT
Click to expand...
I’ve heard of it being very common to live with someone… esp to ‘get to know them’. But then, I can’t relate to something being common as the same as being ‘right’, or a trend I would choose to follow, or encourage others to follow.

I didn’t realize that people were Living Together until they had kids… That’s pretty strange. The really sad part is, I get the inkling (in my gut), that the same people that live together until kids come along are the same ones that say ‘well, we aren’t ready for kids just yet’, so they kill their kids, and go on like it was just taking out a loose tooth or something.
:confused:
 
estesbob said:
But it is not possible for them to do so and not give the appearance of living in sin. Giving scandal is a sin in itself
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you say this because it just shows how rigid and narrow-minded society is. :whistle:
At least God knows what’s in our hearts, minds and souls while the secular world is busy judging outward appearances.
This is not an attack on you, estesbob. It’s just an observation of mine that I was reminded of by your comment.
 
mrs_abbott said:
It’s interesting that you say this because it just shows how rigid and narrow-minded society is. :whistle:
At least God knows what’s in our hearts, minds and souls while the secular world is busy judging outward appearances.
This is not an attack on you, estesbob. It’s just an observation of mine that I was reminded of by your comment.
Click to expand...
If following the teachings of my Church makes one rigid and norrowminded so be it. i was thinking reading your post just how many sins are dismissed by the old " God knows what’s in our hearts, minds and souls " excuse.
 
mrs_abbott said:
It’s interesting that you say this because it just shows how rigid and narrow-minded society is. :whistle:
At least God knows what’s in our hearts, minds and souls while the secular world is busy judging outward appearances.
This is not an attack on you, estesbob. It’s just an observation of mine that I was reminded of by your comment.
Click to expand...
In this case, with the norm pretty much being to live together prior to marriage, I don’t really think it is secular society that is going to judge.
 
newf said:
Sorry it sounds rude, I didn’t mean it that way. I actually am just trying to understand why someone would want to live together for 2 years and not be married, especially when there is a child involved. I just don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Well the “child” that was involved was from my 1st marriage and is not my current dh’s…even though he supports him 100% and is more of a father than his biological one:thumbsup:
 
estesbob said:
i was thinking reading your post just how many sins are dismissed by the old " God knows what’s in our hearts, minds and souls " excuse.
Click to expand...
. . . and the can of worms is opened!!! :bigyikes:
In MY humble opinion, it’s not an excuse if someone is “falsely accused” of wrong-doing by his/her fellow man. It’s called justice, my friend.
Granted, there are those that use that reason as an “easy-out” but don’t be quick to judge those who are wrongly accused, such was our Lord and Savior for blasphemy and he was crucified for that sin and the sins of all of us.
 
a_cermak said:
In this case, with the norm pretty much being to live together prior to marriage, I don’t really think it is secular society that is going to judge.
Click to expand...
The definition of secular is definitely influenced by the environment in which one lives. 😉
 
mrs_abbott said:
. . . and the can of worms is opened!!! :bigyikes:
In MY humble opinion, it’s not an excuse if someone is “falsely accused” of wrong-doing by his/her fellow man. It’s called justice, my friend.
Granted, there are those that use that reason as an “easy-out” but don’t be quick to judge those who are wrongly accused, such was our Lord and Savior for blasphemy and he was crucified for that sin and the sins of all of us.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not live in a self-contained vacuum. We are called to give a living witness to the gospel by the example of our words and deeds. Any couple living together before marriage inevitably gives an example of impropriety and witness to the occasion for sin. There is no way around this. This is recognizing and acknolwdeging the reality of the social context of the times that we live in, and taking our responsibility as ambassadors for Christ seriously.

I do not believe that this is very difficult to understand, and that and cohabitating Unmarried Catholic couple (whether actively fornicating or not) is a cause for scandal and incurring the serious sin of scandal upon one’s soul. Of course, the rationalizations for such impropriety are many and complex, but the bottom line net effect is the same.
 
setter said:
Catholics do not live in a self-contained vacuum. We are called to give a living witness to the gospel by the example of our words and deeds. Any couple living together before marriage inevitably gives an example of impropriety and witness to the occasion for sin. There is no way around this. This is recognizing and acknolwdeging the reality of the social context of the times that we live in, and taking our responsibility as ambassadors for Christ seriously.

I do not believe that this is very difficult to understand, and that and cohabitating Unmarried Catholic couple (whether actively fornicating or not) is a cause for scandal and incurring the serious sin of scandal upon one’s soul. Of course, the rationalizations for such impropriety are many and complex, but the bottom line net effect is the same.
Click to expand...
Notice I bolded and capitalized the word “MY”, meaning that was just my opinion and held no validity. We live in a close-minded, hypocritical world. What can I say? :rolleyes:
 
mrs_abbott said:
Notice I bolded and capitalized the word “MY”, meaning that was just my opinion and held no validity. We live in a close-minded, hypocritical world. What can I say? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Close minded meaning anyone who disagrees with your opinion?? The Church could not be clearer on this issue yet you mock those who adhere to its teachings as close minded and hypocritical. Must be some perosnal issues invlved here.
 
mrs_abbott said:
Notice I bolded and capitalized the word “MY”, meaning that was just my opinion and held no validity. We live in a close-minded, hypocritical world. What can I say? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually we live in a promiscuous moral relativist world. And we are paying a steep price for it.
 
Karin said:
WHY:confused: does everyone assume that living together before marriage means that your having sex???
It is possible for two people to share a home and and not be doing the horizontal mambo!
Click to expand...
There is more to living together (and marriage) than the “horizontal mambo” - and being “wife” or “husband” to each other in these other ways prior to marriage is also wrong.

It’s okay to room with other people if it’s clear from the outset that the arrangement is temporary and that it’s not a “boyfriend/girlfriend” thing - I lived with men (a cousin, and a guy from my Bible study group) when I was young and single because I needed help with the rent - but they had their own bedrooms, bought their own groceries, and looked after themselves - I was neither the “maid” nor the “wife” in those situations - but when it’s someone you’re thinking of marrying, you want to keep the lines of distinction as clear as possible, which means that you live in separate domiciles - with your cousin, your brother, or your best friend from school, if necessary, but not with your intended.
 
jmcrae said:
There is more to living together (and marriage) than the “horizontal mambo” - and being “wife” or “husband” to each other in these other ways prior to marriage is also wrong.

It’s okay to room with other people if it’s clear from the outset that the arrangement is temporary and that it’s not a “boyfriend/girlfriend” thing - I lived with men (a cousin, and a guy from my Bible study group) when I was young and single because I needed help with the rent - but they had their own bedrooms, bought their own groceries, and looked after themselves - I was neither the “maid” nor the “wife” in those situations - but when it’s someone you’re thinking of marrying, you want to keep the lines of distinction as clear as possible, which means that you live in separate domiciles - with your cousin, your brother, or your best friend from school, if necessary, but not with your intended.
Click to expand...
I did not cook, clean up for him or do his laundry for him when we lived together before being married and vice versa…oh and he paid me rent and part of the utilities too:)
Oh did I mention (once again) that we did not share a bed or a bedroom either.
 
Karin said:
I did not cook, clean up for him or do his laundry for him when we lived together before being married and vice versa…oh and he paid me rent and part of the utilities too:)
Oh did I mention (once again) that we did not share a bed or a bedroom either.
Click to expand...
Your point being? There is still the sin of scandal on the doorstep of such a pre-marriage living arrangement.
 
Karin said:
Good thing no one cared…about the look of sin part, that is.
Click to expand...
This is most unfortunate part …as often the case the recipients of the sin of scandal are not always known to the offenders and often are simply passive observers being led astray or confirmed in their own sin, lostness, …by appearance sake, assumptions, of what is an appearance of impropriety. Done joking yet?
 
setter said:
This is most unfortunate part …as often the case the recipients of the sin of scandal are not always known to the offenders and often are simply passive observers being led astray or confirmed in their own sin, lostness, …by appearance sake, assumptions, of what is an appearance of impropriety. Done joking yet?
Click to expand...
Joking…nope I wasn’t joking.
If I had to do it over again I would do the same thing…no regrets here!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top